Crosscut is stodgy, David, and you set the tone. You've made a career out of relentless, bloodless, passionless, almost pathological centrism, and your stable of dull, boiring writers reflects it -- especially yourself.

Lose the worn-out Berger, the clueless Henderson, the unfunny Clifford, and above all, the painfully obvious VanDyk.

I'd rather read Dan Savage than the lot of you put together. Most of the time I do.

Chuck Taylor and Dan Chasan are the best thing Crosscut has going for it. And what the hell happened to Casey Corr?

When I first came to Seattle in 1966, I had to endure Lou Guzzo, Ross Cunningham, and Lyle Burt. We have come full circle now -- new generation, new media, new forms of interactivity -- same boring somnolent crap and phony gravitas.

At least in 1966 we had Ed Donohoe. If Crosscut is to succeed, find us half a dozen Ed Donohoes, turn them loose, and get the hell out of their way.

Well David at least you post the blow hole ravings of the corpulent Vashon Orca. May he be hunted and harpooned by the nearest group of natives and his blubber redistributed amongst the members of the tribe.

I like Crosscut. I hope it succeeds.

But are you trying to tell us that Crosscut has ever turned a profit? I find that hard to believe, but if it is true, I would like to know from you.

Crosscut is not yet profitable, but still in the growth phase, supported by investment capital as well as advertising.

Wait, is grumpy ivan the same as the Vashon Orca??

Never mind.

What I meant to say is that I enjoy Crosscut quite a lot, appreciate Chuck Taylor, and wish you success in exploring the nonprofit model.

Link fix: http://www.chitowndailynews.org/

Interesting idea to convert to non-profit. I think the writing would need to shift to a more engaging style. I wouldn't say the current writing is news. I find it leans more towards opinion/soap boxy - at least on the home page which is what comes through my feed.

Crosscut is one of the most valuable outlets of journalism in this area these days. A low bar, I know. Brewster, you continue to be the best reporter on seattle politics and POLICY out there.

Ivan's right about one thing though. Steve Clifford is unfunny. And my gut tells me your page stats will tell you nobody reads the guy anymore. I know I stopped about six months ago.

Whatever model you end up choosing, I wish you success. Crosscut regularly publishes great articles, and I enjoy dropping by each day to see what's next.

P.S. to Ivan - that tone you hear is the sound of thoughtful and intelligent writing. If it's not your cup of tea, then why are you here? Yes, Dan Savage is wonderful, but there's room in Seattle (if not in your skull) for more than one journalist.

Relentless/ bloodless? That's OK, for an editor. Dull, stuck in past old Seattle pinings? Not so OK. Crosscut with some lively commentary about Seattle present, rather than Seattle as it could be, if it were only 1966, might survive.
I hope Crosscut continues.

Barnaby Bigelow

To Sean:

I know thoughtful and intelligent writing when I see it. Or did you miss my praise for Chuck Taylor, Dan Chasan, and Casey Corr?

Bill Dietrich should be available soon.

I love Crosscut and each and every one of the writers and editors. This is one of the precious few Seattle news outlets that is truely by and for SEATTLE people, as well as those brought here by the condo infestation. We need a news source that understands the importance of preserving our local culture as well as shaping its future--that can only be done by people who have lived it, breathed it, above all--who care. Crosscut's local roots run deep. To lose the accumulated knowledge, history and subtle nuances of the experience represented here would be an atrocity. Whatever you need to do to keep it going without selling out is fine with me.

I'll tell you one thing, ivan--if anything happens to keep Knute Berger from speaking his (our) mind here, there will be an uprising. I guarantee it. Crosscut is not just another trendy rag like the (yawn) Stranger.

Lately I've been leaning on Cross-Cut to keep me semi-informed on what the city and northwest is up to. When I want to learn about the latest murder or can't look outside to see the weather - I'll tune in to one of the look-sound-act alike TV station news shows. (yep - I said it - 'shows')

But there is some sliver of truth in what the very unhappy ivan said. I have tremendous respect for your staff and for you David but wonder if it is time for you all to search for that new talent, those guys you all once were in the mid-to-later 70's when you shook things up with the Weekly.

