A local site has been started called Our Faves that has some fun potential. It encourages users to share their favourite things about Toronto: the obvious choices for shops, good eats, and music are all there, but you can also add anything you want (you fave things here). The site works on a similar premise as Digg, Hugg, and Stumbled Upon, but adds a local angle to it with social networking capabilities.
After I signed up, I entered things like my favourite laneway, intersection, piece of graffiti, and view of the skyline (Spacing has even been faved and I’ll openly admit to being one of them). It’s just getting started so the database is still a little sparse, but I like the idea of passing on local knowledge of public spaces to your “neighbours” — especially those little things like charming parkettes or a shortcut through a dead-end — because it can make this site much more than just a promotion for the city’s commercial enterprises. There are already a few examples: Trinity-Bellwoods is leading the parks category (5 faves) with Centre Island (4 faves) closing the gap. I like the idea that I could learn the whereabouts of a nearby bridge underpass that make the best echo or a reliable look-out point for waterfront fireworks. Hopefully those signing up will use the site’s possibilities in creative ways.
20 comments
You do realize this site is owned and operated by Torstar Digital?
Yes I do. That doesn’t make them bad — a good idea is a good idea. I have no illusions that the site is a commercial venture, but any social networkig site is controlled by the users.
It’s also not entirely owned by TorStar. I believe there is another company involved.
“About ourfaves.com: A joint venture start-up, OurFaves was incubated within Torstar Digital, with consulting and technical personnel to develop the .net platform provided by imason Inc. The team is led by Torstar Digital’s Director of Strategy, Candice Faktor. OurFaves represents the response of these two firms to an online media environment which demands innovation and experimentation, and emphasizes web 2.0 applications that highlight collaboration and sharing among end users.”
-http://www.torstardigital.com/docs/ourfaves_launch.doc
The friendship between Torstar and Spacing is rather worrying… I’ve noticed many Spacing contributors write for Eye Weekly or the Star (especially on Sunday), a few Star reporters (or their friends/children) write for Spacing… quite a cozy little world Toronto’s media community is… Do you worry about losing your credibility as an independent voice?
You should see the junkets they take us on! The Torstar cottage on Lake Joseph is also a dream. You can see Goldie Hawns place from it.
It’s a good conspiracy theory, but there’s nothing there. Spacing is Spacing, and we as individuals do what we want. I’m mostly worried about paying rent, so I’ll write for whoever pays that lets me write what I want to write, and Eye does just that for me. If you’d like us to be more independent, please send a robust donation to our office so we don’t have to have other jobs that pay. We’ll be waiting for it, Independent Asha J.
You were right about one thing though, it is a small media world. What would you like to do about that? Canada’s a small country.
No. We’re all freelancers trying to make a living.
I’m not sure if you’re suggesting we shouldn’t be friends with other media people. Like any job, it is great to have a community of peers.
Our editors write articles for the Star, certainly, but also the Globe, The Post, Now, This, Coach House Books, Broken Pencil, Shameless, Re-New, CBC.ca, and a variety of other publications. Our contributors are almost all freelancers who write for a vast array of magazines and papers.
Though, its always good to pay attention to issues like this.
Let’s talk about Our Faves (tho I’m happy to read ’bout Spacing’s indie cred).
I like it. I just found out about Cherry Bomb on Roncesy because of the site.
Shawn> Thanks for clearing that up. I wish you didn’t get quite so defensive/sarcastic though. It isn’t conducive to a healthy relationship with your readers, nor does it invite comments. I’ll think twice before asking questions in the future. Or sending a donation.
Matthew B> Thank you for answering my question.
You made a fairly sweeping accusation that from this side is completely off and unfounded, and the back gets up. Thus the defensiveness. And you did it relatively anonymously. If you used your full real name, things like your question seem a lot less like an internet pot shot and more like a question that gets a more diplomatic response like Matt gave. Still, it’s good to mention Goldie Hawn now and then.
Eh… It’s always fun to see you Shawn Micallef getting heated (does Melissa Goldstein still comment here?) My question was a legitimate one, though, not just an internet pot shot. And it WAS only a question – that a few people I know have brought up. Geez.
When Spacing turns disables comments and forces me to go to Eye to respond to articles published on Spacing I can’t help but feel that Spacing has been co-opted. Then testimonials (that read like advertisements) for new Torstar properties appear here?
