Minutes 1/21/09
Introductions/Old Business
Explanation of pitches/where to send them (for new writers).
Governor interview in near future. Also Congressman later in the year. The interviewers for governor are those who worked a lot over winter break.
Explanation of Soapbox: meritocracy (based on commitment, etc. to magazine).
Advertising: Drexel Law, Penn Law possible advertisers
Editing Guide compiled over winter break (Nathan).
Discussion of soapbox features/experiences.
-New Business (new members leave)
Layout Change proposal: liberal/conservative scale (editors will decide where to put them). Besides making magazine more interesting, also preempts attempts to start a liberal magazine and conservative magazine (this would undermine Soapbox).
Opposing opinions: too hard to label something liberal/conservative. Might offend someone. Not enough articles take a side, etc.
Publication name change
Nantina on the subject: many people think the Soapbox is the Punchbowl. Also, Soapbox is not a very “legitimate” name, and having a more professional name would perhaps help its prestigious and attract more people.
Bob: If we change the name, change should be to something just as unique (example of TIME). Penn Political Review is boring and just like every other university magazine.
Members write down on sheet of paper their thoughts and give to Bob
End of meeting
Home