St. Louis has an abundance of publications beyond our sole daily paper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Other print media includes:, The Vital VOICE, The Riverfront Times, The Healthy Planet, Sauce, and others that focus on targeted areas such as The West End Word, the Webster-Kirkwood Times, The Pulse (Brentwood/Mid-County) and the Arch City Chronicle.
But which of any of these are independent media? The Post-Dispatch and Suburban Journals are now owned by Lee Enterprises, a publicly traded corporation, so clearly they are not so indy. The Riverfront Times was founded by local boy Ray Hartmann but is now owned by a Village Voice Media based in Arizona. A number of the above list are owned by single individuals — Pam Schneider owns the Vital VOICE, Jeff Fister owns The West End Word and JB Lester owns The Healthy Planet. These, in my view, all constitute independent media as no outside interests have an ownership stake — they are self supporting. Or perhaps they are now too mainstream to still be considered “indy?”
Which brings me to The Arch City Chronicle. While the publication started out small and truly independent its need to take on investors has, in my mind, called into question its “indy” status. This is not necessarily a bad thing, I get much information from non-independent media outlets. But publisher Dave Drebes and editor Lucas Hudson continue to cling to the labels “indy” and “alternative” for their publication. However, the ACC has some investors that help fund the paper — we don’t know who they are, what percentage they own or what kind of money we are talking about. Sorry guys, but independent you are not. I don’t care how many times you repeat it, the virtue of having secret private investors removes all chances of being independent in my eyes.
I’ve been critical of other print media in the past including St. Louis Magazine, the Suburban Journals and the Arch City Chronicle. The reactions, however, were quite different. The editor of St. Louis magazine emailed me after tearing apart an article they wrote, thanking me for the critical feedback. In doing the same with the ACC you’d think I dangled a baby over a balcony or something the way people reacted.
The lack of knowledge around the funders brings up my suspicious side — yes, a conspiracy theory (someone was bound to say it so I thought I might as well be the first). It is my belief the ACC has turned into a quasi front group for the local political establishment, seeking a hip venue for dispensing the status quo to the non-blue hair set. My proof? None. If I had any real proof you’d seen it in full glory here. What leads me to this, beyond the curiosity about the identity of the investors, are postings swayed toward a single candidate or the close association with political insiders like Lou Hamilton. I just don’t see the Post-Dispatch using images by Hamilton unless part of a press kit given to everyone.
The Arch City Chronicle has many virtues and many great individuals responsible for the final edition, but “indy” is just not something I can accept.
