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.

But the fates had a different plan for me. And when fate calls, you gotta answer.

Today I’m announcing the next project I’m going to dive head first into. It’s called Circa (www.cir.ca).

It’s in stealth right now. But I can say this much – it will start off as a mobile application and the goal is to create a consumer friendly product that keeps people engaged and informed about what’s happening in the world. The problem set is unique and as the details of it shape you’ll see how it fits into the history of my career thinking of journalism as a process, not a product. I’ll be the founding editor helping think through, from top to bottom, the process of consumer driven journalism.

Circa is an outgrowth of Ben Huh’s “Moby Dick Project.” Mr. Cheezeburger himself has made waves in the news industry in the last year bringing ideas that challenge many sacred cows. That speaks to me and aggravates others.

Ben is a co-founder and won’t be in the day to day but will continue to stay engaged moving forward. But here’s a view of the team I’m joining which is led by Matt Galligan who created Socialthing and SimpleGeo.

I’m excited to be back in startup mode. I’m even more excited that this time I’m joining an experienced team instead of going solo and trying to figure things out myself from scratch. In this next endeavor I’ll have the luxury to focus on content and rely on team members to be experts in their various fields like design or marketing (as opposed to Spot.Us where I had to be more of a generalist).

I look back at Spot.Us and I see it as a powerful statement about the need for transparency and participation in the process of journalism – specifically around the flow of money. I feel amazing to have had the opportunity to make that statement. But now I’m eager to make another statement. To help build a vision for how people can stay informed in the future. To create a process of news that is optimized for truth and stripped down to the basic elements of news topped off with consumer friendliness.

All this is a tall order. And just like Spot.Us I have NO idea what is going to happen with Circa. I just know that the larger journalism community and industry still has a long way to go and I still have something to say. I think the Circa team is poised to push boundaries in how media is organized and how consumers stay informed.

For the immediate moment the whole project remains in stealth. You can sign up for updates about Circa when it’s ready here. For those of you who have followed my career and cheered me on whenever I’ve dived head first without knowing 100% where the project will land, it’s time to strap in because another wild ride is about to begin.

Onward…..

At the Columbia Alumni weekend there was a panel on the 2012 elections and one of the speakers was Pat Buchanan (apparently alumni of the J-school). Most of the talk was about politics, appealing to women, etc.

But at least twice Pat referred to “the demise of Western Civilization” as a potential outcome. He specifically cited Western Europe. I like to take people at their word, but this seemed like a ridiculous statement for Buchanan to make. Jon Stewart questions were going through my mind: “So do you mean there won’t be a “West” or there won’t be “Civilization”? If the later – are you picturing an armageddon type event or more of a recession into feudalism in a Lord of the Rings-esque fashion?

Later in the panel Buchanan then brought up the culture wars where I thought he revealed what he meant. He discussed growing up in the 50’s and then the cultural revolution of the 60’s with Women’s rights, Civil rights, the sexual revolution, etc. He confessed that conservatives have been on the losing side of the culture war. That the demography of California (a Latino majority with pockets of conservatism and bastions of liberalism) is the future for the United States. This is a future where conservative social values us weak.

To me this was a poker tell of some sort.

After the panel I had a brief exchange that went like this (not direct quotes).

Me: Pat – you mentioned the potential demise of Western Civilization and then later admitted that conservatives are losing the “culture war.” Could you be conflating the two? ie: A loss of conservative culture is somehow the demise of Wester Civilization.

First Pat responded by citing that the birth rates in Western Europe were below 2 per family i.e.: the population is going to rescind.

My response: Oh….so you literally think the human population in the West will disappear?

Pat’s response: Well, that’s part of it. But it also has to do with the fall of religion and he cited Christianity. He said that Christianity in Western Europe was losing ground and that there are pockets of it in America but that civilization without religion loses itself.

My response: Okay. But I’m not religious, are you suggesting that I’m not civilized?

Pat: Certainty not, but you combine this loss of religion (again, citing Christianity as the example) and a culture loses its glue. Now add population loss and you lose Western Civilization.

There were a swarm of people around us who all wanted to ask Pat questions, so I didn’t want to continue the thread. So I politely said – okay, that’s your view and it’s fair for you to have it. But I personally wouldn’t tie the fate of the entire Western Civilization to the fate of any religious view or religion in total. Then I walked away.

This could be taken in a few lights. For starters – it’s an example of the culture war that exists which makes it impossible for two rational people to agree. I don’t tie the fate of Western Civilization to the fate of religion. Pat does. There is no way to come to a compromise on this.

