“Beats aren’t so much an objective taxonomy as a convenient management tool devised for an old technology…So instead of fixed beats, we structure our newsroom around an ever-evolving collection of phenomena — the patterns, trends and seismic shifts that are shaping the world our readers live in.” [emphasis added]

The really interesting “phenomena” are called “wicked problems” which lack a single “beat” to define them. Global warming, the war on terror, gun control. These are wicked problems.

I want to pull the thread of a “phenomenology of news” from Circa’s perspective, where that last phrase, “shaping the world,” becomes important.

If the goal of the news is to make sense of the world — then we must “model” the shape of the world with our stories. I would argue many traditional tools and processes reflect the world, but don’t model it. What is this distinction, and how does Circa get there? It starts with this mantra: At Circa we don’t write articles, we create storylines.

A VIEW OF JOURNALISM AS ART HISTORY

If journalism can be understood as “a first draft of history,” then let’s posit words are a medium and articles a canvass upon which we paint scenes, people, events and more.

The goal of most journalism is realism. Like the artists of theRealism movement (sometimes called Naturalism), journalists try to reflect the world accurately. They don’t take an artistic license in depicting subjects.

We can imagine a kind of “Impressionist” journalism where writers try to capture a feeling, an ephemeral truth (Hunter S. Thompson). But whatever artistic camp(s) we imagine, the bottom line is about capturing a moment or a time frame that looks back. It is capturing how light bounces off the world. Artists depict this, true to form or with an interpretive truth. They capture it in paintings. The journalist captures it in articles.

Like all paintings, however, articles are flat with only the illusion of three dimensions. Subject to interpretation, but never alteration — paintings and most journalism are a process of seeing light and capturing it like a mirror. It is reflective. Even the “live-blog” with its Pollock-esque emotional truth, a flurry of words, eventually comes to a rest.

But the world doesn’t rest…The next day Mona Lisa stopped smiling. The day after every article, circumstances change. At Circa we want stories to model the shape of world. The world moves — and so must our storylines. Or as ReadWrite put it:

Evolving over time is a very important concept in today’s media landscape. As was clearly apparent during the frenzy surrounding the Boston bombings last month, breaking news begins breaking first on Twitter, with uploaded photos and 140-character snippets of what may or may not be verified facts that then ripple nearly everywhere. Circa’s approach is to take the tools and tactics used to tackle a story of that magnitude and complexity and apply it to all its stories. Because journalism no longer fits a defined model of measurable length and finality, the idea of an article is now a fluid concept in Circa’s eyes.

As stories shrink and grow depending on the amount of information available and both the platform and device a reader is using, Circa wants readers to be able to get the most important facts first, subscribe to what they’re interested in and be able to check back for the more later without reading old news. “I’d say that the nature of our stories is very different as opposed to finite pieces of information,” [Circa's Matt] Galligan re-emphasizes.

AN EXAMPLE

Some things that were true about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 are no longer true. Former President Bill Clinton has come out against the bill he signed almost two decades ago. How did most news organizations react? They wrote new articles. They captured the newest reflection of truth probably with the historical context that Clinton originally signed the bills into law himself. But the old articles are left to waste, never capturing the truth that 16 years later Clinton denounced the bill. Anyone who was interested in the topic in 1996 is on their own to connect the dots. At best the connection made today is a link back to an article which is just a reflection of the world from 1996.

If Circa had a storyline about DOMA from 1996 it would have been dormant for some time, but activated again when Clinton came out against the legislation. We model a story by identifying the moments that push it forward and alerting “followers” about how it shapes the story.

But let’s be real, Clinton was just a sideshow to the wicked problem of same-sex marriage. He made his announcement because of another story — the Supreme Court hearing cases on Prop 8 and DOMA. In Circa one “point” in the story about Clinton andDOMA references the Supreme Court case and “links” to the evolving story about theSCOTUS court case and vice-versa. In this way, we capture both the dimension of time in each story (as described above between 1996 and today) but also the dimension of “space” and how different stories (DOMA/Clinton and Supreme Court hearings) are related to each other — constantly moving, impacting the other while shifting. The world is not flat and neither should stories be.

BACK TO A PHENOMENOLOGY OF NEWS

Via Wikipedia: “In its most basic form, phenomenology attempts to create conditions for the objective study of topics usually regarded as subjective.”

There is a movement of data-based journalism. It is amazing. But the vast swath of topics tackled by journalists is not based on numbers or discrete data. They are anchored to the social sphere. They involve subjects and subjectivity and as noted above, we have mastered the art of photo-realism in our articles, but our articles lack intentionality. They are merely there to reflect the truth of a moment. It is as if they exist to occupy space on a page rather than to model the world as it unfolds.

