[DISCUSSION] How to Proceed with Media?

[Deadeye Jack]

Hello Everyone,

I've released my cabinet portfolios for the officers following the election and I have not given anyone the title of Media Officer. I recognize that this puts the status of our media operation in question as usually we require a Media Officer to spur these things. The Rejected Times is an important part of our region and its history and I don't want to see it slip away. However, I felt that due to the growing nature of our World Assembly efforts there was enough there to warrant an officer position and my hope is that we can cement this into a standard officer role. Given who was elected to the Cabinet, Media got the short stick in our current 4 officer world, but that may not always be the case in the future.

Anyway I'm here to ask how we would like to proceed for this term and, potentially, beyond when it comes to media. I think there are a variety of options which I'll briefly list below.

- TRR Media Corporation is independent, so let it independently run itself for now.
- Develop a mechanism in which some combination of the Assembly/Delegate can appoint an Editor in Chief. The Editor in Chief would be the one keeping things active
- Move Media under the purview of the Culture Office
- Amend things to 5 Officers (more of a future solution than a current one)

Maybe you have a different idea. Let's discuss.

[Gorundu]

Another idea here, though it somewhat falls under the first option: Have TRT staff elect an Editor in Chief for set terms.

[frattastan]

- Develop a mechanism in which some combination of the Assembly/Delegate can appoint an Editor in Chief. The Editor in Chief would be the one keeping things active

This is my preferred option. Ideally finding someone who is willing to be Editor-in-Chief in the long term (months) - less pressure due to electoral schedules, more continuity than the current revolving door of Officers. They can then decide how TRT should govern itself on their own.

[Nequedum]

I'm in favour of 1) a mechanism whereby an Editor In Chief is chosen by the current TRT Staff and the Executive Government for a longer period of time than an Officer (6 months?).

But, that being said, I'd also like to see 2) a separate Media Officer (optional) being elected, and am in favour of there being 5 officer positions.

Media is more than just TRT, which is even a lot to manage on its own. We have the Rejected Radio that we would like to give justice, among other possible things for a media officer to explore.

I hope my experience in the media officer position offers some assurance that these two options in tandem are worth pursuing.

[The Grim Reaper]

we should do a legislation

Constituting Act of the Rejected Times

1. The Rejected Times is the only media organization enjoying an official affiliation with the Rejected Realms.
2. The Rejected Times exercises editorial independence.
3. The Rejected Times elects an Editor-in-Chief from amongst its membership in the manner used by the Rejected Realms for the election of a Delegate.
4. The Editor-in-Chief has an indeterminate term-length, and is subject to challenge in the manner used by the Rejected Realms for the challenge of a Delegate.
5. The Rejected Times is permitted to utilize the platforms of the Rejected Realms to carry out its operations and elections.
6. The Delegate, or an Officer tasked by the Delegate, is responsible for maintaining the authoritative record of members of The Rejected Times, in regards to which they may add or remove any current Citizen with their consent, or unilaterally remove any non-current Citizen.
7. Publications by The Rejected Times credited to someone who is not a member of The Rejected Times at time of publication must have a credit that indicates they are a Guest of The Rejected Times.

The Editor-in-Chief continues to be Editor-in-Chief if they lose citizenship or stop being a member of the TRT. This is intentional as part of ensuring editorial independence.

[Morover]

I'd support the document proposed by Grim.

[Guy]

I support the idea of an Editor-in-Chief elected by the Assembly for a relatively lengthy term. Grim's draft raises some interesting points for discussion - I disagree with some elements of it, but I agree it should be legislated and that could serve as a good framework to tease out those issues if we do go down this path.

I could live with Delegate appointment, but I think it is not my preferred option. The advantage is the increased flexibility (e.g. if the EiC stops doing their job), but it reduces the 'job-security'.

I'm opposed to an election by TRT staff. This would be appropriate if TRT was a private venture, without relation to our regional governance and without oversight by the citizenry. My belief is that TRT is essentially for and by the 'TRR public', rather than solely being a venture in individual players' private capacity. It also could create various governance issues for TRT internally, with questions over who is a member of staff, who gets to determine that, and attempts to get people to join prior to an election.

[Nequedum]

I'd be for Grim's proposal if we could add a clause saying that Challenge/Editor-in-Chief nominations must be endorsed by the current TRR Delegate as long as TRT enjoys an official affiliation with the Rejected Realms.

Would Guy/Grim be happy with that?

Edit: it'd allow for conflict resolution through the TRR Del, and entryism in TRT isn't particularly a bad thing (if you want to vote, you have to contribute) because we always need more writers haha. And, generally, I think TRT Staff have voted for Media Officers that are likely be more reliable or better leaders in the past anyway. This would be the same for elected Editors-in-Chief - because TRT Staff are more likely to know who would work best with them.

[Guy]

I just fail to see the benefit out of restricting the electorate. And the downside to me is fairly plain - severing the link between the TRT’s public function and determining its leadership.

If we considered making TRT an entirely private undertaking, that’d be one thing. But the corollary is that it would not necessarily have any public support either.

