In issue #272, the Journal summarized its long search for online comics journalsm with a report card that rated the most prominent comics-news sites according to how well they put into practice basic journalistic principles. After carefully monitoring The Pulse, The Beat, The Comics Reporter, ICv2, Newsarama, Lying in the Gutters and The Comic Wire for a two-month period, the "report card" noted how many reported stories on each site were devoted to selling products, consisted simply of links to other sites, reprinted press releases verbatim, included critical analysis, or involved follow-up or contact with news sources. Out of a total of 2,233 monitored stories, only three earned the right to be classified as journalism according to the standards applied by the Journal.

What were those standards? A story was considered journalism if 1) it was about a newsworthy topic or issue, not just selling a product or promoting a company; 2) the reporter asked questions of people; 3) the sources of the story's perspectives and information are identified; 4) the story reflected the reporter's research into the context and implications of the story's subject.

Overall, the results were pretty dismal, and, though, for the most part, the sites in question had never promised to do more than entertain comics fans and promote the comics industry, the Journal lamented that, in the limitless time and space of the World Wide Web, no time or space had been found for the pursuit of serious comics journalism.

For this concluding segment of the series, the Web reporters were invited to have the last word, whether they wished to defend themselves, further the Journal's analysis, refute the Journal's criticisms, promise to do better or explain the importance of Clive Owen. Matt Brady of Newsarama and Jonah Weiland of Comic Book Resources' The Comic Wire had declined to talk to the Journal on the record during the series, and they continued to hold to that policy. Weiland politely turned down this last opportunity to comment and Brady maintained a stubborn -- one might even say brooding -- silence. Jen Contino of The Pulse shrugged off the Journal's mean-spirited accusations of Pollyanna-ish industry cheerleading, remarking, "I have no gripes," and asking only that the Journal mention The Pulse's URL. Heidi MacDonald promised repeatedly to try to respond, but her own deadlines ultimately kept her from meeting the Journal's. That left Veitch, Spurgeon, Griepp and Johnston to defend the honor of online comics news, and their responses follow -- with the exception of Spurgeon's. Spurgeon at first pleaded that a busy schedule kept him from responding to the series, but at the last minute sent in a fairly grumpy commentary, which he directed should be run, if anywhere, on the Blood & Thunder letters page. You will find it there in this issue.

If the Journal hoped to see signs of repentance or new resolve in the subjects of its report, that wish did not materialize, but the series did at least hand Veitch a hearty laugh, in a whistling-past-the-graveyard kind of way. Veitch also raises an interesting question about how the effects of the comics Web community might be seen as a microcosm of how the Web is affecting society at large. As for his comments about the Journal, readers can decide how much spine the magazine lacked in its coverage of Fantagraphics' financial problems in 2003 by checking out the Newswatch article in issue #254. Griepp's response is as succinct and uncontroversial as a typical ICv2 report. Johnston questioned some of the statistics reported in the Journal's two-month chart, and we review those numbers in the Court of Appeals sidebar accompanying this article. Otherwise, having promised respondents the last word, the Journal will make no further comment, but the series will be posted in its entirety on the tcj.com website where readers can see for themselves whether or not the Journal knew all along that it was talking to penguins.

Rick Veitch:

While it may be five years late to the party, it's probably a good thing that the Journal has finally decided to look at the various comic-news sites. Overall, I found the series quite entertaining, although not in the way Dean intended. Following our intrepid Newswatch reporter as he demanded "journalism" from those who don't claim to be journalists was not unlike watching a Mr. Magoo cartoon, where the old blind codger decides to go on a Florida vacation but boards the wrong train and ends up in the Arctic. In his last installment, Dean finally realizes he's been railing at penguins and admits: "Of course, none of the online reporters under review (except, perhaps, Brady) ever promised to provide anything other than what they are in fact providing," which is a relief.

Rather than focusing on a hastily erected straw man, I think readers would have been better served by an examination of how the immediacy and interactivity of the Internet has impacted the comics community. It seems entirely plausible to me that our inbred world of comics fandom might serve as an indicator for the larger questions facing civilization as it becomes more and more integrated and dependent on the Net.