An article’s intention is to be a reflection. A new, perhaps more meaningful intentionality would be journalism (understood as the rough draft of history) that evolves with the story — to model the movements and its relationship to other stories. As that “story” changes, so too should the artifact used to model it. The intentional story of journalism can be “small,” like the 2013 NCAA championships. It can have an obvious start and a presumed end (stories can go dormant), but they are never “dead.” Even Margaret Thatcher’s obituary was updated during the memorial services.

And sometimes the intentional story of journalism can be…a wicked problem.

NO STORY IS AN ISLAND

Wicked problems are tough because they represent where many stories collide. They are a collection of stories. (See Clinton and SCOTUS above). One cannot understand the story of gun control in America without knowing about the Newtown Creek or Aurora Theater shootings. One must understand the NRA and its relationship to these debates — the legislation that is being written at the state level as well as the federal level. All of these stories are unique and evolving — but they are connected. (The connections in Circa stories can only be seen in the app for now. But hey — it’s free!) Like a statue you can walk around and observe wicked problems from multiple angles. The more “angles” of a wicked problem we can provide — the greater potential we have of achieving a kind of “Contrapposto” visual effect.

OBJECT ORIENTED JOURNALISM

Some, most notably Jeff Jarvis, have begun referring to Circa as “object oriented journalism.” I rather like this analogy because it plays off “model” and modeling the world in another way: Model/View/Controller.

At Circa, we are creating a database of facts, quotes, stats, events and images. We thread these together to tell an intentional storyline (a model). The view of that model changes based on editorial decisions about which points (from the database) are relevant at that time. Our “controller” mediates the relationship between various stories to each other (whether stories are linked together and at what point we make that association). Indeed — whenever we update stories I tell the team to “refactor,” which is literally a programming term, but is not a stretch to explain the editorial process we go through in order to keep stories relevant, up to date and clean.

WHERE DOES ALL THIS TAKE US?

Our charge as an organization is to provide meaningful information to the public — the same as traditional publications, but to question traditional processes and means of organizing the content. Indeed, our roots from the Moby Dick project are to question the phenomenology of the article itself. The method described above is something we are constantly refining. But I think it’s important to put it in a historical context, and that’s whyGideon’s piece for Quartz was such a breath of fresh air. It posited throwing away so much of journalism’s inheritance.

When you take nothing for granted, be it beats or articles, everything is up for grabs.

And this is a good thing. I’ve often described my career as trying to push the boundaries in transparency and participation in the process of journalism. For Spot.Us the transparency and participation was specifically around the funding models of journalism. In other words – Spot.Us was about making a kind of artistic statement to the journalism community as much as it was about funding journalism for the world. (Wait for future post on Art/craft and Journalism)

An important thing to note, however, is that crowdfunding is old old old. Spot.Us wasn’t the first crowdfunding website. It wasn’t even the first attempt to crowdfund journalism. It was, to my knowledge at least, the first PLATFORM to crowdfund for journalism.

Today crowdfunding is everywhere. It’s almost a strange mockery of what I envisioned. Within days of each other Donald Trump backs his own crowdfunding platform (gross) and Gawker uses IndieGoGo to try and pay for a damning video of Toronto’s mayor smoking crack (a potentially awesome use but very strange).

I still occasionally get asked questions about crowdfunding for journalism. Sometimes the questions feel strange and silly both mechanically and ethically. The most cliche question: “What’s the best way to raise money?” That’s not a fair question to answer. More importantly – I think it’s missing the point about crowdfunding’s potential role with journalism. It’s missing the forest for the trees. I fear the moment is slipping and some journalism organization needs to step up before the moment is way past us (maybe it already is).

PLATFORMS ARE IMPORTANT

One could argue the written word freed information for mankind, bringing on a more democratic and just society for all.

But the truth is – the power of the written word belonged to those who were literate – a small part of the population.

One could argue that Gutenberg’s printing press freed information for mankind, bringing on a more democratic and just society for all. And by that time literacy rates had risen!

But the truth is – the power of the printing press belonged to those who owned it – a small part of the population.

One could argue the Internet freed information for mankind. It no longer is cost prohibitive to express oneself to the world.

But the truth is – the power of the internet belongs to those who code on it. Just ask Matt Mullenwag, Mark Zuckerberg,  or David Karp.

Those who create the platforms… own and define the means of expression.

All code is political. 

Technology companies are media companies. Their power lay in creating platforms and every choice defines the type of media they enable. Netflix is a streaming video company. That’s not a mistake. Facebook is a “social utility” – that’s not a mistake. And thus – journalism companies must create platforms that will enable journalism – or hope that a technology company does it for them (hint: “hope” is not a strategy).