I wonder. - BarryM

Although it inevitably means difficult changes, it is important that Crosscut does what is required to continue providing a unique forum for conversation about regional and national issues. I was attracted to the site as a reader because of its collection of diverse voices and its unwillingness to pander, as other publications - on Web and in print - tend to do in the pursuit of readers. I commented to one of Crosscut's excellent editors, Crosscut is a place where journalism assumes a form more like a conversation with friends over coffee or a glass of wine. It has the power to be an antidote to a polarized society.

BarryM:

"The very unhappy Ivan?" Sounds like a healthy dose of projection there, pal. I have very little to be unhappy about.

Brian Myrick:

"antidote to a polarized society?" What a laugh! That's Crosscut's problem exactly. This society is growing ever more polarized and fragmented, and all the king's Crosscuts and all the king's men cannot arrest this trend.

I'd rather have a news outlet that reports on this honestly, rather than one that acts as if it doesn't exist -- or worse yet, tut-tuts at it or sets up false equivalencies between the worst excesses.

We are not a homogeneous society. That is neither good nor bad. It's just what is. Brewster's bourgeois sensibilities and those of most of his writers are increasingly quaint and out of touch with most people's realities.

That isn't to paint a dark picture or to ignore that good is being done. Plenty of committed activists around here are working to create a better tomorrow and a sense of community, whether geographic, virtual, or by affinity, in many ways and across many different levels of interaction. We could use some deeper reporting of these efforts, without stooping to sappy feel-goodism or pontification.

Last week, I was dismayed to find that Sirius/XM had rolled out its programming changeover with no notice whatsoever, save for an e-mail the morning of. Gone were my favorite personalities, and my favorite channel has been replaced. This morning, thanks to a linked article I'd sent to a friend that didn't work, I discovered that Washington CEO is gone, swallowed up by Seattle Business Monthly. And, of course, our local dailies are going through some volatile times. Frankly, I could use a little more constancy in my preferred media right about now. I like Crosscut as it is, and frankly I don't need one more organization hounding me for money.

Crosscut is a fine publication and worthy of my - hopefully modest - financial support. The demise of print media andc the attendant challenges presented to journalism are significant and new models that support intelligent, thoughtful writing about timely and controversial subjects are appreciated.

Ivan:

Note made on my desk calendar for Nov 18, 2008: "First Time Ever Called 'Quaint'".

Here is a word on behalf of Crosscut, whether for-profit or non-profit, and other online publications which are trying to fill the gap formerly filled by daily newspapers.

Seattle's two dailies are prime examples. Both have been losing money and circulation for several years. Editorial budgets and staff have been reduced. There are some solid columnists at both papers but day-do-day news gets a quick brushover by both. Coverage of public issues, in particular, is far skimpier than in once was. City, county and state governments---and agencies such as the Seattle School Board, Sound Transit and Port of Seattle---usually get attention only when controversial actions are pending or a scandal arises. Yet decisions are made in those places daily which affect the pocketbooks and lives of most citizens of the region. Resources are not available for more than occasional investigative series such as the one now appearing in the Times regarding the prevalence of MSRA infections in area hospitals.

Crosscut does not have resources, either, to undertake the kinds of investigative series which are badly needed hereabouts. But, in time, it might. Other online and print publications have non-profit arms which solicit money specifically for investigative work.

I write without compensation because it is a way to do public service--bringing information and analysis to readers they might not otherwise receive. Others may derive some small pay but have the same motivation. Same for David Brewster and Crosscut's investors. They also see it as a community-service venture first and foremost. They will be examining this week the best options for sustaining it which, as David reports, may result in a decision to go the non-profit route.

All of us have favorite and non-favorite writers among our colleagues, just as our readers do. But I respect all for the contributions they make and for the integrity of their work. No phonies here with self-interested axes to grind.

I have nothing to do with the operational or business sides of Crosscut.
But I do know that Crosscut's readership keeps growing. I have been surprised by the numbers of hits reported on various pieces in Crosscut.
May it live long, stay viable, expand staff and coverage, and help keep readers informed and the big boys honest.

As a dot.com veteran, I know personally how difficult it is to translate readership and traffic into revenue.