In 2008 I started Spot.Us. Many folks helped along the way. Some notables include the Hashrocket team, Kara Andrade, Anh Do, Jonathan Berger, Lauren Rabaino and of course Erik Sundelof. It should also be noted the whole thing wouldn’t have happened without the Knight News Challenge having faith in a 25 year old kid with a strange idea.

I don’t want to wax nostalgic. I think it’s suffice to say – I’m proud of what we accomplished. Boundaries were pushed. Today when I describe Spot.Us it’s still a concept that resonates but it no longer sounds “crazy.” That is a form of success along with all the stories and journalists we funded.

Only four months ago Spot.Us was acquired by American Public Media to be merged with the Public Insight Network. That deal came after five months of due-diligence from both parties and two months of good faith communication.

It has come to my realization, however, that in its new form Spot.Us is no longer the best place for me. In many respects that’s perfectly fine. I handed over Spot.Us with enough money to support itself for one year. Combine those funds with the capable hands of APM and it’s possible Spot.Us will remain healthy and continue for a long time. I wish nothing but the best for Spot.Us as a platform and community. But for me – it’s time to move on. With this post I’m handing full reins of Spot.Us over to APM not just in ownership (which already happened) but in terms of direction. This change has been going on in the background for some time and now it’s official. This is me taking a bow and exiting stage left.

I’ve been honest with the Spot.Us community from the start and I intend to end it that way. As I’ve always said – Spot.Us wasn’t just about this platform (although to my knowledge it is still the only open source crowdfunding platform). It was an experiment in pushing the boundaries of transparency and participation in the process of journalism. I pushed those boundaries with my own experience as well. I shared our designs before we launched, my fears, my frustrations and moments of joy. If anything I wanted Spot.Us to be a platform other folks in our community could observe and learn from. I know I’ve certainly learned from it. While this is not the initial way I envisioned the acquisition with American Public Media to go, I am assured that they have every intention of honoring the work that I’ve put into the organization and honoring the trust you all have with it. You will never find anybody cheering on Spot.Us more than me. I will be the first eager donor to solid pitches that come my way.

There is certainly room as well for a personal postmortem. I’m going to save that for another time after some more dust settles and I get some needed distance. But I will say this – there are things we did beautifully and other things we didn’t. There are opportunities we grabbed by the throat and others that slipped past our fingers. That’s just what happens in life, especially when your aim is to push boundaries.

For now I want to thank one more group before I officially exit. Yes, it’s corny to say it – but I absolutely believe this; the community at Spot.Us has been the number one factor in all of this. From the advisers to the donors all the way down to folks who registered but never contributed and only wanted to see what this thing was all about. Indeed it is because of YOU ALL that Spot.Us had any modicum of success and respect. The journalism community members have embraced change/experiments and I think Spot.Us was one of the earlier projects that showed us all how it could be done. The nonprofit community members have embraced the mission of journalism as a sacred endeavor that must be cherished. The technology community members supported Spot.Us and have stepped up to be a positive influence for the future of media and innovation.

I leave this four year project a changed person. A better person thanks to all the influence from the above individuals and communities. I also leave knowing this – my career will remain about the process of journalism. Or more precisely – the flow of information and how that process can evolve to become more participatory and transparent.

This month’s question is on how we measure impact. I think Greg Linch is talking about meaningful impact (on society) but I want to measure a different kind of impact. The impact of the dollars we spend in pursuit of journalism and its meaningful impact. In light of the Bay Citizen merger and the shuttering of the Chicago News Cooperative – I think it’s a good topic to bring up. Here’s what I wrote in October of 2010.

First some stage setting: I was thinking about the contrast between small and big newsrooms. Small being folks like: The Rapidian, The South Los Angeles Report, Open Media Boston, Twin Cities Daily Planet, GarnerCitizen.com, Sacramento Press, West of the I, Sheepshead Bites, edhat.com, Lakeland Local and many more. We do hear about others on the front lines such as MinnPost, Voice of San Diego, Texas Tribune, The Bay Citizen, ProPublica and California Watch. These organizations are doing great stuff – but they are a different kind of beast from what was present at Block by Block. They tend to dominate the conversation and as a result we know and understand their business model, obstacles, strengths, etc.

What we don’t appreciate is the strength of the little guy. What they don’t have in “impact” they do have in efficiency.

In short: It’s a simple technology where readers who come across a paywall can opt into taking a survey instead of having to reach for their wallet. The survey then creates some funds for the publisher and gives the reader access to content.

Why does this sound familiar? Because it is.

I hate to sound like that guy at the bar who says “that was my idea,” as I cry into my whiskey because it’s not just about the idea/concept. It’s execution. And certainly anything Spot.Us (or really any startup) does can be executed at a grander scale by the big three (Twitter/Facebook/Google).