And this is why I say above the question on “what’s the best way to crowdfund” is not the important question we, as a professional community, should be asking ourselves. Certainly it is helpful. But to be honest – my answer isn’t rocket science. It involves lots of elbow grease, having a good project, etc. etc. (having a built in Andrew Sullivan audience doesn’t hurt either but getting there is more of the same “hard work, work smart, be a good reporter, etc).

But the more interesting and nuanced question, the question we aren’t necessarily asking ourselves is – what platforms can journalists use to enable their kind of media to be produced.

And so we get back to the question of crowdfunding. Which platform is the best for journalists? Ideally a platform that self-proclaims to have journalism at the core of their interests. Kickstarter is FANTASTIC – but their mission is to fund “creative projects.” IndieGoGo is great – but it’s interested in funding…. anything (?). There are a few crowdfunding platforms that aim to have journalism as a mission – but they have not really been embraced by the community they profess to serve. One could argue Spot.Us had the most warm embrace and is now owned by a media company, but it isn’t a stretch to say that not much has happened on Spot.Us since I left.

Dan Gillmor has warned the journalism community about our relationship with Apple, Twitter, Facebook and Google. These are the companies that build platforms (iTunes, social networks, YouTube, etc) that thus get to define the kind of media that is produced. We are at their mercy for better or worse (and who knows – maybe it IS for better).

I think the popular crowdfunding platforms are great – but there are ethical questions that need to be raised when already famous stars use it to raise money so they can work on their movie projects. There are logistical questions that need to be raised when an organization like ProPublica (which already asks for tax-deductible donations on its website) uses a crowdfunding platform to raise money (non-tax deductible donations) for a reporting endeavor.

Is it to try and reach a new audience? Perhaps. But then what are we really saying the crowdfunding platform is for? To solve a monetary issue or to reach out to hipsters? And how long does that gimmick really last? Is that building sustainability or buzz?

Ownership……  Who owns what in the case of a ProPublica project funded via Kickstarter. There are multiple levels.

I don’t profess to know anything deep or concrete. These questions feel very fleeting to me. But the questions are real and I am perturbed that we aren’t asking the right ones. Instead – we act a bit like we are enamored still with crowfunding as a concept. We are well past concept phase. We are now waiting to see how things shake up and who owns what. And that’s just what bothers me. It feels like we are waiting….

I am a judge for this year’s iReport Award hosted by CNN. Voting continues through the rest of this week. Vote here. Some of the applications were amazing. It was truly an honor (and a challenge) to be a judge.

I am also an advisor to: 2013 SXSW V2Venture. Which has an entry deadline FAST APPROACHING: Friday, May 31st

People talk all the time about the skills journalists need in the world of media entrepreneurship. I’ve written some lessons and ideas in the past. What is often left out of the conversation: The mental traits journalists need in the world of media entrepreneurship.

1. The Mental Aptitude for Immediate Ups and Downs

In any startup there are very high highs and very low lows. Sometimes these emotions are experienced within hours of each other…. There is no average day.

These feelings of highs and lows aren’t just theoretical. They are felt at a very real and gut level. In some of those moments you want to jump up and high five random people on the street. In other moments you want to assume a fetal position.

These emotional fluxes can be emotionally draining. Worse yet, they can lead to rash decision making. A journalist in a startup needs to be able to separate themselves from the visceral emotions that are inherent in any startup. These emotions will be felt every day and you cannot be a slave to your emotions, you have work to do. There is no ‘average day.’ I never say “Just another Wednesday,” because no Wednesday is like any other day. Each day is a roller coaster.

A Team Player

Yes – this goes for pretty much any job at any company. You need to be a team player and an effective communicator. But considering the emotional fluxes mentioned above, this becomes even more important. Not only do you need the mental toughness to ride your own emotional highs and lows – you need to be able to help lead your team through it (and EVERYONE must be a leader – see below). They are feeling the same things and if anything is contagious – it’s panic. Even if you can keep your own sense of steady – you need to be able to communicate and project that to the team and take their temperature in what is a never-ending volatile situation.

Haters Gonna Hate, But Criticism is Your Best Friend

You are exposed. You should be ready for trolls. I am honored to have what I consider “career trolls.” They do not have well-meaning intentions. No matter what I am doing, they will find a reason to hate on it. I used to let it get to me. This one, for example, I found rather obnoxious – I couldn’t even get a funny fake twitter account goddamit, it was mean spirited! Bottom line – these folks are not helpful ever – and you have to be ready willing and able to ignore them. Haters gonna hate.

