| Number 143 | February 1, 2002 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, This special edition of Nygaard Notes is the second-ever Nygaard Notes Pledge Drive. Although I should do this at least once a year, the last time I did this was ‘way back in August of the year 2000. The next one will be in six months or a year, I hope. Here's what a Nygaard Notes Pledge Drive is, in a nutshell: I'm asking readers to make an annual donation, kind of like a subscription; I'm calling it a pledge. It's voluntary, so no one will stop getting Nygaard Notes if they choose not to make a donation. But I hope many of you do find it in your hearts to make a contribution. The official pitch appears elsewhere in this edition of the Notes. This is the only issue that will be entirely devoted to raising funds; the remaining three issues in the month of February will be sort of back to "normal," although each will have a little "reminder" section on such subjects as why you might want to support independent media in general, a look at how your pledges might be used, and maybe something else if I feel like it. This particular issue of Nygaard Notes is made up of three parts: The basic appeal; Some ideas on how to calculate the amount of your donation; and an entertaining parable that may shed some light on the need for funds. If you already know you want to donate, and you already know how much, you may want to just read the parable (because it's interesting) and skip the rest. It's been about three-and-a-half years since I started publishing Nygaard Notes. There are currently about 650 subscribers, and I am aiming for 20,000. That's an arbitrary target but not a random one—I.F. Stone's Weekly, after which Nygaard Notes is loosely modeled, had a peak circulation of about 20,000 subscribers. Not too many readers, but quite inspiring and useful to those who did read it, and influential beyond its size. Sounds good to me! Nygaard Notes is a political project, not a business, so I will never require that people send me money in order to receive a subscription. But, while it is not necessary for each individual to donate to Nygaard Notes, it IS important that many of you do. In coming weeks I'll explain what your donations might make possible for Nygaard Notes in the coming year. Like the public radio pledge week, I imagine this special edition will be annoying to some people. I apologize, but I don't see any way around it. It won't last long. Next week I'll have more comments about the War on Terror (The WAT?!), and more comments on the media. Thanks for whatever you can do, Nygaard |
|
|
I would like YOU, as a reader of Nygaard Notes, to consider donating an annual amount for your subscription. This is voluntary, meaning that NO ONE WILL BE TAKEN OFF OF THE NYGAARD NOTES LIST FOR NOT DONATING. I think of Nygaard Notes as a community resource, and one may think of this letter as the equivalent of a non-profit radio station's "pledge drive." As a point of reference, I can state that if every one of the current subscribers pledged just TEN dollars per year, that would make up well more than half of my income. Now, I don't expect every subscriber to pledge, but I do expect some readers to pledge more than $10. Maybe some will pledge $50, or $100, or....who knows? The last time I did this, the pledges ranged from $5 to several hundred dollars, and each and every one was much appreciated. To help you calculate what is fair for you, I give some ideas of how to think about it in the following essay "How Much To Donate?" Whatever you decide, make your check payable to "Jeff Nygaard" and send it to: Nygaard Notes Donations are not tax-deductible, I'm sorry to say. |
|
There are at least three different ways to think about this. 1. The traditional way is "How much is each copy worth to me?" I don't care for this method, since it implies that the project is some sort of commodity for sale like a box of corn flakes, but it is one way to think about it. If this is your choice, here are some numbers: A pledge "year" I consider to be 44 issues. That seems to be how many I put out in a calendar year, although it's quite fluid, as regular readers well know. If each issue is worth a dollar to you, then you could send me $44. Fifty cents each? Then it's $22. If you would be willing to shell out a quarter for each issue, then a check for $11 is in order. You get the idea. 2. A second way to think about this is to relate your contribution to your own income or wealth. Are you willing to devote one or two hour's worth of your wages each year to supporting Nygaard Notes? Then send me that amount. If you make minimum wage, I am more than happy to accept $5.15 or $10.30 for your annual subscription donation. If you make closer to the average household income, then you would make an annual contribution of something like $18 to $36. Using this yardstick, the average American physician would send me $90 to $180 per year. You get this idea, too, I'm sure. In a related way, you could send one-tenth of 1% of your net worth. For the average household, this would be $37. (For help in figuring out your own wealth, the average household income, etc., see Nygaard Notes #138.) 