I got another good laugh when Dean wrote: "Comicon.com co-proprietor Rick Veitch would seem to have high journalistic standards, based on his message-board comments, but in the sites he oversees, Heidi MacDonald, Jen Contino and Tom Spurgeon have racked up three strikes against those standards." Its funny because my only message-board comments concerning high journalistic standards were on the Journal's own board and involved me pointing to Newswatch's sudden lack of spine when it tried to report on Fantagraphics' business problems. Those criticisms were specifically aimed at a Michael Dean and Gary Groth. Why so coy, guys? (Note to online publishing young 'uns: I think I've discovered an infallible method of getting your name splashed in the Journal, month after month.) I would also mention a glaring omission in the list of individuals and sites Newswatch examined. Dirk Deppey published a cracking good comics-news-and-criticism blog right up until he was moved up the Journal totem pole a year or so ago. I may be wrong, but it looks to me like his sifting of online news sites for nuggets continues in the Journal Datebook that augments Newswatch.

Rich Johnston (after seeing the chart, but not the text of the article from Part 9):

Apparently I've run five articles that are verbatim press releases. This is false. I have run no press releases verbatim that I'm aware of. Apparently. I've run 15 articles based on press releases over a certain period. This is false. I have run no stories based on press releases that I'm aware of. Every story I write is based on a tip, or on my own observation. The majority of which I follow up on, the majority of which I contact people they concern.

Johnston (after seeing Part 8 in print, but still not Part 9):

The TCJ arrived in Gosh Comics! today, so I now feel I'm in a better position to respond.

Michael, Michael, Michael, you seem so disappointed that I'm not and have no intention to be another Michael Dean. I'm a full-time advertising copywriter, I write Lying In The Gutters on the side, and much of its nature is down to that specific fact. Nevertheless, there are pieces I would hope pretty much every week that might fit your preferred standards. A couple of weeks ago, the piece on downloading comics -- that almost all of Marvel's back catalog is documented as being available illegally on the Web. Or this week, legal responses to the allegations that Marvel may have been playing fast and loose with their share prices. Next week, a look at some hot-off-the-press small-press comics, the paper still warm. All mixed up with the latest DC leak that Supergirl is joining the Legion Of Superheroes. Something I've noted is lacking in your column, you serious-minded buffoon. Even the greatest and most serious newspapers recognise the need for such as I -- and indeed, so used The Comics Journal...

All I ask is you spell the URL right. It's http://litg.comicbookresources.com...

Oh, and did you know that Michael Doran, the originator of Newsarama has been working on and off for Matt Brady on Newsarama for the last few months? Maybe you should give him an exploratory e-mail as well...

Johnston (after seeing Part 9):

[Quoted from article:] "Its rumor concept would suggest that Lying in the Gutters would have no use for press releases, and that virtually all its stories would originate from private tips. Based on the Journal's study, that is not quite the case." That is the case. No press releases. No work based on press releases, unless it's occasionally mocking. Also a lot less stories come to me than you seem to think do. Unpaid creators come to me, not when they think it'll help them get paid -- at that point, they've all but given up hope -- but to let other industry workers know that "here be dragons." Creator assignments are almost never leaked to me in order that a company may sell more product. Experience has taught me that I've rarely been part of anyone's marketing plan. Considering that DC withdrew advertising from sites that have hosted my column, and Marvel have sought legal action to prevent me displaying certain images, and neither attitude has changed, I believe some of your conclusions about the service of selling product are erroneous.

Johnston (after the Journal suggested that even if Marvel and DC do not include his site in their marketing plans, creators who contact him with tips that amount to solicitation copy for their upcoming work may have more commercial motivations than just keeping their pal Rich up to date on their activities):

Creators have very rarely contacted me with that kind of copy... and even then against the wishes of the publisher marketing department. Usually it's stories I pursue based on something I've observed or overheard -- recently the Walking Dead hardcover was one -- saw Kirkman let slip a tiny mention on a board and badgered it out of him. Or Ellis working on Castlevania, after artist James Jean mentioned it on his website. Tiny mentions, ignored by everyone, which I've managed to open up into actual stories. This week has an exception -- running a piece on Mike Carey and Jock's Faker, which actually was taken from a DC con panel. However, it opened up why Fegredo wasn't drawing the book anymore, and that he'd jumped ship for Hellboy, and DC did their usual scorched-earth policy to his completed work. Still developing... All the recent DC stuff, one could imagine came from creators if not DC marketing staff. Not the case. There's a three-line whip at DC against contacting me. Thankfully, I have my sources... who either contact me or fall into conversation. Marvel, my sources fell away almost simultaneously when they stopped employing interns... not something I'd make that public, so I am developing other leads in there. Redoing statistics would be tiresome - but you might like to run similar on TCJ, purely for comparison's sake. Every single article and piece -- including anything written by Kenneth Smith.

