Let’s begin by making a distinction between an online newspaper and a newspaper that’s on line. Here in Tucson we can use the Arizona Daily Star as an example of both of these forms.

Azstarnet.com is an online newspaper. It exhibits all the Star’s stories, plus some extra features, but in a form that indexes them by category. There is another version of the Star available that simply reproduces each page of the paper for you to leaf through as you would if it were spread out on the breakfast table.

Here at The Data Port this last form is the version we prefer. We miss fewer stories as the eye slides over every story on the page and the pages are less cluttered with visual distractions like ads and promos for other stories.

We’re long-term old-guard newspaper junkies so our preference may simply be a matter  of what we’re used to. Which you prefer is simply a matter of taste. “Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice.”

So…what sort of creature is TucsonCitizen.com? It is something more than a blogging platform like Blogger or WordPress. It bears the name of a major Arizona Newspaper; one which, when it ceased publication on May 16, 2009, was the oldest continuously published newspaper in the state.

The Gannett-owned TucsonCitizen.com emerged shortly thereafter as “The Voice of Tucson,” an online collection of volunteer content providers that Editor Mark Evans describes as, “ Bloggers and citizen journalists here (who) provide news, information, opinion, commentary and perspective on the issues, interests and events that affect daily life in the Old Pueblo.”

But are we a newspaper? Not yet, or not quite. We are still a fairly large and complex bulletin board. You can learn a lot about a community by reading the notices on a bulletin board. You quickly learn what the passions and interests of a fairly small cross section of your citizens are, but they are not put in the context of what else is going on in the whole community.

Context is what raises mere data to the status of news.

Newspapers struggle on the brink of bankruptcy as circulation and readership decline and as the average reader slips further away from the most desirable demographics. Journalism experiments with new strategies, the TucsonCitizen is one such, although not yet as successful as some of us hoped when it was launched.

One of the most successful of the new journalistic experiments is Forbes Magazine. Forbes.com has flourished under a model that its leader, Lewis DVorkin calls “entrepreneurial journalism.’ This is a combination of paid reporters identified as ‘staff’ and bloggers identified as ‘contributors.’ Some contributors are pure volunteers who write at Forbes.com to “brand up” their resumes but others are paid according to page views. The project has been very successful.

There’s a good article at the Guardian. Click here.

Those are not the only reasons that people write, but they are powerful motivators. I don’t believe that many people set out on the grueling task of writing a novel hoping that they will become “mute inglorious Miltons.” They hope to be known; they hope to be read.

And they hope, in the end, that being read they might quit their day jobs and write full time. Writing full time is not an easy row to hoe. It’s  bloody hard work if you’re trying to do it clearly and well and  day after day.

Here at the TucsonCitizen the majority of the content providers are unpaid bloggers. (Columnists, Reporters, Citizen Journalists.) It’s always been “no pay” in the blogosphere. Bloggers have something to say that they want other people to read and for the most part have been grateful for a platform that allows them to grind their own axes without the benefit of editorial supervision. Being paid was not a primary requirement.

But…and there’s always a but…being paid is no bad thing, and not for the reason you may suspect. Being paid, even at pitiful freelance rates, keeps you working at the craft.

MS DataPort and I have been writing for pay for the best part of 35 years. Not enough to leave our day jobs, and not always the grandest material, but certainly enough to allow us to call ourselves professional writers. Here’s what we’ve found.

When an editor says, yes she’d like a piece on the latest trends, and she’d like it in two weeks, you deliver in two weeks and cheerfully do the rewriting she requires. Why? Because, even though you’re getting paid in pauper’s pence, that’s what professionals do. The promise of a buck or two keeps you writing despite the demands of your day job.

If you are only a volunteer it is too easy to put off until tomorrow what you put off again until the day after that.

Regular visitors to the Tucson Citizen may remember more than one blogger who joined us all excited  and enthusiastic only to fade from view when it turned out that blogging was harder and took more time than expected.

Two of my favorite blogs, gone but not forgotten, were  “God Blogging” and the ever conservative “Fort Buckley.” These were wonderfully written blogs…but I imagine the demands of day jobs put paid to their appearance here. I don’t know if being offered a buck or two would lure them back…but it would be worth a try.

Next: Bulletin Board or Newspaper?

Ads for miraculous Snake Oil cures are a bad journalistic practice. Is it really responsible to run boiler-plate ads disguised as “information pieces” or “news stories.” I don’t believe so.

On February 19 three such ads appeared in the Arizona Daily Star.

The first, occupying a half page of A14, asked the question, “Could this tiny pill put your doctor out of business?” Apparently not, as a disclaimer running along the bottom of the ad read:

“These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat,cure or prevent any disease. Results may vary.”

Well, I suppose so. But if you call toll free they will send you a sample.

The Second ad opened with the bold headline, “FDA Warnings may have saved my life.”