That said, not everyone who has criticism or even negative comments is a troll and to dismiss them as such is doing yourself a disservice. If you are working on a project you have to be open enough to hear criticism and wise enough to recognize when it’s coming from a place that isn’t constructive.

Everyone is a leader

There are different kind of leaders. Genghis Kahn would lead from the front, Napoleon from the back. Some lead by example and others by inspiration. I would not prescribe how one leads, but you must be ready to. Because a team (see #2) is made up of individuals that have complimentary expertises. One could argue the ‘art’ of putting a team together is just trying to compensate for deficiencies. Everyone has their strength, and everyone must be able to lead when it comes to the territory of their strength in their own way.

With the obligatory “check out my new thing” link out of the way – let’s get to the more interesting ideas, lessons, etc.

For the “journalistic so what” of Circa – check out the Circa blog later this week. For personal reflections – check below.

1. On Keeping Your Head Down: I wrote about this for Spot.Us in detail but the lesson still applies. Focus on your stuff, your product, being the best you can be. Competitors exist. The market moves and you have to pay attention – but it doesn’t help to freak out every time you see something semi-related to your project. Keep your head down or you’ll never see the line in front of you.

Related to this was general mum-ness when it came to Circa. Throughout my time at Circa people have been wondering what we were up to. We weren’t trying to be coy – we just wanted to keep focused. The last thing we wanted was to over promise and under deliver.

This was very different from Spot.Us. It’s not that Spot.Us over-promised and under-delivered – but the nature of winning the Knight News Challenge meant the idea behind Spot.Us was out there in the ether. It was something I discussed. I answered questions about mechanics while we were still building the site.

Circa was very different. The idea behind Circa is out there – but to my knowledge nobody has wrestled it to the ground (see “journalist so what”) and rather then spend time answering questions about “what if’s” or mechanics – we kept our head down and focused on building it out.

2. On “MVP”: Minimal Viable Product: Very related: The importance of being iterative.

What you are seeing with Circa is a first swing. Due to the nature of what we are trying (again – “journalistic so what”) we’ve talked for hours on end about all kinds of cool features, ideas, designs, that could take the concept further, improve the reading experience and more. If we held off launch until we had implemented all of them – we’d never launch. A line has to be drawn in the sand. What you are seeing is one step past that line. Hopefully the minimal viable product (MVP) is enough such that a regular user can see the horizon and can think about features as well – and we will get to them (that includes you Android users). Or they may spit back in our face and point us in a different direction all-together. In any case – we can’t find out until we put it out there.

3. The value of understanding: In the journalism world there is often discussion about how much a journalist needs to know outside of journalism. Should they be versed as coders? Should they be in control of the business side. The conclusion I arrived at was validated with my experience so far at Circa – which is this; I myself am not a world class coder. I am not working on being a world class coder. In fact, I’m getting even more rusty than I was – when I only knew a little to begin with. I am not a business expert. I am not working towards my MBA. In fact, since arriving at Circa and leaving Spot.Us – I have had to think about money less.

BUT: I understand both of these worlds. What a developer does in their day-to-day isn’t “magic” to me. It’s just really hard work. What happens on the business side isn’t smoke and mirrors – it’s just careful management and balancing.

I understand the tradeoffs between coding quick and getting buggy software. The tradeoffs between picking and choosing features and having that tough discussion with development. I know this at the level of development lingo as well i.e.; refactoring code. They don’t need to stop and translate for me. This knowledge helps me work with the tech side and the business side. And we do work together… closely…. every day. Nobody works in a vacuum – we just have different expertise and speak slightly different languages. The imputes is on the journalist in the team to try and understand the lingo, the culture and the work flow that they have so we can sneak into it without causing any ruffles.

So what’s the lesson: You don’t need to be a world class developer to be a journalist working at a startup. But you do need to be well-versed and to understand what other aspects of the business are working on. And the other aspects of the business include technology, design, product, management, business, etc.

4. It never hurts to try something new.

Every passing minute is another chance to turn it all around. – Vanilla Sky

For those that didn’t know me before Spot.Us – the crux of my career has been around doing new projects and trying new things. I’m starting to make a habit out of it – good or bad. When it came down to the professional choice of joining Circa (I had an opening to join a more established news organization) I thought about my career and where I want it to go. I thought about bands like The Pixies or actors like Steve Buscemi who had years of underground and independent projects/hits before becoming more mainstream names. Indeed – they were independent icons in their industries and to this day their credibility is founded upon the “doing” they did that slowly but surely earned them kudos professionally and publicly. I’m not saying this can’t happen at established news organizations. But I still have that independent, startup drive. I love the creativity, the fluidity, the chance to make a statement (journalistic so what – last plug, I promise) that comes with starting from scratch.

