Portland prides in one of the best-rated street newspapers in the world. Since 10 years ago (not counting its previous incarnations
The Homeless Times and the
Burnside Cadillac)
Street Roots literally brought over a million dollars to vendors, creating a viable and flexible income source. At the same time Street Roots has earned a great respect in the community and even become a fairly recognized brand name in this city.
As someone who has lived in the City of Roses for over 11 years, I have seen how far
Street Roots has come in terms of quality.
But there are a couple of questions about the publication and its business model that beg for an answer.
Yes,
Street Roots is indeed "the most improved" street paper, and circulation (according to SR's own figures) is on the rise (this is solely based on the number of copies sold wholesale to the increasing number of vendors; it does not account for unsold papers, and thus lost money some vendors may have gambled on a sizzle offered by SR's recruitment fliers).
But are people really buying the newspaper to read, or is the perception of the public still in the area of SR being a glorified panhandling? Is the newspaper delivering the value for that dollar? Is SR something that has contents that one wants to pay $1 for?
In this state of economy, extra disposable incomes are shrinking for many, and frivolous spending such as newspapers and magazines is among the first to be cut. There needs to be therefore more reasons to buy papers, and that is not just appealing to people's pity. To some extent, at least certain portions of the publications need to appeal to the
lowest common denominator of humanity.
Perhaps the newspaper could have taken the approach of the
Big Issue, with a wider audience appeal and entertaining yet informative content. Instead, SR has become a propaganda apparatus that pits the people whom it purports to represent, against the very people who are buying the papers. Rather than building bridges between the social and economic gaps, SR advocates class war -- with little room for dissenting opinions or the opposing views. Some may call this approach an "advocacy journalism," but is it any different from the
Pravda, the
People's Daily, or the
Granma, or the
Rodong Sinmun?
This in no way implies that I am attacking the fine publication or any of the people who are behind it--certainly not Joanne Zuhl or Israel Bayer--and of course not the vendors. But in recent issues of the
Street Roots articles published are beginning to look more like doom-and-gloom stories from some apocalyptic sect. In many cases, stories presented are one-sided and no one appears to be making a good-faith effort to present different points of view. For example, what about the local independent businesses such as the Peterson's, or the SaySay Boutique, or whatever, that have been affected adversely by the recent upsurge of the street-homeless population (especially the former, who is at the brink of losing its flagship store)? What about their sides of the stories -- of trashed doorways, used hypodermic needles in mailslot (this actually happened at a certain business on Southwest 12th Avenue)? With its one-sided advocacy for one's right to sleep on sidewalks and under the bridge (what about one's right to the American dream? The pursuit of happiness? Upward mobility?), the "homeless advocates" of today in Portland are creating a further disconnect and creating a bigger resentment.
Sometimes,
poverty pimps exist in both social service sector
and in the political activist sector.
Last week's so-called "truth commission" put together by Sisters Of The Road, for example, presented only one side of the story -- and for that matter, "the other side" seems to be not even invited. Where was Jeff Myers, or Mike Kuykendall in that meeting?
Perhaps Portland needs the second street publication. Initially not as a competition but as a means to complement where
Street Roots leaves out, but eventually as a formidable rival to be reckoned with--with a healthy competition in the free market of both ideas and economy, inspiring to raise the standard of street papers and to improve the quality of the life for those involved.
Enter the
Bridgetown Ambassador.
The main difference between
Street Roots and the
Bridgetown Ambassador is that we do not seek to become a political propaganda piece for one segment of our society. Instead, we attempt to bring together different fragments of what makes Portland such a fantastic place. While the
Bridgetown Ambassador maintains its focus on social justice we are also for creating economic opportunities through free enterprise and individual initiatives. The BA's strength is its emphasis on human interest, arts and culture, as well as thought-provoking news coverage and social commentaries that inspire dialogues.
Bridging the communities, from the streets…to the streets.
This is just starting. There exists a ground-floor opportunity.
Find out what is new at
http://www.b-ambassador.info.ms/ 