When I first expounded on this concept it received a lot of praise. Dan Gillmor called it the most innovative thing in news advertising in years. I obviously can’t/won’t take credit for giving the idea to Google. Often these kinds of ideas are out there in the ether for various people to reach out for. The same could be said for crowdfunding in general when I first proposed Spot.Us. I certainly didn’t invent the concept – I could just tell its time was coming.

I hope upon hopes that this is a concept whose time has come. Especially in light of the real “year of the paywall.”

What IS a paywall? In essence it makes content valuable by creating scarcity. While good for the bottom line – this is bad for essence of journalism. It says “this information is valuable and if you pay you’ll know something that other people won’t.” The higher purpose of journalism is to create an informed democratic society. Not to create a  subset of society who can afford to be informed.

The idea behind Community Focused Sponsorships (Spot.Us’ version of surveys) was that we entered the advertising game but instead of the funds coming to me (the publisher) I’d let the public decide which stories would be funded. In order to get their vote counted, however, they had to engage with the ads – thus creating the value to begin with.

Some people value money greatly and won’t spend it on journalism. For this large subset of society – the surveys are ideal. What we found on Spot.Us was that the number of folks who valued time over money (preferred to donate rather than take a survey) was below 1% whereas when we offered a survey the number of people who engaged rose to be closer to 10%. Moreover, these people were more than willing to take new surveys as they came about. There are some members of Spot.Us that have taken EVERY SINGLE survey we’ve ever offered (with a sales force of one – this is not exorbitantly high – but still a positive indicator).

For anyone considering a metered paywall. Take some time to think about this process. I strongly believe that metered paywalls is the dipping of our toes into membership programs. Which begs the question – how do you become a member? Can you become a member by taking actions instead of just donating?

Nothing Left to Satirize: I’m always open to other points of view. Hell, I watched Glen Beck for a year straight just to give the guy his due. But this political advert has crossed over beyond funny-town to offensively-dumb-ville.

If I were a Daily Show writer I’m not sure if this would be pure gold or something to absolutely avoid. What most satirical writers do is latch onto something and take it to the extreme to show the ugly truth. But this video has no extremes left. Obamaville, as described in this ad, is a desolate place, occupied by starving children who can’t pay for gas, doctors have been murdered and crows pick at the body parts left over from the zombie rampage who ate all the good religious people.

IMPORTANT: Watch the video at the 40 second mark. Did you see it? The words “America’s sworn enemy” are dubbed over the face of Ahmadinejad on the television and for a fraction of a second, among the flickers on the television screen, Barack Obama’s face is super-imposed. Go ahead – zoom over to 39 seconds and then watch that next second of video closely. Use the video scrubber to go over it slowly if you need. That’s some subliminal mind-fucking right there. It is not above the board. It is pure manipulation and offensive.

Look Santorum: If you want to make a political ad attacking your opponent go for it. I’m 100% for the honest exchange of ideas. But this is nowhere close to that. The Obamville ad is an obvious hit job without a modicum of integrity. It uses common tropes of horror movies including fast and edgy cuts to disorient the viewer, sad images where people are depicted as isolated, a grayish hue (as if in two years color won’t exist) and makes blanket horror statements predicting Iran’s nuclear ascension. The kicker of course is the super-imposed subliminal connection between Obama and Ahmadinejad, that’s what really pushed me over the edge. That is not honest. That is not meant to be honest. That is meant to manipulate. No politician should resort to tactics like that.

The Truly Scary thing: I’ve never seen a political ad like it. Is this the kind of content we can expect ala Citizens United or have I just not been paying enough attention and should get used to it? More importantly, is a large swath of the population so dumbed down and accepting that a political ad like this will have sway? It can’t pass any kind of critical mustard. I’m more convinced by an M. Night Shyamalan movie (maybe that kid COULD see dead people!) which at least perfected the tropes this advert uses. Or is this more to speak to Santorum’s base? People that won’t look at this critical but might get super juiced/jazzed by it? If I’m critical of my own reactions here (which border on humor/disgust) – I’d have to imagine that whoever made the advert also tested it against various demographics and somewhere saw a reaction they liked. So somehow this advert is effective. And THAT’S the truly scary thing. Well, that and the super-imposed image at 40 seconds.

The journalism world goes bonkers. They get the TechCrunch coverage and everything!

But the real news is in the semantics.

It’s not a “Paywall” (although everyone keeps referring to it as such). It’s a “membership program.”

I hate to sound like I’m beating a dead horse – but from the first day the NYT launched their “paywall” I’ve said that this model would morph into one of two things either a hard paywall where access is only for people who pay or a membership program ala NPR, everyone gets to listen but only those who pay get the bumper stickers.