I’m excited about Circa – to say the least. Not too long ago I wrote that most web technology companies are media companies and vice versa. The more I’ve thought about it – the more I believe this to be an accurate description. Circa is consciously a media/tech company.

And now – the ride really begins.

In any case: I’m doing my part once again as an advisor to the Fifth Annual SXSW Accelerator and spreading the word about your chance not only to get free SXSW tickets – but a chance to pitch your media related startup to known industry leaders and even some VC’s/Angels. There is value gained in every pitch. The more “real” the pitch – the more one gains in experience, feedback and opportunities. Well – it doesn’t get much more real than this.

2013 SXSW Accelerator: (more info here)

This event takes place on March 11 and 12 as a part of SXSW Interactive, during which you can improve your product launch, attract venture capitalists, polish your elevator pitch, receive media exposure, build brand awareness, network, socialize and experience all that SXSW Interactive has to offer.

The deadline to register is Friday, November 9, less than a few months away.

You may be asking yourself: “David, am I eligible to apply?”

Excellent question! To be eligible:

• A company’s product / service must have launched no earlier than March, 15, 2012.
• A company’s product / service must not be launched after June 15, 2013.
• Companies will be allowed to submit only one product / services.
• Founders of the applying startup must retain some portion of ownership in the company to be eligible to participate.
• Must not have raised over five million in funds from combined funding sources.

• Yes, a non-refundable $200 entry fee will be required from all applicants who would like to be considered for participation in the event. If this is an earth shattering problem – contact the folks at the Accelerator.
• You can apply under six different categories. I’m obviously reaching out to the folks interested in news technologies – but if you see another category you are interested in – go for it!

1.       Entertainment and Gaming Technologies – This category pertains to applications and technologies for film, music, television, and gaming, as well as new and hybrid forms of entertainment that are reinventing the ways in which we relax, unwind, and have fun

2.      Mobile Technologies – This category pertains to applications and  those technologies related to that which allows users to connect by portable devices such as tablets, phones and other connected devices.

3.       Innovative Web Technologies – This category pertains to applications and technologies that have the ambition to change the Web as we know it. Right now we’re seeing lots of innovation in real-time search, augmented reality, the “Web Wide World”, artificial intelligence and the Semantic Web, recommendations technologies, personalization technologies, and “big data”. But that’s just the beginning

4.      Social Technologies – This category pertains to applications and technologies that help people connect. With this category we’re looking for new and interesting uses, cases, as well as technologies that push the boundaries of how we find, follow and share information with others

5.       Health Technologies- This category is about patient-centric health applications and technologies that connect patients, families, physicians, pharmacists, care providers (hospital, clinics) and benefit providers-aka the care team-to share timely, relevant health data and drive better outcomes at affordable and sustainable cost levels.

6.       News Technologies- This category pertains to applications and technologies to support the dissemination of news and information for communities, both on the content side or on the underlying business model side (for example advertising). This could include technologies related to data, text, documents, mapping, engagement, among other areas.

This post is not about getting you to donate (although you should while time is left). In fact, I wanted to wait until after they reached their goal to post. This post is about what their Kickstarter represented – for me at least. And I hope it signals something similar to others.

First two disclaimers

1. I have a bias for the Amico’s in general: Chris Amico was actually the second reporter ever to use Spot.Us and the first outside person to sign up on the web app. Meanwhile Homicide Watch had raised money on Spot.Us in the past for specific reporting projects and I was happy to write Laura a letter of recommendation for the Neiman fellowship which partly put them in the predicament of needing to raise money to bring others onboard.

2. I didn’t actually contribute to the campaign at first – and that pained me. But after 4+ years of Spot.Us I have committed to curbing my philanthropic gifts to journalism. And again – this post is not about the specific campaign – but what I thought it symbolized. I was always confident they’d get their support.

To start: Kudos again to the Amico’s. Since the day I first met Chris at a pre-HacksHackers type meetup at the San Jose Mercury News I co-chaired called “CopyCamp” – I could tell he was a rockstar (but we all know the real brains behind the operation – Laura). And Kudos to Laura – through Spot.Us (to a small degree) and now Kickstarter to a bigger degree she is able to keep her passion going in a very legit way.

But there are the two major things that come to mind when I see their success. I probably sound like a Johnyy-Come-lately with the first point because David Carr already pointed it out and linked to a recent post from Alan Mutter that did an even better job. I read that Alan Mutter post and it hit a sore spot for me. I’m on the board of a few nonprofits now. I was neck deep in that space for several years. I can relate to the pain of not getting a grant and seeing larger, well funded organizations, that aren’t necc. doing the most interesting things or are even for-profits get a red carpet.