When Spacing disables comments and forces me to go to Eye to respond to articles published on Spacing I can’t help but feel that Spacing has been co-opted. Then testimonials (that read like advertisements) for new Torstar properties appear here?
First, you are not forced to do anything, Frank.
Second, Eye pays Dale to write a column for Eye *becuz* she is the editor of Spacing. Since she gain her noteriety at Spacing, but gets paid to write regularly by Eye, we struck a deal to allow her posts from Eye Daily that relate to public space issues, to appear here with comments happening at Eye. That’s not co-opted, its co-operation. We’re getting content for free, so we let Eye have the comments. Big deal. We get the better deal out of this, so maybe a letter to Eye about being co-opted is in order.
If you don’t like what I wrote about Our Faves that’s fine, but to assume that by cross-posting articles we’ve somehow been co-opted by TorStar is insulting — you mustn’t have thought highly of us before.
Do I have to *not* write about a topic becuz of who owns the project? Can I not write about something I like or think is important for our readers to know about? Is a good idea suddenly bad becuz it came out of TorStar?
Spacing comments are being coopted by conspiracy theorists and marxists! I hope they’re getting paid to put up with this stuff. Just read people, or start your own magazine.
Oh my, where to begin. I’ve been working on the OurFaves project for several months now. Though, whatever you choose to believe, I’m not responding here in any professional capacity. I too work as a freelancer, and I choose to include OurFaves among the projects I work on (as one of a team of 5 people, 3 of whom are also independent contractors) because I think the project has a tremendous amount of potential to tap into the collective intelligence of people in our community, and to allow them to share their voices. Many of those voices, I’d like to hear.
Like Matt pointed out earlier, the creative possibilities with a collaborative city guide are many. Generate the content you think is worthwhile. He’s used it to signal really amazing faves related to public space. Hurrah! I happen to want to know those. Whichever communities of interest you belong to, whichever places and things you wish to seek out in the urban landscape, here is a place where you can share information with other people who are passionately interested in similar things and who are participating in your local community.
Personally, I enjoy exploring the city through the eyes of lots of different Torontonians. Particularly those that share some of my, often niche, interests. I want to be directed to new and interesting places and things. And to perhaps inspire someone else, from time to time, to connect with Toronto in a new way through something I suggested (incidentally, Cherry Bomb on Ronces, mentioned in an earlier comment, comes from my faves on the site. Glad someone enjoyed trying it. It’s a great little mom-and-pop in my hood, and glad I could spread the word. That’s really what this is all about). I happen to think a project like this can go a long way to supporting and building vibrant local living economies, and connecting people in very powerful ways with one another and the city around them. And that has astoundingly positive ripple effects that extend far beyond finding out where’s good to go for a stand-out cup of joe.
Anyway, I think it’s a shame, on a personal level, to throw the baby out with the bath water and basically call into a question a project in its entirety, and by association everyone involved with it, and, it would seem, everyone that even LIKES it, because it is partly funded by a large media company. Are people truly of the mind that no one working for e.g. the Toronto Star or an associated publication or project has professional integrity? A singular or informed voice? A conscience? Good ideas? Is indie the only good? Come on. And, frankly, in the vein of many earlier comments about making a living, it doesn’t take much polling to realize that among those of us that earn their daily bread in the arts and media, there are very few that don’t cross the lines back and forth between working for larger organizations and smaller indie ones or doing our own thing, whether for paychecks or a range of experience. However you care to size that up, it is a reality. It was, in fact, the topic of a rather good panel discussion at the last uTOpia launch. Anyway, I’d caution people to take a look at who’s inside the offices of some of these big media towers and official culture outlets, and at some of the work they’re doing, before you painting them all with the same brush, in some repugnant shade.
Anyway, as Robin Elliott – Spacing reader, girl about town and bona fide Torontophile – Torstar hat off (incidentally, they don’t give out any fancy hats), that’s my two cents.
Asha> At the risk of needlessly kicking some kind of horse, I’d argue that it wasn’t “just a question” but an accusation of a number of things. But you’ve expanded on it since, and all is well.
I’m interested though in the idea of something selling out or losing an “independent voice.” When does that happen — where is the line? Is there even a line? Does it exist? When some of us write for the big papers, like the Star, Globe or Post, and they don’t really change what we have to say, is that “going mainstream” or is it getting new ideas to a huge new audience? I think the latter, and for me it’s academic because we all operate as individuals. Is Robin above a corporate sell out, or did she work on a project she liked? Is Our Faves any less good or bad because TorStar is involved?
