[DISCUSSION] How to Proceed with Media?

[thechurchofsatan]

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.

How could you of all people say that, Guy? The RRA enjoys its association with the region with absolutely zero oversight by the government or citizenry. TRT has cooperated with the government even when the Foreign Affairs Officer for example, had to speak to us about the impact of our articles on the region's reputation abroad. I know, I've had that conversation with fratt on occasion. And here you are implying that TRT cannot be afforded a far more fair arrangement for the region's government than what you have the pleasure of enjoying in the RRA.

TRT has indeed been running as an independent entity. The proof of that is the disclaimer at the bottom of each issue that reads, "The Rejected Times does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Rejected Realms." The government has had its say in TRT only because the delegates of TRR have decided to have a Media Officer. But TRT does not need a Media Officer. If anything, the government needs us because it has no replacement office for its government that would be active or feasible. The Editor-in-Chief could easily run TRT in its stead just as a Media Officer would and had a Media Office ever not been chosen by a delegate, TRT would have continued unhindered. I challenge the government to test that theory if it is so confident in the notion that we need their assistance. I'll cut my break that I've been enjoying short and go back to running TRT as Editor-in-Chief if necessary. Do not test me in this. I don't care how much of my hair I end up pulling out to do so. TRT is far too important to me.

or the two organizations could approach one another in good faith and establish a mutually beneficial treaty to ensure fairness for both parties.

[Guy]

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).

This seems to be the "minimal change" option that is favoured by some, and I can live with it. Essentially, the Delegate / Media Officer can continue making an EiC appointment. This process can be codified in law (or government policy), and could include a requirement to consult with TRT staff, or even require nominations from them.

The alternative, I think, would be an Assembly election.

[Deadeye Jack]

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).

I find this to be workable.

I challenge the government to test that theory if it is so confident in the notion that we need their assistance. I'll cut my break that I've been enjoying short and go back to running TRT as Editor-in-Chief if necessary. Do not test me in this. I don't care how much of my hair I end up pulling out to do so. TRT is far too important to me.

or the two organizations could approach one another in good faith and establish a mutually beneficial treaty to ensure fairness for both parties.

To be honest if some solution similar to Neq's can't be reached I am considering just expanding one of the current Officer's portfolios to include Media. I had hoped to avoid that because I think Media takes a lot of work and it would be a tough ask to make one of the current officers do that as well. But it's preferable to the doomsday scenario.

[thechurchofsatan]

To be honest if some solution similar to Neq's can't be reached I am considering just expanding one of the current Officer's portfolios to include Media. I had hoped to avoid that because I think Media takes a lot of work and it would be a tough ask to make one of the current officers do that as well. But it's preferable to the doomsday scenario.

I'm really trying to avoid that doomsday scenario too. It'd be better for my health. A treaty is the best way to officially codify the relationship between TRT and the government. It's fair for both sides.

[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.

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?

There's a points list. Also, CoS and I are saying the same thing.

[The Aligned People]

I think a treaty, in this case, would be a sweeping move that isn't all that prudent for where TRT is now. I understand where you're coming from CoS, you have put many years of time into TRT and you want to see it continue on, but as others have pointed out, activity isn't the best right now. And I'm not proud of it, but I'm a part of the list that hasn't been very active. There can't be much of a true structure to something without people to make a skeleton come to life. In this case, the skeleton would be the proposed treaty. It could have every single detail figured out and be a great piece of legislation, but without people to carry out the operative clauses it contains, it remains a skeleton. That's why I think it would be best to continue a similar structure to what we have under the set-up with being appointed a Media Officer (for now at least). I don't think that one of the current Officers should have Media stacked onto their plate because that would just be too much juggling. Although, it could be useful as a temporary solution until all this is sorted out.

Option 1 (Jack's idea): TRT staff nominates someone to be the EiC subject to Assembly approval and if confirmed would be the head of TRT. This keeps TRT under the "public domain" and TRT staff are directly a part of the process. I think it's important not to get hung up on the name, however. If everyone came to the conclusion that the title of "Editor-in-Chief" should remain under complete control by staff, then fine. The person who is nominated for approval by the Assembly could be called the "Media Leader" (just an example, but I think you get the point), but would still be above the EiC.