The pitch here is that certain commercially available antacids have dangerous side effects that can be completely avoided by taking “Aloecure” to balance stomach acid.

The  small print disclaimer at the bottom reads:

“These statements have not been evaluated by the food and drug administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The individual portrayed in this story is fictional. Aloecure is not a drug. If you are currently taking a prescription drug you should consult your doctor before use. For the full FDA warning please consult http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm213307

The third ad, which has appeared more than once recently, doesn’t actually offer a medicine but rather information about a low level laser procedure that promises “To help almost every health problem ever experienced by a human being.”

The disclaimer?

No medical treatment claims made or implied. Products are sold for veterinary use. Your results will vary.

Nearly ten years ago the issue of preposterous snake oil ads came up and I wrote what follows in the Desert Leaf. I doubt I could make myself any clearer now than I did then.

My morning paper has become my medical advisor, promising miracle cures for whatever ails me from joint pain and tobacco addiction to the heartbreak of erectile dysfunction.

Full page ads offer a three month supply of  cures or balms that have (gasp) completely escaped the notice of the medical profession. Their ingredients are absolutely guaranteed to be natural and efficacious and there’s a money-back deal if  I’m unhappy or unrelieved. Just return the unused portion for a complete refund!

How do I know these wonders work, or that they’re safe, or that they won’t go to war with other medications that I might be taking? Well, there are testimonials.

Mr. JB of Dismal Seepage Nebraska writes: “Your wonderful product has transformed my life, blessings on you.”  That sort of thing.

Most important, of course, is the fact that these advertisements appear in the daily paper, the publisher of which has assured us of journalism’s commitment to community service and the fearless defense of truth. Surely  newspapers wouldn’t publish false, misleading, or possibly injurious advertising would they?

Of course they would, but it’s not their fault  The defense of truth doesn’t extend to the copy in the ads.  You see there’s this “Chinese Wall” that protects the reporting and editorial side of the newspaper business from influencing, or being influenced by, the folks on the business side. The right hand never knows what the left hand is doing.

This is supposed to guarantee  an independent  press. It is also a convenient way  for the news and editorial folks to dodge responsibility for outrageous advertising while simultaneously reaping its financial benefits.

Newspapers that publish snake oil advertising  do journalism a disservice. Rightly or wrongly these ads tend to pick away at readers’ belief in the reliability of everything they read in the paper.

Worse, this advertising is aimed at people who are desperate to relieve their arthritis pain, or lose weight, or recover their “vigah.” They may not be able to afford regular medical attention, or be embarrassed to discuss intimate physical details, but whatever the situation they are natural targets.

The defense of this sort of ad generally has two parts.

The first part argues that everyone knows  the pretty girl in the ad doesn’t come with the convertible. Readers are smart enough to know that, and they won’t be taken in by outlandish claims.

But they are taken in by such claims, which is exactly why the nostrum hucksters pay for full page ads. They know such ads work.

The second defense is the “reasonable care” defense, which argues that although ad copy is looked at,  there just isn’t time to do the detailed investigation of every piece of copy..

Where should papers draw the line?

Well, why not draw the line at camera-ready copy that promises miracle cures?

At least make a phone call to check. An ad in the Arizona Daily Star, for a product called “Joint Ease CMO,” recently guaranteed arthritis sufferers pain-free movement in 10 days. This was slyly contrasted to a doctor’s prescription for a “number of complicated and expensive therapies that only result in slow or partial recovery.”

This wonder concoction was unknown to the local Arthritis Foundation.

If some poor doofus buys a convertible and finds it doesn’t attract beautiful women at least his disappointment will be softened by the fact that he has a very nice car.

The man or woman who is persuaded to hazard both money and health by literally swallowing substances that at best may simply not work and at worst may have unknowable physical consequences is out either money or health. Possibly both.

What strikes me as odd about the continued appearance of ads like this is that responsible people at the Star used to know better.

In June of 1996 the Star published an ad for a weight loss product, a “Triple Medical Breakthrough,” that was supposed to blast  off up to 49 lbs. in 29 days. A number of readers took exception to  the ad, which seemed preposterous on the face of it but far too alluring to the desperate.

Reporter Laura Brooks investigated and found that the claims made were balderdash.

The Star published her story and Managing Editor Bobbie Jo Buel was quoted as saying, “In one sense the ad is laughable. It’s just so outrageous in its claims. But on the other  hand, if any thinking person knows it’s not true, then why did we take the ad?”

A good question then, a good question now.

Maybe the ads are run for their entertainment value. I loved the  August 21^st ad for Ultimate Desire Testosterone Releaser. The active ingredient in this product is said to be found naturally in the human body, in meats, and in “the pollen of the massively erect Scotch Pine tree.”

Massively erect? Gosh I wish I’d written that!