Now bring back ¡Viva! As I stated, I always attempt to follow up stories with people involved. Rarely get anything on the record, but for example, it's clear policy that Marvel and DC get e-mails before print, to which they sometimes respond, sometimes not. Same goes for other publishers and creators. I just don't make a big thing about it in every piece, unless it's actually relevant... More on the benchmarks on Monday. Looking at a new casualty. Oh, and the problem I had with Brady's stats, wasn't so much that it was wrong, but that he was using it to bolster an argument he was creating that Diamond hadn't changed their terms -- when they had significantly.

Milton Griepp:

While we respect TCJ's views, ours differ. We think the 50 percent growth in our users over the last year demonstrates that we're giving retailers and other members of the trade valuable news and insight and are very happy with the content we provide them.

Online Comics Journalism Chart Court of Appeals

The court has heard the case of Rich Johnston, who denies ever running a verbatim press release or even a story inspired by a press release on his Lying in the Gutters site, although the Journal's report card chart in issue #272 records 15 press-release-inspired stories and seven verbatim press releases. On reviewing a couple of the days in question, the Journal found the following:

On Sept. 6, a report under the heading "Jimmy Incorrigible" does no more than quote Chris Ware's Amazon listing for a new edition of Acme Novelty Library #16 in its entirety. The copy is entertaining, but undeniably verbatim PR.

Another report the same day consists entirely of a ticket giveaway for a show by Simon Bisley's band.

Also on Sept. 6, under the heading "Clerks Comes Back to Comics," Johnston passes on an announcement of a new Clerks comics story made by Kevin Smith on the Fanboy Radio website.

On Sept. 12, Johnston reports "Kevin Smith has been letting out artwork finished years ago for Daredevil: Target #2 by Adam Kubert, originally intended to ship at the very beginning of 2002. He goes on to state the series will be out by summer 2006." This is the entirety of one post, accompanied by an example of the art referred to. The Journal can't help but feel that this art has been "let out" by Smith in order to promote the series' appearance next summer, and that Johnston is passing that promotion on to his readers.

Also Sept. 12, under the heading "Les Boys Do Cabaret," Johnston announces an upcoming collection of gay-themed comic strips, noting, "Originally published in Gay Comics, Buddies, Meatmen and elsewhere, these long out-of-print stories run the gamut from humour to hardcore, autobiography to adventure, with -- given that both parties are confirmed mainstream comics fans -- a big helping of superheroics and science-fiction."

That sounds more like promotional copy than the Rich Johnston that the Journal knows, but it's possible his advertising-day-job side surfaced for a minute, so we can give him the benefit of the doubt about how verbatim the post is. On the other hand, the post includes two links to press releases and not much else, so it's hard to deny that the report is tainted by the influence of commerce.

Also Sept. 12, under the heading "Tim He Is A Changing," Johnston quotes at length from promotional copy and excerpts from the upcoming The Essential Guide To World Comics. He adds nothing to the quotes other than the date and location of an announced signing by the books' authors.

A jokey post, also on Sept. 12, has Johnston resisting an overture from Jay Faeber that Johnston run a cover from his Noble Causes comic. On discovering that the cover depicts two women kissing, he agrees to run it. A joke, certainly. But still PR.

It's not a crime to run any of these posts, which may well provide a service to some readers, but neither can they be considered hard-hitting journalism -- and, while the court is inclined to believe that Johnston does not routinely rely on press releases for his reports, these "stories" are clear examples of Lying in the Gutters' participation in the marketing of products.

On the positive side, after reviewing Johnston's Sept. 12 report on Diamond's new distribution cut-off guidelines, the court feels it should have been classified as honest-to-god journalism -- one of only four examples found on any of the comics-news sites during the two month period. The report meets all of the Journal's criteria for journalism, since it tackles an important issue, places it in context and includes at least one identified primary source.

All site contents are © 2002