Option 2: We rip off the band-aid and amend the Constitution to include a fifth Officer position. I think it would just be delaying the inevitable because the past couple of Officer elections have had more focus on WA affairs, and if that trend sticks, then I would prefer to keep the current system because it doesn't seem broke so there is nothing to fix. Under this option, TRT would still be able to pick its own EiC directly as it is currently able to do.

I see both of these options as the exact same thing, just some minor under the hood tweaks to both that truly set them apart. In both, the Assembly elects the main leader for TRT, in both, TRT is free to choose an EiC, in both, TRT remains a public entity. It's really just the highway system you prefer to set up to get to the endpoint. This then leaves us with
Option 3: move forward with the treaty. Like I said, I don't think this situation warrants this at the moment. It would also be a little redundant seeing as how TRR oversees TRT so any treaty would be between the government and the government with the current set up. And because I think TRT should remain a public entity, I think cementing that reality in the form of an amendment to include a fifth Officer position would be ideal. Yes, there are a lot of quick fixes that could take the place of doing anything on this subject, but a more permanent solution should be worked up.

[thechurchofsatan]

Okay, if we were going to try this whole, staff member nomination route, I'd want those responsible for making the nomination to be the senior-most staff member (yes this is deliberate) and the four highest ranked members of its active staff (not counting the senior-most staff member). Five people with no abstention allowed ensures that a majority has to be reached.

[frattastan]

TRT has indeed been running as an independent entity. The proof of that is the disclaimer at the bottom of each issue that reads, "The Rejected Times does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Rejected Realms."

I feel like we talked about this in #trt before. So far, TRT has always been under the oversight of the government.

It was established and revitalised by Media Officers (e.g., Kogvuron) and its head always was the Media Officer (so, a cabinet member elected by the Assembly and whose role is assigned by the Delegate) or, during the time when we had no such office (parts of Unibot's delegacy), the Delegate itself.
It's been 'independent' only in so far the government has little interest in pushing specific editorial views, although it still exercised control on occasion on release schedules, published articles, issuance of statements, etc.
"Editor-in-Chief" hasn't even been a separate position for most of TRT's history: it just was the title used by elected Media Officers (or the Delegate); more rarely, it was the title of whoever was tasked with keeping things running in absence of a dedicated Officers (due to resignations or similar) or, theoretically, a deputy position specifically tasked with running TRT in case the Media department had been more expansive.

This is the way it works now. It's not independent in the way you say, because if it were then the Assembly/Delegate wouldn't have been able to pick a Media Officer at all throughout all these years.

Moving on ... as I said in my other post here, I don't think it needs to be run by an Officer, and could benefit from having someone manage it for a longer term than standard election cycles. I'm not picky about nomination method, but if you want to do "TRT staff"-nomination I'd rather have it limited to senior journalists only as you suggested. If you took the whole staff right now, it'd include people who lost citizenship months ago, who were accepted but then never ended up writing anything, etc., so it wouldn't have much value as "the newspaper's opinion" and could bring more vote-stacking than contributors. Plus, right now it's the head of Media who accepts the applications with no checks or appeals, and if they could directly control their own nomination crowd that would be pretty weird.
I'm generally okay with Neq's suggestion of TRT staff proposing -> Delegate nominating -> Assembly confirming scheme, also.

[Gorundu]

Firstly, I think we should absolutely codify TRT into law, regardless of how it'll be run. I think a law would be important for two things - guaranteeing the existence of TRT (by making it, say, that TRT must exist unless the law is repealed), and guaranteeing the editorial independence of TRT. I think everyone can agree on these two points.

As for how TRT should be run, I think there's an important factor that we should consider - who do we want to speak for TRT when someone needs to speak for TRT? If we want, and the government wants, to speak for TRT, then an Editor-in-Chief confirmed/elected by the Assembly would be the best option. If we're fine with TRT speaking for itself though, then it would seem to be a conflict of interest to have a government official running an independent organization. Anyway, I think this is the most important question to answer when deciding how we want TRT to be run.