But if it’s a newspaper *of* TRR, then I think its leadership should be elected by the citizenry as a whole, not a selected section of the populace.

[Nequedum]

I just fail to see the benefit out of restricting the electorate. And the downside to me is fairly plain - severing the link between the TRT’s public function and determining its leadership.

The public wouldn't need to be restricted as long as we also have a Media Officer (hence why we should also discuss a move to 5 officers separately). Having the Del involved for conflict resolution is a further public 'interference' that would deliver positive benefits.

But, at some point, TRT needs at least some internal independence- if not editorial (with the exec weighing in) then at least on our soon-to-be 'RRA Commander' equivalent Editor-in-Chief. Why should TRT be held to a special standard when it arguably has less of a sway on public opinion than the RRA?

[Deadeye Jack]

Just spitballing here but what if we allowed the TRT Staff to nominate someone or multiple someones to Editor in Chief for Assembly confirmation?

[Guy]

@Neq, so what you’re suggesting as a ‘solution’ is a rather convoluted structure with Delegate veto, media officer oversight, Editor-in-Chief selected by TRT staff, and all this without a clear authoritative leadership. At this point you have more people doing oversight than the actual work.

I’m yet to be convinced that TRT needs to have its own ‘staff’ (whoever that ends up being) electing its leadership, rather than follow all of our governmental departments and be voted on by the public. Culture staff don’t elect the culture officer, outreach staff don’t elect the outreach officer, ambassadors don’t elect the FA officer.

Again, if TRT was an entirely private enterprise, that would not be the case. For now, it serves a public function. And as long as that’s the case, I think its leadership should be publicly elected.

As for the RRA comparison, that’s entirely misplaced. The RRA predated the government, rather than being born out of it. It has a long history of managing its relationship with the government to ensure they work collaboratively towards public ends.

[Nequedum]

I wish to reiterate that I believe a Media Officer is necessary to manage more things than just TRT. There's the radio, and other ventures as well (and this department should continue to grow under the leadership of an officer).

Where TRT is concerned, an internal leader, elected internally with the del's approval, to oversee that submissions are in on time and appropriately edited would not at all be misplaced (it sometimes ends up happening this way already, with someone senior or a deputy stepping up). Grim's suggested Editor-in-Chief would meet the needs from this role perfectly.

History lesson aside, this role would be the equivalent to the RRA's Commanders. I'm happy to explain what I mean by that further if need be.

Edit: I'm also happy with Jack's proposal if that's what Guy prefers, but will continue to advocate for Grim's proposal as long as other officially associated groups enjoy that same privilege.

[Guy]

Who would have ultimate decision-making power over the content etc of TRT - the Delegate / Media Officer, or the EiC?

A person soliciting submissions, putting together TRT, and editing articles is likely to be chosen among staff anyway, and this likely does not need any legislation. Ultimately though, the critical decisions over content etc made by a public body need to be publicly elected. If TRT staff want to endorse someone for that role, that’s fine; but it needs to ultimately be the choice of the Assembly (or an elected official).

[Aggie]

TRT is a regional newspaper and is not a private instiution. I believe that the assembly should be involved in the selection of the EiC to maintain its regional identity. If all EiC elections are run internally, in my mind that would sort of create an independent newspaper which only bears the region's name.

[Manson]

I really don't agree with any of these responses except for allowing TRT Staff to just independently run the paper. While the EiC doesn't have to be the Media Officer or Delegate, I'd prefer it. Why can't we just have no EiC? I'm sure we as a paper could step up to ensure that each issue is edited and published accordingly. Perhaps we could swap duties between our top ten active and most senior writers, given that a certain writer doesn't object to editing.

[Cove]

Just spitballing here but what if we allowed the TRT Staff to nominate someone or multiple someones to Editor in Chief for Assembly confirmation?

I do rather like this idea. It allows existing TRT staff to choose among themselves who they think would be best to run the enterprise. It would make sense to me at least that whenever the Editor's term comes to end (however long that is of course), that a representative of the TRT Staff (or previous the incumbent perhaps) creates a topic advising of their chosen nominee.

I also do agree with Grim that if its something that is going to be formalized by being approved by the assembly (rather than being chosen independently) that it is something that should be shown in legislation.

Overall, I do think that the idea of there being an 'Editor' as such is a good one, as it gives the delegacy increased flexibility in regards to their choices of officer roles. I don't like the idea to extend our number of officers to 5 as it is not in my opinion feasible as we only had 6 candidates in the previous election so I'd be concerned if we had the numbers to fill it unless the number of officers was made non-static.

[Bormiar]

I believe that Jack's idea is the most sensible. It allows for fair representation from both the assembly and TRT.

I don't agree with Guy's description, as I find that TRT has severed itself from the government. Those that have contributed the most haven't been doing so under the government or assembly, or even members of the government. The government and assembly do give TRT life, so TRT should be at its whim. Having the EIC election controlled entirely by TRT Staff would give the EIC absolute power, as they get to choose who joins TRT.