3. Some of you may want to set your own arbitrary annual amount and send that along. Fine. Not everybody likes to formalize things like I do. The point is that I will record whatever you send and then I will contact you 44 issues later and ask you to renew your pledge. I even send pre-addressed and stamped envelopes! If you want to earmark the money in some way, or donate something other than money, go to the Nygaard Notes website and check out the section entitled "Help Nygaard Notes," found by clicking on the "Contact NN" link on the front page. Thanks to all of you who renewed your pledge without my even asking. Again, this is totally voluntary. No one will stop getting Nygaard Notes for lack of a donation. Also, this is not Enron, so your pledges don't get you any special treatment. (Oops, I forgot: the President told us that Enron got nothing in return for its contributions. My bad.) In any case, all Nygaard Notes readers get the same treatment, money or no money. |
|
Here is a record of some recent high-level communications between two media powerhouses, The Washington Post and Nygaard Notes. Let it stand as a parable. The United States of America started bombing the country of Afghanistan on October 7th, 2001. It was immediately clear that this bombing campaign—whatever its virtues and justifications may have been, if any—was going to have serious consequences for the millions of Afghans in the country who were already suffering from years of drought, war, and the misrule of the Taliban. Calls for a halt to the U.S. bombing came from all directions, including from the Afghan Women's Mission, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, and a special call from a gathering of 1,500 Afghan elders and leaders that was held on October 24th in Peshawar, Pakistan. Various humanitarian organizations also condemned the U.S. bombings for their disastrous effects on the relief effort, noting that the bombing was increasing the number of refugees at the same time that it was creating conditions of disorder within the country that were making it extremely difficult to deliver food aid to those refugees. (The disorder and attendant disruption of relief efforts continues up to the present, it should be added.) It was with great interest, then, that I noted a brief paragraph at the end of a typical cheerleading story ("Taliban Front Lines Hit Hard") that appeared in the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of October 28th . The paragraph, under the heading "In Other Developments," read as follows: "Kenzo Oshima, the U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, dismissed calls for a pause in airstrikes to allow more aid into Afghanistan, saying the U.S.-led military assault had not significantly disrupted aid flow." Since this comment—from a credible source, in my view—completely contradicted everything I had been led to believe, I thought it was worth confirming (not that I would ever doubt the Star Tribune, mind you...) Using my considerable research skills, I looked high and low for any text or speech or press release from Mr. Oshima's office that included such a statement. None were found. So I took extreme measures: I called the Star Tribune. There was no byline in the Star Trib beyond "Washington Post," whence the story originated, and the Star Trib would not or could not give me the name of the reporter who produced the story. They suggested I call the Washington Post, although they could not give me any contact information in their office. So, on or about October 30th I E-mailed the Washington Post, identifying myself as a freelance journalist, and asked them for the source of this provocative and highly-newsworthy quotation. Then I waited. Then I waited some more. Finally, three weeks later, I received a response from Jennifer Lilly in "Customer Care" at the Post, telling me "We appreciate your interest in washingtonpost.com," and thanking me for my inquiry. She said she was "forwarding it to our Editorial staff to see if they can be of assistance." Here we are about three months later, and I have yet to hear from the Editorial staff at the Washington Post. The Moral of the Story is: Large media corporations don't, for the most part, consider themselves accountable to their readers. What they do is "appreciate our interest," meaning they appreciate us adding to their readership numbers, which boosts their advertising rates. The Special Meaning for Nygaard Notes readers: If I had more time and money, I could afford to be on the phone more, pestering the Post and other potential sources and following up in greater detail some of these important leads. That's partly what this Pledge Drive is all about. |