Not for Sale
Psst! Hey, buddy! Want to buy a story?
Sorry, wrong publication.
Every so often, a local business owner will ask us, "How much does it cost for a story in Desert Exposure?" I hope that this question surprises you, but it no longer surprises us very much. The media universe has become polluted, alas, and you can't really blame people if they don't understand the difference between editorial content and advertising. Not when media outlets themselves continue to blur that line.
For the record, then, editorial space in Desert Exposure is not for sale. And that's not because we don't value advertising or our advertisers — indeed, advertising and advertising alone makes possible the publication you hold in your hands. The fact is, we value our advertisers so highly that we are committed to making every issue of Desert Exposure as compelling and hard to put down as it can be. We serve our advertisers best by delivering readers' undivided attention to the stories in each issue — the stories conveniently adjacent to their ads.
According to our most recent reader survey, we're doing a pretty good job at that: Desert Exposure readers spend an average of more than two hours with every issue. An advertiser who's pondering whether to invest in our pages or in some other publication might do well to ask how much time readers spend with an issue of Brand X. (If Brand X doesn't know the answer, it could be because they're afraid to ask.)
We don't believe our advertisers are well served, in contrast, by sales pitches masquerading as editorial content. Readers are smart enough to skip over those pages — proliferating like locusts in many glossy magazines — that publishers call "advertorial." That's a bastardized term for content either not interesting enough or sufficiently germane to the publication's editorial focus to make it onto the page through the editorial front door.
What does it take for a story to make it into Desert Exposure? That's simple: It must be fresh, interesting and somehow illuminating about life in Southwest New Mexico. If such a story happens to also make it easier to sell ads, all the better. But our job editorially is to bring the readers to the advertisers, and stories that don't engage our readership ultimately fail our advertisers, too. Nobody benefits from an ad-packed publication that nobody bothers to pick up.
Now let's be honest here. When we start mulling over what to spotlight in upcoming issues, of course we often think of our advertisers first, where appropriate. Just as our readers know these enterprises better because of their advertising presence, so too are these folks top of mind for our staff. If we've never heard of you, it's hard to work up a story idea.
Does that mean non-advertisers can't break into our pages (except, say, as the object of scandal or bad news)? Of course not. Consider the monthly "spotlight" that leads off Donna Clayton Lawder's popular Business Exposure column. There's no denying that the column has spotlighted many businesses that are also advertisers — again, we're more likely to know their stories and to know they'd make interesting copy. But the April column spotlighted Junga Juice in Las Cruces — not an advertiser. The next month, for the Tour of the Gila Bike Race, we looked at Silver City's two bike shops — Gila Hike and Bike, a regular and long-time advertiser, and Twin Sisters, which has not been an advertiser for years.
Or take our now-monthly "Red or Green?" restaurant review. Our primary criterion for picking a restaurant to cover is what's new on the dining scene; after that, we look at what major eateries we have yet to review. So in May we reviewed Spaghetti Western (an advertiser) in Silver City, which recently made some major changes. In June we caught up with Campos in Deming and last month we reviewed the new St. Clair Bistro in Mesilla — neither one an advertiser. This month we visit Adobe Springs, a Silver City favorite that's under new ownership; it's not an advertiser — though of course we hope the new owner will make that one of her changes!
We hope you'll understand, too, if — being only human — we grumble sometimes about places that deluge us with press releases but never, not even occasionally, buy an ad. The advertising, after all, pays to print that information! Yes, we feel a bit like the Little Red Hen sometimes. But if readers need to know the information in those press releases, we try to find room for it, anyway.
Conversely, just because you're an advertiser — and please know we love you for that — doesn't necessarily mean your business is something Desert Exposure's audience will want to read about. Don't take it personally! Remember, our number-one priority is to create content that will bring readers to your ad — that's what you're paying for.
So, dear reader, if you pick up a publication where every article seems all-too-perfectly matched with an ad about the very same enterprise, beware. The editors may not place serving you at the top of their agenda. The articles may not be presenting a balanced view of the subject at hand. The publication, indeed, may not be worth the investment of your precious time.
Similarly, dear advertiser, the publication that tries to lure your business with the promise of editorial coverage may not be delivering the reader eyeballs you're paying for. Think about it: If the article weren't about your business, would you read it? Nope, you'd skip ahead in search of real content — and so will the potential customers you'd like to reach.
There's a reason, in short, why even in a 100-percent ad-supported periodical like this one it's better for all concerned not to muddle editorial content and ads. It lets us create the most reader-engaging publication we know how to do, which in turn attracts the most readers to the paid advertising. It lets readers know they can trust what they find in our pages. It lets us sleep at night.
Judging by the issues so far this year — each of which has been bigger than the same month's edition the year before — that little formula is working pretty well. So if you enjoy what comes between the covers of Desert Exposure, please take a moment this month to thank a couple of the advertisers who make it possible. If you'd also care to pester somebody who doesn't advertise but ought to, well, that's certainly your right as a reader, isn't it?
The Road to Damascus
Senator Pete Domenici sees the light — sort
of — on Iraq.
We'd like to think that Senator Pete Domenici's change of heart on Iraq last month was prompted by our recent editorial wondering why New Mexicans put up with his stance on that and other issues ("Pete and Re-Pete," May). But we're sure that, as the senator explained in calling for a change in Iraq strategy, Domenici was motivated more by his phone calls to the loved ones of fallen New Mexico soldiers. Increasingly, those families have been asking him, as one grieving father put it, "if you couldn't do a little extra — a little more — to see if you can't get the troops back."
Thank goodness someone could get through to New Mexico's senior senator. It's just a shame that 3,590 brave Americans had to die before Domenici became, as he described his changed position, "more and more quizzical" about the Iraq mess.