For me, your aggregation of local news articles, and the more in-depth articles that you write, on local issues, are most appreciated. And yes, I do appreciate the occassional insight of my far-distant cousin.

And as an advertiser on the site, I am most appreciative of the ability you give me to reach decision-makers and those who are willing to speak out and influence public opinion---yes, that does include the Vashon Orca, for all his blubber--I mean, bluster.

So keep on writing, and do what you have to do to stay in business.

"Crosscut is not yet profitable, but still in the growth phase, supported by investment capital as well as advertising."

One can always read that as "supported by a few new-age angels whose patience is running out."

In any case, non-profit in the Age of Obama is the smart move since the places at the public teat will expand and there will be room for more.

As someone who once worked for Pacifica Radio I cannot tell you how much I look forward to those membership drives and auctions. They'll singe your hair.

Without knowing the how the financial innards of Crosscut are digesting and consuming income, I've got to say that my own gut says that moving to a non-profit model is a mistake. Indeed, my hunch -- given the dismal financial reality of print-based news organizations such as the Seattle Times -- is that identifying and creating profitable streams of income for Crosscut is the supreme business challenge. I find it hard to believe that donations will do much more than keep the lights on.

I do believe that Crosscut is providing a decent product and has a fairly loyal readership that would in most times be the delight of many advertisers. Unfortunately, Google, Craigslist and the proliferation of online news sites for every paper and magazine know to humankind have changed the entire advertising and news landscape to such an extent that an online news paper without a flexible, yet well understood economic model, is doomed.

Maybe a business model -- much like Sound Transit's (he says in an attempt to gore that well-funded ox yet again) -- which doesn't depend on actual performance for revenue is a good model. But only if you can convince the wealthy to fund operations for a significant period. Ultimately you'll still want to aggressively pursue lines of business that will drive up readership and that would, in a for-profit institutution, prove profitable.

My personal view is that you are underfunded, that your site needs to be comfortably bleeding edge from a technical perspective (which it is not now) and that it needs to provide significant video capabalities ala YouTube and the NY Times Blogginghead point-counterpoint videos. Also, significant partnerships need to be nurtured so that Crosscut become a news-and-opinion center for the allied partners rather than simply a pleasant, reasonable voice in the wilderness.

In terms of audience, I believe there's a generational problem that needs to be addressed. Having "old" hands is not a bad thing, but the "old" consensus is too restrictive. A broader reach that includes more high-tech expertise and thinking, and some elements of the Stranger, would be a more appropriate target audience.

Fo examply, I love van Dyk, but he writes so frequently that he seems now to be the voice of Crosscut, which is inappropriate, because he's really a singular sort of voice, just as is Knute. Casey Corr was a big loss in my book. You guys need a plurality of voices that write frequently. That requires funding, I know.

Columnists about Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Vulcan, Google, etc., exist, as do columnists about the local business economy. Sharing the cost of an appropriate set of columnists makes sense. Similarly, the Stranger brings the passion and sense of the younger generation -- an Obama look-and-feel -- that is required to be relevant. That younger generation needs equal standing in Crosscut. For example, "ivan" needs to feel that Crosscut is a good read (if not a must read), just as is the Seattle Times often a good read. Same goes for your high-tech reader. Older readers (and I skew that direction) should feel not that they ARE the center, but that they are reading about the center.

As much as I have personally posted about the financial travails of Sound Transit, I find it less than satisfying that Crosscut has been mainly a mouthpiece for the anti- position, and has not become the dynamic major forum for sorting out transportation issues of all types, with frequent pro-transit columnists and political figures engaging in give-and-take.

Another thing: I believe there's great potential -- revenue and otherwise -- in expanding the capabilities of comments such as the one I am now writing. Authoring capabilities are not good. You need to allow graphics. You need to be as good as or better than Soundoff. You need to realize that the comments are often more important to read than the articles themselves.