Though sometimes this reminds me of indie rock fans, who are probably the quickest to accuse bands of selling out (they want their bands to stay poor it would seem and they want their product cheap).
It’s ideology.
Shawn> It’s not so much that I have a problem with you writing for the Star/Globe/Post etc. Spacing has quite a few good writers that add a fresh, authentic voice to the above – and to be honest you’re one of my favourites. But from this reader’s subjective point of view this is what I see: Spacing and Torstar have a relationship. Spacing writers are accepted to write for Big Media, get paid; Big Media writers then write for Spacing, for credibility (maybe?) Spacing has to do a few favours in return, which is what is implied in Matt’s comment above – I’m not new to the world, I know how “partnerships” operate, and I’ve known many who’ve had to give up their freedom in creating art/culture for rent. I do see it as a compromise. A realistic one though – but let’s not kid ourselves that it isn’t that.
Everything in my original post was a statement of fact: I AM worried about the friendship between Spacing and Torstar, because I don’t know how far it will go and I don’t want my enjoyment of your wire to be ruined. I will not hold back when I say that all major papers are in it to make money: they twist stories, re-align emphasis, and hold power of authority over readers. I’ve lived through war, the brink of war, and SARS, and seen the reporting that goes on in each situation. And I’m not the first to tell you this.
You in fact haven’t answered the question I asked, but instead chose to ask questions in return. Matt stated “no” clearly. I wish you could change my cynical little mind, but maybe not this time. It’s been a pleasant discussion though, so thanks for that.
A pleasant conversation yes, and thank you too.
From the inside, there isn’t any shift or bending in these relationships, at least none that I can see. So it is interesting to see how it looks from the outside.
About the money though — we/I love what I do, and there were times in grad school that I thought about what might be an ideal career path when i finished my MA, and what I do now is just about the vision I had of what would be good. So it’s all a labour of love, but we have to be in it for the money too, just as Torstar is, because if we’re not we will most assuredly burn out because some of these near full time jobs we have don’t pay nearly enough (even when writing for those bigger papers, sadly) so it requires adding more output, and sometimes it feels like the burnout moment is closer than we/I’d like.
But if we were to either charge the consumer a rate that lets us pay ourselves and our writers a fair market rate for that product (not even thinking about benefits and etc. “normal” employees enjoy), I’m certain there would be either an outcry or an abandonment. Similarly, if we packed the magazine or this wire with enough ads to cover these costs, there would be a backlash and claims of selling out or etc. This, I think, is why I/we might be sensitive to suggestions of being too cozy or etc.
Not just in magazine publishing, but across all indie media production, the indie consumers aren’t willing to pay a full and fair price for that product, and when it the cost goes in that direction there is a backlash. So many of these industries and projects supported by that love, but if you remove the love, you’d have a labour situation that even the most mildly progressive person would object to.
So, it’s a delicate and interesting line to discuss. I’m not sure where it is (the line), but I’m certain I want to be financially sound.
Yes, these are the eternal questions – where to draw the lines demarcating where independent voice or great ideas become diluted or corrupted because of the influence of a governing organization – and ones we must ask ourselves at every turn if we do include a variety of projects of varying degrees of indie-ness in our employment pastiche.
Ultimately, the answers depend on who’s answering. To me, the term “sell out” implies someone who has diluted their work or eschewed their former core guiding principles in exchange for a (usually hefty) paycheck, and perhaps more mainstream success (which is usually what enables the paycheck, I suppose). But working in the mainstream without abandoning those principles (and incidentally, often without such a hefty paycheck either), like Shawn feels he does writing for a larger paper for example, or I feel I do including OurFaves in my roster of projects, I believe does bring good ideas, often, to a broader audience. When vehicles exist to share ideas broadly, without their being co-opted or changed beyond recognition, many people might consider taking the opportunity, or supporting those that do. In many cases, wider adoption, can effect amazing change. Paradigm shifts. Also, though I, like Asha, often have trouble with how mainstream media reports, I do believe that often the best of the best of investigative journalism or long-form editorial features etc. still is done under the auspices of newspapers and magazines and shows that are able to extend resources to the writers and other producers who research and craft these works. No blogger, no matter how talented or insightful, unless independently wealthy, could take weeks or months to really work a story from every angle. Not many smaller publications can pay for that work if someone isn’t able to do it as a labour of love. Though top-calibre journalism is not ubiquitous, it does exist, and it is often enabled by funds and support from larger media outlets (or grants from large cultural organzitions).