I never did write much about the interactions I had with folks in the philanthropic world. I obviously need to put a disclaimer that Spot.Us was funded by the Knight Foundation – but now that I’ve left Spot.Us you can decide for yourself if I have “skin in the game” or not (I am currently working at a for-profit startup):

But I will say – Knight is far and above the most transparent, accessible and open minded journalistic philanthropy organization I encountered (they funded me when I was a 25 year old kid with a crazy idea … I like to think I made good on that grant). Most other philanthropic journalism organizations are missing the boat and the proof is in the pudding. I am not surprised Homicide Watch got nothing but closed doors. So did Spot.Us (I have interesting stories and anecdotes to share here) with most other philanthropic organizations. And I think they should take heat for that and funding other (un-named) projects that might do great journalism – but are trying to spit into a content hole the size of the Grand Canyon.

So Point One: There is a problem when a project like Homicide Watch can’t seem to get its footing via traditional philanthropy. An excellent counter-point here is J-lab’s Jan Schaffer on the difficulty in selecting where philanthropic money goes. I also know this first-hand having been a judge for past Knight News Challenge contests. But therein lay the point! Knight Foundation (and J-lab which was Knight Funded) both had OPEN applications and an accountable judging process. Most philanthropic outfits require you to KNOW somebody, their grant proposal lingo, etc before you can really be taken seriously.

Point Two in What HW represents for me: More than Matter, more than Narratively, more than any other journalism project I’ve seen on Kickstarter this Homicide Watch campaign hones in on part of the vision I always had for Spot.Us.

Homicide Watch is local. It’s original reporting and it’s about stories that might otherwise go untold. And these aren’t trivial stories – these are people’s lives.

Perhaps it’s because I associate the Amico’s with Public Media – Homicide Watch to me represents a potential future vision for Public Media. In truth, I don’t even know if they are nonprofit. But it doesn’t matter to me. They are certainly producing journalism in the public interest.

Public Media and crowdfunding: I’ve gone on rants about this publicly and probably in my blog. So I really don’t want to go on a tangent about it now. But this simply is GOING to happen. It’s not a question of “if.” Public Media will be caught with their pants down if they don’t start preparing for this future.

This is different from a pledge drive. So that infrastructure doesn’t prepare them. There is transparency and participation about where money goes in crowdfunding. There is a goal and a sense of what happens at the end of that goal. Moreover – the impact of crowdfunding (Point #2) is directly proportional to the relationship public media currently has with large classic philanthropy (point #1) – the kind where you need to sit down, have lunch, schmooze to get very large checks. All activities that seemed closed to me at Spot.Us 99% of the time and probably felt closed to the Amico’s at HW.

The real question is: Will Public Media be smart enough to own its own means of crowdfunding or if it will need to rely on third party platforms? 

American Public Media now owns Spot.Us. How and what they do with it – if they take advantage of it is out of my hands. But I guarantee this – they WILL do crowdfunding in the future. All Public Media entities will.

While I have been railing about this for close to 4 years – for some reason I think the attention and success of Homicide Watch, again because of the nature of what they do and the players involved, timing, etc, might signal that future more than anything else in recent memory. Public Media – I KNOW you are paying attention. This combined with 99% invisible campaign MUST get your attention about how crowdfunding (not Kickstarter, IndieGoGo or any other company) can change what you do. If you want to leave it to the third party companies – you can. But as a citizen – I prefer you own your own means of revenue. Get thee to a hackery! The good news – it’s not rocket science.

For now – I am going to break my commitment to not giving anymore small donations to chip in at Homicide Watch (just don’t tell my wife!) – I personally am thrilled to see what HW does in the next year. But more than the success of their campaign – I hope it lights a fire in two worlds: Traditional philanthropy to question the values they use to decide who is in/out of their world and scope. And the world of Public Media – to question if/how the audience can/should participate in programming when they contribute funds.

Our aim is ambitious: We are re-imagining how news is covered, distributed, and how it’s consumed by readers. The product we’re building is one that, as users, we wished existed. We’re focusing on the facts, unaccompanied by fluff, optimized for a population with short attention spans.

Quality journalism can’t be devoid of people. Thus, we need to bring in smart, savvy news folks. If you are one or know somebody who is – please pass this along.

Circa is hiring contributing editors. 

If you aren’t familiar with Circa, it was started by Ben Huh (Cheezburger Network) and Matt Galligan (formerly SimpleGeo, Socialthing), inspired by something Ben devised which he called the Moby Dick Project. Matt, now the CEO, brought on Arsenio Santos, CTO (formerly Sonic Living, Digg) to head up technology.

