Ummm ... hi, newspaper reporter here.
We write stories because they're newsworthy. That is, someone has a new 
release, which makes them news.
Or they're performing in the area, which makes them news.
The implication that there is a quid pro quo -- or an expectation of one --  
among in the mainstream press is, frankly, offensive.
The entertainment press might function differently. But it is not, 
categorically, how we function.

Thanks.
John Micek.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Will Harris" <NonStopPop@cox.net>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: anyone know anything more


>> Anyone who has ever thought the magazine/newspaper business does NOT work
>> like this is naive.
>> They review our CDs. We advertise in their magazine. We sell product. 
>> It's
>> a pretty cut-and-dry equation.
>
> Yeah, but that doesn't make it any less depressing to see it actually
> spelled out in front of you.  Sigh.
>
> But, y'know, with that having been said, it's hard for me to really argue
> with Joe's statement, given that I'm guilty of a similar sin:  I stopped
> writing for Amplifier because, to put it politely, it wasn't financially
> lucrative. I love the magazine, I think it looks great, and my experiences
> with it have been unmarred across the board, but, y'know, I barely have 
> time
> to write all the stuff that I'm getting PAID to write.  That's why I 
> dropped
> off the PopMatters roster as well.  (Well, that and the fact that, with 
> each
> passing day, I feel like PopMatters is in a contest with Pitchfork to see
> who can disappear the farthest up their respective arses.)
>
> And besides, I'm with Kevin:  Joe's love of music is undeniable, and 
> despite
> that E-mail, I can't imagine he wouldn't run a review of an album he 
> loved,
> whether the label advertised with Amplifier or not. Now, of course, 
> whether
> he would extend that opportunity to other writers, I couldn't say...
>
> Best,
>
> WILL
>
>
>