As a producer, asking in each new scenario if you are maintaining your integrity by aligning yourself with a particular project is, of course, the key. And these are very personal distinctions. And for consumers of cultural or media production (and most everything really), we make choices at every turn too, about what reflects back to us the things we think are important, and which projects we will support. And it is essential to be eternally critical and analytical – like in this thread. And to be cognizant of the various perspectives threads like this reveal.
As for the countless examples of papers like the Post or Eye or the Star using content either directly taken from, cross-published by, or produced by regular contributors to some of the leading indie publications/blogs – I happen to think that’s great, if the integrity of the work is maintained.
As for how OurFaves ended up on the Spacing wire – looks like Matt just thought it was a cool site. He got the press release, same as all the other media outlets that ran stories on the site (CBC, CTV, TechCrunch, Rogers TV, Unknown Toronto and a whole lot of other blogs in Toronto and around the world, etc.). He checked it out. He wrote about it (and from a new and fresh perspective). There was no deal making or preferential treatment. In fact, just to put things in perspective, even among Torstar’s own properties, nothing can be taken for granted. It took going through all the usual channels even to look at possibilities for sharing OurFaves content in the Toronto Star.
Anyway, it’s true – it has been a pleasant discussion. A little healthy debate is a good way to start the day.
It looks like everyone’s winding down the discussion. But as both the City Editor of Eye Weekly who employs a bunch of those Spacing contributors to write and as a regular Spacing contributor too, I thought I’d throw in my take on things.
First off, I feel confident saying that to the extent that any partnerships have existed between Eye Weekly and Spacing (for example, when we co-hosted a mayoral event last fall), they have been one-offs that all originate with me and Matt talking about doing something cool that we can help each other out with, not with our possibly credibility-obsessed marketing department. In fact, not to deflate Spacing at all, but the bean counters around here are only vaguely aware that Spacing exists (and further, the bean counters at the mothership at One Yonge are only vaguely aware that Eye Weekly exists). I kind of like it that way.
The reason I employ Dale and Shawn and sometimes others is because I think they are good writers who know a lot about things I think are interesting. And the things I think are interesting make up the City section of Eye. There’s honestly nothing more devious than that going on. There’s never been a single conversation in which Matt and I tried to figure out how to partner up and share staff, or whatever. Matt was a cartoonist for Eye well before Spacing existed, in fact. In most cases, a writer approaches me with a story idea and we discuss it and then occassionaly I even assign it and then Torstar pays them for it. Often I am unaware of their connection to Spacing throughout the entire process.
Dale was a staff writer at Eye Weekly before she was our city hall columnist, and our relationship predates the launch of the Spacing Wire — though, as Matt noted, her job as Managing Editor of Spacing was a big part of why we considered her a qualified candidate for the Staff Writer job. And I’d like to emphasize a point Matt made: Dale Duncan writes a City Hall column and maintains a City Hall bog for Eye Weekly. We pay her to do that. We are not co-opting anything, we are providing Dale with a job.
Once she started in that job, Matt approached us about cross posting her blog and column, and we debated it (why give away content for free? we wondered. To make sure it reaches more readers, was our answer). But in order to ensure that some percentage of those readers reading the content we assigned, edited and paid for actually visited out site, we requested that those wanting to comment on Dale’s post be redirected to our site. That’s the story there.
As for why I write for Spacing, it has nothing to do with credibility or whatever. It’s because I’m a writer who likes thinking and writing about public space issues, and Spacing gives me a venue to do that. Eye Weekly wouldn’t be a good place for me to write 6,000 or so words my reflections on the intersection of Markham and Lawrence. In fact, I can’t think of another magazine in Canada that would have published that story. That’s why I write for Spacing. That and because they pay me (not much, but some) and the money helps me feed my kid.
And just to show you how deviously ingenious the Torstar-industrial complex is: I first heard about Our Faves by reading about it in this post. Seems like an OK idea, I guess, if you’re into that kind of thing. But I probably won’t spend much time there.