Under the editorial leadership of David Cohn Circa is looking for contributing editors that;

• Are newshounds and regularly follow the who/what/where/when.
• Have impeccable and fast news judgment.
• Are succinct writers who can rewrite and condense language into crystallized bits of information.
• Are comfortable learning a new content management system.
• Are comfortable and reliable telecommuting.
• Are ready to be a news generalist – following many topics.
• Have an appreciation for journalism’s mission and values without slavish obedience to culture and traditions.
• Have a journalism degree and/or working experience – we’re looking for serious folks.

You can find more details about the job and apply by contacting me: david AT cir dot ca

If you have questions, please send an email to: david [at] cir.ca

For those that missed the drama: Journatic is a new media startup that takes local data points and outsources re-writing to places like the Philippines. The obvious reactions of “pink slime journalism” in response to anything “outsourced” isn’t newsworthy. We’ve been there with Demand Media and others. But the revelation that Journatic was faking bylines - that tread new ground.

Two weeks ago a U.S. based Journatic-er gave a tell all about life writing for Journatic. The major bomb that dropped – the organization was using fake names to make content appear as if it was being produced locally.

The Houston Chronicle alone ran 350 articles written by folks like “Chad King” when in truth these articles were written by any number of people from various parts of the world. The follow up punch was evidence of plagiarism. A doubly-credibility whammy.

Since then newspaper customers like the Chicago Tribune (originally an investor in Journatic) have dropped their contract. The head of editorial quit after just 10 weeks because he “fundamentally disagree[d] about ethical and management issues.” Meanwhile Journatic claims they were going to fire him anyway.

Let’s clear the air: The news industry loves to talk about its own demise, its future and when traditional or new media companies have lapses of judgment. I’m less interested in the gawker-factor of this and more keen on seeing what lessons we can take away… and lessons abound right there on the surface. Not unlike the takeaway from NewsTilt.

Lesson #1: Don’t Teach a New Dog Old Tricks

Journatic fundamentally changed the process of journalism. Their output, however, was altered to fit the expectations of their customers (newspapers) who wanted something familiar. Hence Bylines, which didn’t belong on these pieces, were fabricated.

John Bethune was the first to point out this flaw.

“The real issue was not that the company used fake bylines on its stories, but that it used bylines at all. Journatic screwed up because the company wanted to have it both ways: to embrace new-media principles while trying to disguise them. Instead of looking forward, it looked backward.”

Or to use a big word - it was skeuomorphic journalism.

It’s not the outsourcing that killed Journatic – it was the lying, or at best the “dressing it up” to make it feel familiar. It wasn’t even a lie of substance, it was just to make the end product look and feel like an old school newspaper article produced in an old school way. If they had just left the bylines off I suspect most readers wouldn’t have noticed.

It’s something we are thinking about regularly at Circa. We are changing the process of journalism. We are also changing its form. I joke that currently Circa is metaphysical journalism. We are taking the concept of news and creating an entirely new form for it.

Lesson #2: The Premise of Journatic Is Not the Blunder

If we take lesson #1 to be true – then it would seem the premise of Journatic isn’t what caused the drama. As Heather Billings notes - the core of Journatic is based on data. Data is still a solid foundation for a news enterprise. Hopefully we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Mike Foucher said the same thing in his resignation announcement and others agree.

“Journatic’s core premise is sound: most data and raw information can be managed much more efficiently outside the traditional newsroom; and, in order for major market community news to be commercially viable, it needs be conducted on a broader scale than ever before.”

The notion of taking data and building a process oriented to creating output has tons of merit. Taking that information and shoving it back into the form of an article because it’s familiar is questionable (see lesson #1).

Lesson #3 Some Old Values are Timeless

The question of fake bylines can go either way. Some might argue that lacking a byline would always be a breach. I would argue it’s perfectly fine for certain articles to be devoid of a byline. They simply could have put “Journatic” ala the Associated Press we are akin to seeing. But plagiarism and fabrication crosses a different line. Any way I think about it – it’s just not cool, new form or no. Some things change and some things will stay the same. Indeed the fake byline probably made Journatic wince. That it was followed so quickly with plagiarism – that’s the kind of thing that can knock a new media company out for the count.

Lesson 4: Local Data is a Tough Nut to Crack. 

It’s just a fact. Many hyperlocal players I talk with argue that Patch’s biggest problem is in the cookie cutter nature of their approach to local. For the moment Patch’s approach seems like a natural way to scale, but it immediately calls into question the “local” nature of a reader’s “local” content.

Journatic was a decidedly local play. It’s not impossible for a data driven approach to work at the local level. But I do believe there are more pitfalls. Speaking directly to this point – I can imagine many situations where lacking a byline is 100% kosher (see #3) but at the local level it might be more expected.