Finally, I think you should look at the Obama fund-raising effort as your model for fund-raising (or revenue generation). Small frequent donors were a big part of the money raised (generated). Crosscut needs to be asking its readers (like me) for money. It needs to provide more membership and subscription services that generate income. I have enjoyed Crosscut, yet have not paid a single cent for it. I have paid for the NYTimes (online and Sunday paper) and the Economist (online and paper). The basic service probably must always be free, but I would likely pay something for some sort of premium service. But you guys have got to ask. And you never do. And like just about everyone, I'm much more willing to pay for something, than to donate just to the general cause. Haven't you had a "donate" button for years? I also don't think a news organization lends itself to a non-profit model. You use the term "non-profit" it seems to me as a synonym for non-partisan, citizen-supported. Not the same thing at all.

Upshot: if you can get massive significant mulit-year funding for the switch to being a non-profit, then go ahead. But otherwise I'd stick to being a competitive, for-profit organization and go down fighting.

I've got to say that I've never seen the wit in Clifford's writing. It scans like humor, but that's not enough to make it funny. Maybe if I travelled in the elite circles of the Seattle Birkenstock and tofu crowd I might pick up enough cultural references to undestand it, but that assessment assumes that it is actually funny and I just don't get the jokes. Since I am by nature a very cosmopolitan person, I discount that possbility.

Note the use of feigned pomposity as a comedic device.

I am mixed about your possible venture into the non-profit world. As a member of the non-profit arts world I’m less than sanguine about another competitor in the ever shrinking philanthropic world. However I can see that in the current media world a fresh model might better serve the mission of providing clear headed news and commentary.

I do however wonder what happens if a news organization gets dependent on government largess, even if that largess is the in the form of a special tax status. (Or any organization for that matter.) The Constitutional grant of freedom of the press implies a healthy separation between the governing and the Fourth Estate. An element of that separation is the economic independence of the press, and the relative immunity that provides the press from government suasion. I would hope that any move toward a non profit model would come with a clear understanding that the degree of separation is narrowed in a non-profit structure. It can create a vulnerable soft spot if an organization finds itself confronting a determined government.

Certainly other non-profit news organizations have tread this narrow path. NPR is a prime example. But they have a very broad popular base, and a fabulously wealthy heiress died and left them an endowment the size of Mt Rainier. I’m sure that everyone at Crosscut would swear that they would never compromise their editorial stances for the sake of government approval, and I would believe them. But its another thing when you are three or four or ten years in, getting a little comfortable, and government starts pushing back.

Right now it seems that you guys are at the base of the rock cliff, looking up. Don’t get halfway up to discover the government supplied rope is five feet short.

(And thanks for ignoring the shills from the Stranger. Why they think everyone wants their candy, I’ll never understand. )

Another good model -- which the NYT overlooked -- is The Center for Independent Media, which operates six online sites, including The Minnesota Independent, which garnered more unique visitors last month than Minnpost.

Dan Walter
Center for Independent Media

I think Crosscut is very good. Also think Clifford is funny. Knute is a treasure.
I devoutly hope Crosscut continues, profit or non.

Three points.

David Brewster is the single best analyst of local politics and culture that we have and he needs to write more.

Ivan should just go read the Stranger and leave us alone. Before he does, he owes the writers he trashed and us an apology; this uncivil discourse does not belong in thoughtful public discussion of important issues. That he feels permitted to write like this is a serious problem of contemporary journalism. Shame on him for being so rude. I don't care if I sound "stodgy," it's just plain rude behavior.

I would propose that the problem is that some readers are looking for muckraking, hyperventilating prose in a city that doesn't have that much muck. The police chief is decent, the mayor is not wildly corrupt, and the City Council is doing its job. Overall, the city functions fairly well. We might wring our hands about which viaduct proposal is the best or how to fix the Mercer mess, but in the big scheme of things, that's nothing on the order of problems in Chicago or DC or LA or NY. Hence, we get hyperexcited about Mannings or the bag fee (myself included) or the purported "nanny state," but it's all fairly trivial. The truth is, Seattle is a fairly well-functioning liberal city. That's not to say there aren't problems; it's just that they aren't problems that journalism, especially on-line journalism, can do much about--can't investigate much, can't stimulate a broad public discussion, can't put much pressure on politicians (just not enough of us readers and writers). But Seattle has a history, has institutions, and an angle on the world that is different than, but relevant to, other places and our lives. That should be exploited.