The other possibility is that the delegate (being a representative of the citizenry) has to confirm the EIC that TRT staff elect. I'm suspicious of indefinite term limits, as TRT's head members have been known to only occasionally be active. Under my system, the delegate could just "un-nominate" the EIC to impeach them. I have no idea how Jack's system would fix this.

[Aggie]

I really don't agree with any of these responses except for allowing TRT Staff to just independently run the paper. While the EiC doesn't have to be the Media Officer or Delegate, I'd prefer it. Why can't we just have no EiC? I'm sure we as a paper could step up to ensure that each issue is edited and published accordingly. Perhaps we could swap duties between our top ten active and most senior writers, given that a certain writer doesn't object to editing.

How would that hypothetically work? Would it even work?

I don't think that having an anarchy of staff to self-manage would be advisable, as it would just create chaos and a lack of directional leadership. I think it's better when a news organisation has a top down leadership subject to change (as changes make it more active), as a clear and directional leadership gives TRT the means to by selective about content and to also be active, as part of a Media Officer of Editor in Chief's job is to continually ensure activty, in my opinion. I don't think that having a bunch of people try to manage each other would be an effective use of resources.

Who would you say the ten most senior staff are?

EDIT: Could the delegate appoint a senior TRT staffer as a deputy to ensure that media is reamining active in the short term?

[thechurchofsatan]

TRT has always been an independent publication and so far the government has been respectful of that. The Editor-in-Chief has also long been chosen by TRT staff, as it should be. The system to which it does so should be up to the staff members themselves. It's affiliation with TRR is in the name. Yes, it is the official newspaper of The Rejected Realms. I'd like to think that after so many years that fact has become an understanding not just among staff members and citizens, but also the NS world at large.

While the government has had one of its own running things, TRT does not need a Media Officer nor does it need legislation. It is a community-run initiative. It needs only active staff members, an active Editor-in-Chief. If you want a publication under the direct control of our government, I'm sure the Media Officer could make their own. I am adamantly opposed to codifying TRT in the region's laws and bringing it under the control of government.

The way it operates right now works. A few active people, whether or not they work for the government is enough. That's how it maintains its editorial independence.

[Deadeye Jack]

TRT has always been an independent publication and so far the government has been respectful of that. The Editor-in-Chief has also long been chosen by TRT staff, as it should be.

When was the last time the Staff elected/selected an Editor-in-Chief? From what I can tell Media Officer has de facto been organizing/leading TRT for ages. The independence of TRT is in the fact that the government doesn't use it to generate propaganda, but allows the writers to pursue their interests. Not that there isn't any oversight. In reality, Media Officers and Delegates have been involved in the operations of TRT throughout its history. Hell during say The Aligned People's term as Media Officer he set down a list of policies for TRT that were voted on by no one and could be constituted as government interference in the general sense. And I'm sure he wasn't the first.

I think TRT would falter if it didn't have someone to lead and organize it. I'm not sure the best way to pick that person yet, but I do believe it needs such a person.

[thechurchofsatan]

Actually, I believe it was during TAP's term as Media Officer that I myself became the Editor-in-Chief. The staff talked amongst itself about it. I'll admit that I haven't been very active in TRT for a while now. I put 5 consecutive years of my time into it and I'm enjoying my break from that. I'm not quite ready to get back to running the place again (boy am I just tired from all the work) but I could take up a management role. But I can't abide ceding TRT's staffing decisions in favor of politics.

[thechurchofsatan]

Sorry to double post but I think this warrants its own post. Now what I'm about to propose is a strange notion. But I believe it is the best possible solution.

I'm proposing a treaty between TRR's government and TRR Media Corporation. Such a thing would codify TRT and all of its subsidiaries (present or otherwise) into law, set forth the terms and processes for the arrangement on both sides without either side gaining or losing control of the other.

[Guy]

What CoS is saying, that TRT has been running independently of the government as its own entity, is entirely wrong and ahistorical. TRT has always been under the purview of the publicly-elected Media Officer, and most Media Officers have ran on a platform that included their vision for their paper, and have exercised direct editorial control.

TRT has been a newspaper of TRR, the region as a whole. TRR Government is its publisher. In exchange, the government, and sometimes the Delegate itself, has decided how it's run, and exercised editorial control over it.

The most that's occurred is that for short periods of time, the Media Officer has appointed (at staff's suggestion) someone to run the paper at their behest.

Now, onto what that means. There are essentially two options here.

1. TRT continues being a publicly-published newspaper, rather than a private venture. That means, even if the Government (Delegate / Media Officer) appoints an Editor-in-Chief to do the work, it ultimately comes under the Government. Alternatively, we could have an EiC Assembly election.

2. TRT becomes a fully private enterprise. That means it is purely the work of private citizens. It would need to decide on its own governance rules and structures. It would need to manage its relationship with stakeholders (primarily the government) if it wishes for official support. In the absence of it coming under the government, it may have less buy-in from stakeholders and the public as anything beyond a private venture.

[Nequedum]

I'd prefer the Delegate/Media Officer appoints an EIC like a deputy officer as we've done in the past, but to also codify that nominations must come from TRT Staffers (most will do this regardless, but it's best to make sure it's done and to make a legitimate process for doing so).