Lesson #5: Know your Team

This is more of a general startup lesson and one I personally wrote about when NewsTilt fell apart. I noted a conversation I had with Paul Graham where he said (not an exact quote)

Bottom line, it’s important that they [founders and early staff] have a strong and trusting relationship. Things WILL get tough and you need to be able to lean on each other. The analogy Paul used was that of soldiers. They form a bond with each other such that they don’t want to let each other down. Marines go through hell during training to become “brothers” so that in the thick of battle you don’t show a tint in your armor. It’s not because you aren’t scared – but because you don’t want to cause concern for your other brothers. When things are tough, you smile and carry on, usually bearing more than your normal load. The startup world moves so fast that if both founders feel that bond, they’ll both smile, carry more than they can – and will often come out of it with a stronger startup than when they entered the tough times.

Whether Mike was fired or quit – it happened in 10 weeks. Somehow from the start they were on a different page.

Yesterday I announced the next project I’m going to work on which will focus on mobile news consumption (Circa). As a result, I’ve been thinking a lot about screens. And my thinking fell in line perfectly with this month’s Carnival of Journalism which asks: “What’s your most dangerous idea to save journalism.”

Of course – I don’t think any one thing will “save journalism” but when thinking about screens I think there is an opportunity to avoid decimation. Below is the video response (which is part of this month’s Carnival) but I couldn’t just stop there. I had to write a full post!

In the future, consumers will not make a distinction between their television, phone or computer screens. The only difference will be the size of each screen, its placement and, therefore, what you most likely do with it.

But one will not call the handheld-sized screen their “mobile phone.” That you might use it to make phone calls will be happenstance. You will just as easily make a call on the 15-inch screen at your desk or the 40-inch screen in the living room.

Let’s call this future moment the “Screenularity.” It is the moment in the future when, as a consumer, there’s no distinction in functionality between the various screens we interact with. Much like Matt Thompson’s “Speakularity,” this will be a watershed moment for how we consume information and, therefore, journalism.

THE DEATH KNELL OF TELEVISION

For the entire television industry as we know it, this will be a back-breaking moment. It’s not a question of “if” but “when.” We see early signs of it in Netflix and Hulu, but the cracks in the dam haven’t even started to show. For national broadcast journalism organizations like CNN, Fox and MSNBC, it will create a lot of disruption. For local broadcast journalism, it will leave them utterly decimated.

Local broadcast journalism simply has no added value when compared with the wealth of information on the Internet. They rely on personality-less hosts that talk at you (not with you). Combine this with high overhead to do local reporting about topics many people simply don’t care about, and you can start to see how this looks bleak for local broadcast affiliates. Breaking news is broken. Local broadcast websites are offensively bad and nowhere near competing on the open web. Their continued existence relies on the fact that the majority of people still get their news from television. But once the Screenularity hits, that will no longer be the case. There won’t be a “television” just various screens. People will get their “lean back” information from the same screen they can engage with. Dogs and cats living together … mass hysteria!

THEY’RE NOT HAVING THIS CONVERSATION

Whether you love or hate the “future of news” crowd, we should admit that it’s painfully devoid of broadcast journalism. I am not 100 percent sure why. I’ve heard Jay Rosen give a decent explanation, and it can be summarized as: “They just don’t care, it’s not in their interest.”

I’m not saying there aren’t any folks within broadcast who are forward-thinking. But considering the disproportionate size of their organizations/budgets/audience to more traditional print mediums, they are painfully absent from conversations about the future of the industry. From what I can observe, the television journalism world has no interest in the future-of-news conversation, and their websites speak louder about this than any defense they could possibly make. This is dangerous, because the majority of people still get their news from local broadcast networks. There is no plan b. There is no fallout shelter.

A DANGEROUS IDEA

For this month’s Carnival of Journalism the question is: “What’s a dangerous idea to save journalism.” Mine is the Screenularity. Local broadcast outfits need to operate as if it’s here. I recognize this is dangerous, because it assumes that an industry will disrupt itself. That inherently means there will be danger involved. People will lose their jobs. Organizations will falter and crumble. But others will come out the other end and reinvent an industry on their own terms.

Media companies must become technology companies so they can create the platforms that define the type of media they produce. If they’re the ones who create the platforms, they will continue to create media on their own terms.

If local news broadcasters don’t embrace the Screenularity and create the platforms themselves, they’d better hope that somebody else does it for them. And “hope” is a horrible strategy. That’s what leads to complaints about “Google” or “Craigslist” killing journalism. All they did was create platforms that define the type of media produced. If you aren’t creating those platforms then you have no excuse to complain about the terms those organizations create.