Lastly, I think it's important to recognize the Delegate does currently have all authority over TRT. They can dissolve it, for all they care, or take over operations completely. Hence why it's important, I believe, to codify it so that the Delegate can't dissolve it at whim.

[Aggie]

How would "senior journalists" be determined?

[frattastan]

How would "senior journalists" be determined?

I don't think that's an impossible task. I was more interested in people agreeing to the concept first before getting bogged down in details.
There is a contribution-based ranking system right now, which is CoS what referring to and which could be recognised in some form. Ideally, primary legislation would speak in fairly generic terms. It only needs to: (1) recognise the current ranks as of [date]; (2) empower the Delegate or the EiC or the editorial board to decide upon "internal regulations of The Rejected Times, including a ranking system that that takes account of contributions" (or whatever other phrasing, specifying the types of contributions, or adding or excluding time of service, etc.).

I don't mind if the threshold for 'senior' is low (e.g., if you want you can say that all members who contributed at least one article in the past issue are eligible), so long as it reflects people who are contributing at the time. If that's not done then I don't see the point in having "TRT Staff" decide anything. "Damn fratt, that's regionalist talk".

[thechurchofsatan]

In addition, I want TRR Media Corporation to have the same protection under the constitution that the RRA has. If ever TRT, Rejected Radio or any other media outlet is dissolved or retired, that decision should be made by their own staff members in a manner set forth by them.

[Libetarian Republics]

In addition, I want TRR Media Corporation to have the same protection under the constitution that the RRA has. If ever TRT, Rejected Radio or any other media outlet is dissolved or retired, that decision should be made by their own staff members in a manner set forth by them.

The only "protection", as I see it, that the RRA has is recognition of its independence from the government (essentially a private entity). Asking for something similar to what the RRA has is proprosing privatizing TRR Media Corporation, which really goes against any proposals we are discussing in terms of selecting/managing the EIC that involves some governmental procedures.

[Deadeye Jack]

In addition, I want TRR Media Corporation to have the same protection under the constitution that the RRA has. If ever TRT, Rejected Radio or any other media outlet is dissolved or retired, that decision should be made by their own staff members in a manner set forth by them.

I thought we had moved past this into a new discussion. For the record I don't think TRRMC needs constitutional protection nor do the repeated comparisons to the RRA hold up. I don't think there would be the threshold of votes you'd need for a constitutional amendment nor do I think it would make sense as TRRMC has been managed by the government through the Media Officer for years and doesn't have any structures currently in place to handle this.

[Cove]

In addition, I want TRR Media Corporation to have the same protection under the constitution that the RRA has. If ever TRT, Rejected Radio or any other media outlet is dissolved or retired, that decision should be made by their own staff members in a manner set forth by them.

The only "protection", as I see it, that the RRA has is recognition of its independence from the government (essentially a private entity). Asking for something similar to what the RRA has is proprosing privatizing TRR Media Corporation, which really goes against any proposals we are discussing in terms of selecting/managing the EIC that involves some governmental procedures.

I agree with LR on this. Unless we want the TRT to be completely independent with no regulation at all, I don't see why we need to put the TRT in the same position as the RRA, the RRA has always been independent after all.

I'm seeing loads of different ideas in this thread, from keeping the status quo, to having a media officer or electing the EIC. I think the most important we must all take into consideration is what will keep the TRT active and will benefit the region. Personally speaking, my personal preference still remains for electing the EIC, and I suppose the implication behind that would be we would have to legislate to an extent and bring the TRT completely under government control, and I can understand the apprehension behind that.

Regardless of what option we choose, I do believe that if we choose to appoint/elect the EIC, the nomination must most vitally come from among the TRT staff, or we'd risk having someone not appropriate holding the position.

[thechurchofsatan]

Specifically, I want it to be protected from dissolution by the government. Nothing more. TRT has taken on a life of its own and it has earned the right to choose when or if it were ever dissolved.