Domenici has now signed on to support a resolution that would make the almost-forgotten Iraq Study Group Report the nation's official policy. "This should result in a significant reduction of combat missions for the US troops and place much more of the burden where it belongs — on the Iraqis," he said in an Albuquerque news conference early last month.
The senator is not, however, calling for an immediate troop pullout — or even a timeline for withdrawal — nor will he back a cutoff of funding for the war. That led Democrats and anti-war activists to dismiss Domenici's shift as mere talk from a senator facing re-election next year. As Greg Richardson, spokesman for the New Mexico chapter of the "Iraq Summer" campaign, put it, "Talk's very cheap these days — especially for vulnerable Republicans running for dear life from the president's tragically failed policies in Iraq . . . We were at first very encouraged to hear Senator Domenici's comments calling for a new course in Iraq, but what are we supposed to think now that the senator's idea of taking action is backing a completely toothless, non-binding bill that offers no deadlines and does absolutely nothing to safely and responsibly get our troops home? That's not just disingenuous — that's cowardly. The people of New Mexico just aren't going to buy it."
We, too, wish that Domenici would go further. But his eroding support for the war adds to the pressure from other key Republicans in the Senate — to date, including Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia and Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio — for a new Iraq policy. Ultimately, it's the scales falling from GOP senators' eyes that offers the best chance for beginning a US disengagement before January 2009.
Such inside-the-Beltway maneuvering may not be as satisfying to war critics as calling for President Bush's impeachment. But the fact is, barring some stunning revelation a quantum level of magnitude worse than this administration's numerous sins against the Constitution to date, George W. Bush is going to occupy the White House for almost another year and a half. The votes aren't there and no one who matters in Washington has the stomach for impeachment.
At least for now, the votes aren't there, either, to cut off funding for the war effort. A few more disastrous months of the US "surge" might change enough minds, but administration supporters will leap to disingenuously label any funding cutoff as "abandoning our troops."
No, the best hope for the US in Iraq likely lies with senior members of the president's own party like Pete Domenici. Not only must these senators call press conferences and publicly voice their doubts; they must also voice their concerns privately, with the president. Domenici and his colleagues must troop to the White House and be brutally candid with a president who's lost the support of the American people and is increasingly losing his grip on reality. (President Bush's July 4 speech likening the Iraq quagmire to the American struggle for independence in 1776 sounded more like a "Saturday Night Live" sketch than a statement from the commander in chief.)
Domenici and other key Republicans need to look George W. Bush in the eye and tell him, "Mr. President, the war in Iraq is destroying our army, our country, our party and your presidency. If you don't end it, we will join with the Democrats and end it for you."
Does Pete Domenici have that kind of courage? Let's hope so — before he has to make any more phone calls to the families of New Mexico soldiers killed in Iraq.
Reality Check
Congressman Steve Pearce needs a chat with his GOP
colleague.
Courage, unfortunately, is what was most notably lacking from Representative Steve Pearce's reaction to Senator Domenici's call for a change in Iraq policy. Callow pandering to simplistic flag-waving and fear would be a better characterization of Pearce's statement: "I support the troops and am committed to ensuring that they receive proper funding. As a combat veteran, I continue to believe that battlefield assessments are best made by the generals and commanders on the field."
Pearce then went on to haul out "our outrage when we heard of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center" — yet again erroneously conflating the Iraq war with the Afghanistan-based terrorists responsible for 9/11. "The terrorists we fight in Iraq and around the world have openly announced their 100-year plan to attack America and her allies. We should make all national security decisions with this in mind."
No, congressman, what we're fighting in Iraq is a civil war between sects that have been at each other's throats since the ink was barely dry on the Koran. And to the extent there are now terrorists in Iraq, it's largely because our ill-conceived involvement there has inspired and enabled them — while draining our ability to deal with the deadly Taliban in Afghanistan. Those are not questions of "battlefield assessment"; they are matters of facing the facts on the ground rather than clinging to the delusions of neocon war planners who believed the Iraqi people would welcome us as "liberators."
Steve Pearce needs an Iraq reality check. Maybe his GOP colleague Senator Domenici can take the congressman aside and talk some sense into him. Heaven knows, Pearce isn't listening to his constituents who are smart enough about "national security decisions" to realize America's Iraq involvement has hurt our security.
If American soldiers are still dying in Iraq come November 2008, perhaps the people of New Mexico's Second Congressional District will give Steve Pearce a reality check in language he can understand.
Finally, congratulations are in order for a couple of Desert Exposure contributors. John Catsis' essay, "The Bus Stops Here," published in our April 2006 issue, placed second in the newspaper category of the Outdoor Related Essays Contest of the Outdoor Writers of America, a national competition for members.
And we just learned that Bob Alexander, whose books of Old West history, Six-Guns and Single-Jacks and Desert Desperadoes, have been excerpted in our pages, won the 2007 Outstanding Book on Outlaw/Lawman History award. The honor, presented at the annual convention of the Western Outlaw Lawman History Association (WOLA) in Cheyenne, Wyo., was for Alexander's Desert Desperadoes, published by our own Gila Books offshoot. Desert Desperadoes, subtitled "the Banditti of Southwestern New Mexico," is available in paperback ($21.95) and limited-edition hardcover ($34.95) at local outlets including the Silver City Museum, Ol' West Mercantile, Desert Blossom Books, O'Keefe's Books, Holiday Inn Express and the Document Center in Silver City, JW Art Gallery in Hurley, Log Cabin Curio Shop in Pinos Altos, Doc Campbell's Post in Gila Hot Springs, Casitas de Gila in Gila, Mesilla Book Center and the Gila Cliff Dwellings Gift Shop, or directly from www.gilabooks.com.
David A. Fryxell is editor and publisher of Desert Exposure.