So, my suggestion is that Crosscut should turn more intellectual with longer analytic pieces from Brewster, Van Dyke, Corr, Cheek (if you can get him), people at UW, the Hutch, and others who spend some real space looking at the issues that Stuka raises. How do these multinational technological, and cultural organizations (Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, etc.) affect Seattle and the world? What are the real issues at stake in public policy over the viaduct? How do economic meltdowns affect the poor right here? What bigger lessons can we learn locally about school systems from changing demographics and flight to the suburbs? This area has some big things to say.

P.S.: I'll contribute what I can if and when the pledge drive starts.

Hope you are able to make it and we encourage you to continue with the site development.

bkochis:

I stand behind what I wrote and make no apology for it. If Ted Van Dyk (I worked for Magnuson so I know more than you do) meets your journalistic needs, I'm happy for you. Some of us like to think we set a higher bar.

Have just read through all the comments, concluding with Ivan's retort to bkochis.

Ivan's comments are similar to those of many who log on, anonymously, to various sites and often make offensive and personal comments about those with whom they disagree.

We all would be better served if those commenting did so with their own full names, as our authors do. If Ivan, for instance, has bases for his opinions, he should be prepared to make them specific and sign his name to them. Why wear a mask?

Ivan, I worked for and with a large number of people in national government and politics, over many years, but Warren Magnuson was not one of them. Don't know where you got that idea. I am a Magnuson admirer, however, and wish there were more like him in our national and state politics today. Maggie was a straighforward tough guy who would have told you where to put your insults.

Mr. Van Dyk, I'd like to echo your comment about people who pontificate in forums like this from behind an assumed name. They're usually hotheads who love to hurl insults while contributing little of value. I picked the user ID I have because it's straight forward - my first initial and my last name. Anyone who followed seattle.general in the glory days of Usenet can guess who I am and anyone with a phone book can look me up. I did not pick a "Firstname [space] Lastname" identifier because Cross Cut's registration form makes it appear that this will be used as a login ID (when in fact the email address serves that function) and as a Unix guy for 20 years, I know just instinctively that the login process abhors whitespace. Your site might want to make it clear that the user ID field contains the text string that will identify posters when they post a comment. If I'd have known that, I'd have entered my name explicitly, and others here may also have made that choice. still others, definitely, would not have.

Ted Van Dyk:

I am not anonymous. I use my real name. Chuck Taylor will tell you who I am. My number is in the book if you have a problem with anything I say. Quit boring me to death and quit stating the obvious, and I might let up on you. Welcome to the world of the Internet, where the rabble talk back.

ivan: "Brewster's bourgeois sensibilities and those of most of his writers are increasingly quaint and out of touch with most people's realities."

I must have missed the election where "most people" elected you to speak for their "realities".

And did you really use the phrase "bourgeois sensibilities"? Now that's quaint. Very mid-nineteenth century. What's next, comrade, a call for workers of the world to unite?

If we're becoming a nation of extremists, then how did Obama capture a majority of votes running on the quaint bourgeois platform of pragmatitism, centrism, and unity? It's almost as if stodgy ol' Brewster is more in touch with the national mood than you.

The only thing that Ivan is in touch with is an all you can eat buffet. Yes Ivan we know you number its ZERO. Go back to Philly.

Question?
How about some news that pisses people off. Like what is with the stupid parking rates in Seattle? Most people avoid the town like the plague. What is with the problem the town has making a decision? and following through with it? Example the roads? Potholes all over, no plan on fixing them. Years of Talk, Talk, Talk on fixing the road on the waterfront. Is everyone brain dead in Seattle? Pass some more taxes and give the Mayor more cash. HA HA

Let me clear up a few misunderstandings reflected in this lively exchange.
First, it's hardly unusual for a startup to be depending on investment capital in its initial years, and quite as planned. The question is how much more investment can be expected in a period of sharp advertising downturn, such as we and all media now face. We could follow the model of many other news media and scale back to meet these lower revenues; or look for additional streams of revenue so we can grow and do a better job.
Second, nonprofit does not mean government supported. It means reader-supported by voluntary contributions from folks who want to help something they believe in, as well as grants from foundations who want to support our mission of public education and reporting in areas where commercial media does an inadequate job. Government support is partly behind public broadcast, but very unlikely (and inappropriate) for what we want to do.
Third, I too miss Casey Corr, but he now has a full time job as director of strategic communications at Seattle University, so can't write for us any longer. And there are many great writers out there we would love to publish. We have to have more resources to do so, which is the reason for exploring the shift.