[frattastan]

Specifically, I want it to be protected from dissolution by the government. Nothing more. TRT has taken on a life of its own and it has earned the right to choose when or if it were ever dissolved.

That's separate from independence from the government, however. You can mandate by statute (or constitution) that there should always be a regional publication, The Rejected Times, without requiring it to be a private institution.

[thechurchofsatan]

That's separate from independence from the government, however. You can mandate by statute (or constitution) that there should always be a regional publication, The Rejected Times, without requiring it to be a private institution.

Constitutional protection would be far preferable.

[Deadeye Jack]

Unibot III asked me to quote him and post on this forum as for his message not to get lost in the bowels of RMB posts.
Also, have no idea how to compress his message, so forgive me for this long message, which I am making longer:

Unibot is banned from participation in our offsite community and you should not be carrying messages to or from him to here. You probably didn't know but now you do.

[The Pharcyde]

I think we should elect a EiC once (i.e., now).

Once they're elected, they should be able to appoint their successor, resign, or be recalled by the assembly.

I think we should get have Jack write everyone's suggestions on pickles. He should put the cookies in a pickle jar. On a TRT-sponsored livestream, Jack eliminates suggestions by pulling the pickles from the jar. He eats each suggestion pickle until there is only one left.

[The Grim Reaper]

Can the Assembly just elect an Acting Editor-in-Chief for now and pull some of the time-pressure off this discussion, perhaps?

When the discussion is set in stone we can move on as if the EIC is vacant.

[thechurchofsatan]

Can the Assembly just elect an Acting Editor-in-Chief for now and pull some of the time-pressure off this discussion, perhaps?

When the discussion is set in stone we can move on as if the EIC is vacant.

The Editor-in-Chief is not something the Assembly can elect. The constitution is very specific about which positions in TRR can be elected or appointed. The only legitimate way a new Editor-in-Chief can be decided on is by the staff of TRT. If there's going to be an election for the Editor-in-Chief, it will be held by TRT.

[Gorundu]

Can the Assembly just elect an Acting Editor-in-Chief for now and pull some of the time-pressure off this discussion, perhaps?

When the discussion is set in stone we can move on as if the EIC is vacant.

I think it's fine that Jack somewhat helps run TRT for now, and hopefully we can get a law passed soon.

[The Grim Reaper]

for the record, i strongly oppose the 'minimum change' idea of introducing a permanent de facto Deputy Officer.

I firmly believe that it is not desirable, in the NationStates context, to build in non-codified customary policies that are not immediately accessible for new players or, in the worst-case, a slate of new executives to understand without being walked through it by older players. One of those is the novel idea that there should be a concept of de facto Deputies for certain portfolios.

It is a minimal change for the TRT but it would be a fundamental change for the governance of the Executive. I don't believe it is desirable to create a system whereby the selection of, and existence of, certain Deputies is bound by any limitations whatsoever. Deputies are meant to be extensions of their appointing Officer - the constitutional accountability of a Deputy's position is solely that they serve at the pleasure of that Officer.

I would not object to it as a short-term solution by negotiation between the Delegate and a sympathetic officer.

[Catalyse]

Can the Assembly just elect an Acting Editor-in-Chief for now and pull some of the time-pressure off this discussion, perhaps?

When the discussion is set in stone we can move on as if the EIC is vacant.

The Editor-in-Chief is not something the Assembly can elect. The constitution is very specific about which positions in TRR can be elected or appointed. The only legitimate way a new Editor-in-Chief can be decided on is by the staff of TRT. If there's going to be an election for the Editor-in-Chief, it will be held by TRT.

Not having a position mentioned anywhere on the constitution, or anywhere in any legislation what-so-ever, doesn't preclude it from being elected by the assembly, or the TRT staff, nor does it make either option less or more legitimate.

TRT is not answerable to just it's staff or contributors. It's answerable to the whole region. Having a permanent Media Officer always be elected along with the rest of the officers, ( 3 or 4 ), would effectively be the same thing as having the assembly elect an editor in chief ( in the lack of a media officer ) so at this point we're just arguing names. Unless you'd oppose electing anyone to overview the rejected times. :^)