"Brewster, you continue to be the best reporter on seattle politics and POLICY out there."

I hadn't really noticed this before, but this comment is absolutely true. This city does has some great reporters (Eli Sanders, Josh Spangenthal-Lee, Nina Shapiro, Rick Anderson, as well as other folks at Crosscut), but Brewster is truly a cut above. See for yourself: http://crosscut.com/account/david_brewster/. There is a level of intelligence, insight, wisdom, and access to sources in these articles that simply doesn't exist elsewhere in the local media.

Looking through the list of articles, however, I do have one comment similar to some of those above. I admire the activism of some of the Stranger writers, particularly their focus on civil rights and social politics (and just to be clear, I'm not talking about "ECB" here). This type of journalism is conspicuously absent from Crosscut. Maybe you are afraid of alienating certain demographics, maybe these topics make you squeemish, or perhaps you just haven't found a writer who is interested in this stuff.

Still, I think the region would benefit from a having a mature publication like Crosscut weigh in on issues like police brutality, City Attorney Carr's bizarre moral crusade against nightclubs and other dens of sin, gay rights, medical marijuana, etc.

Sean and I agree about ECB.

I hope you aren't angling for a government 'bailout' David! Aside from that going non-profit makes sense.

A bit of historical trivia - my small amount of journalism experience involved spending a bit of my free time working on a few projects at the Seattle Press, after James Bush, and before that long standing institution's closure. One project was a filing effort which included coming across a letter from the owner/editor to Mr. Brewster, asking his advice.

I didn't see Mr. Brewster's reply, if he did, but do let me offer mine:

Wall Street Corporate finance has been a bit of a macro Enron ponzi scheme - using national corporate finance to support an unsustainable 'pyramid' of unsubstainable business models. Those frauds have driven many good businesses out, not to mention the individuals therein.

That process is not without local 'allies' - and, FWIW, Seattle tops the list outside of NYC and Washington D.C. The authority of our local leadership - which you so often righteously support - is based on the criminal extortion of other people's money.

It is my theory that the construction of these conspiracies involves glad handing alcoholics - whether it be your classmates in the English Graduate program or, perhaps, your current business group.

Your generation has set up a legal consequence for the typical individual abuser - it's called 'homelessness' as per the harsh justice of Mark Sidran's Civic Sidewalk policies.

The fact of it is that your generation is bankrupt Mr. Brewster - what we are going through now in this Country is 'your' responsibility. There will be no solution until the ponzi scheme abusers of responsible individuals are gone forever.

And if you've managed to mess up my generation as much as you messed up your own, we can kiss America goodbye - and that goes for both the right and left...

Your voice is unique in the Northwest. We need to count on it, for its cool clarity, searing light and skookum fairness. Keep strong.

--Grant Jones

I view Crosscut less as a publication itself, but rather a portal that gleans from other e-media outlets and combines that with insightful commentary. A progressive, regional on-line Reader's Digest (or simply, Utne Reader).

As such I enjoy browsing, but it's not likely to ever outrank other conventional charities competing for my support.

First off, congrats on the mention in the front-page NYT piece last week.

As the former editor of the PNW's envionmental news service, I feel the pain. I was heartened and excited when Crosscut emerged as it is/was doing what that former news service intended to do when it was independent: acting as the PNW's daily newspaper, with solid, original reporting and provocative commentary. Sadly, the site cut back severly, lost its independent voice, was absorbed by a nonprofit, and was demoted to an institutional organ/newsletter with a facelift.

My worry is that Crosscut might have a similar fate. The region really, really needs a place to go for original reporting and commentary. I do hope Crosscut weathers this change and gets its groove back.

PS: Have you talked to The Tyee about their model? Its mix of reporting and gossipy puff pieces seems to give it vitality and Beers is a whip-smart editor. It filled a huge gap in BC media.

-Kristin Kolb

You can say what you want about Ivan -- and plenty have -- but one thing you can never say is that he is afraid to put his name to his many, loudly voiced opinions.