The newspaper industry is collectively going to decide. And the Los Angeles Times calling this a “membership program” is significant – even if people don’t notice the rhetorical shift.

Much more can be done. And the moment newspapers really take the reigns on this and outright admit and treat it as a membership program (there is still a lot of talk of “subscriptions” in the LA Times plan) the more they’ll conquer this model.

I don’t think it will be a technology but an experience. And what will “save” journalism might not be the experience of consuming journalism as we know it.

This is an ongoing thought that comes from the second (or third) time  I met Michael Maness when he was at Ganett and he talked about human centered design and the way people relate to their communities. In short – people relate more to the local businesses they frequent than they do the civic institutions nearby.

If you asked me where I lived in Oakland I would tell you “I live across the street from Bakesale Betty’s.” If you lived anywhere in Oakland then you knew exactly where I lived based on this reference. Everybody knows Bakesale Betty’s.

The irony, however, is that I also lived across the street from the Temescal Library. Not just any library but a Carnegie library. This is a building designed to be communal and civic. I tested this: If I told you I lived by the Temescal library. I’d get stares and a request for further information. “You know, right by Bakesale Betty’s” – AHHH, I know where you live, they’d respond.

This is not a good or bad thing. It’s just THE thing. But this has consequences. I suspect if Bakesale Betty and the Library had competing fundraisers, Betty would outperform the library 10 fold.*

A few years later I’ve moved to Berkeley.

I now live by a Thai Temple. One would think this would suffer the same fate of the library. It is a communal building. A civic building. Its appeal is seemingly narrow.

But every Sunday the Thai Temple serves brunch. Not just a lame brunch. We are talking a four star Yelp brunch (474 reviews!). The first sentence of the first review nails it: “There are no words to describe the sense of community you feel when you go to the Thai Buddhist temple for brunch.” Come for the brunch – be nourished by the sense of community. Civic mission accomplished!

When I tell people I live by the Thai Temple they know exactly where I live (although I often have to say “Thai Brunch” for them to REALLY know what I’m talking about).

What is saving the Thai Temple isn’t the “Temple” but the experience the community has with it that centers around purchasing food. If that Thai Temple were in peril people would rally behind it, Buddhist or otherwise.

Local news organizations need to find their Thai Brunch. So do libraries. In fact, libraries have their “brunch.” What I neglected to mention is that the Temescal library (and the new library I live by in Berkeley) both have extensions that are “tool lending libraries.” In my experiments telling people I lived by the library if I focused on the “tool lending” library people were more likely to know where I lived. It might not be serving their direct “library” mission – but by creating a tool lending center both libraries are more central in the community.

So back to Steve’s question: “What emerging technology or digital trend do you think will have a significant impact on journalism in the year or two ahead?”

Journalism has a value just as libraries do. But that inherent value doesn’t have mass appeal. The question is: Can we find something, a game, an experience, a product whose value proposition draws people in and as a result, brings more attention to the civic value of journalism. Meanwhile – can that game/experience/product create money both to sustain itself and perhaps flow into the journalism.

We are still in the early stages of the Spot.Us / Public Insight Network merger, but increasingly this is on my mind. It’s great that people will contribute to specific reporting endeavors. But those who are doing this are perhaps narrow. They are the same people that might give to NPR or any other nonprofit news organization. We want to create an experience that draws people in for something different.

It’s an experience that will have significant impact on journalism. That experience will be enabled by technology, true, but that’s not what people will remember or why they’ll get hooked. I don’t know if it’ll come in the next two years and I don’t know 100% what it will look like. But I do think that’s how we’ll define it.

–30–

*This is not to pick on Betty who everyone knows is awesome, let’s people sell the Street Sheet and/or panhandle right in front of her store. She also gives away free ice lemonade sometimes. So don’t think I’m trying to pick on you Betty – and please continue to hook it up!

If business reporters or political reporters threw as much shit at each other as a subset of technology reporters do, we’d think they were monkeys at a zoo. But the collective readership and professional community of technology reporting doesn’t bat an eye – and therein lies a serious problem. They report on companies that govern our lives. This is just as serious as covering politicians who literally govern our lives. We should hold them to the same standards and they should act accordingly.

I don’t want to go into a blow-by-blow of the latest between Dan Lyons, M.G. Siegler and Michael Arrington. You can follow the link fest for yourself. But here’s the short version: This whole bitchmeme (I believe M.G. coined that term) started when Path had a privacy SNAFU. M.G. and Arrington defended them and noted at the bottom of their posts that they are also investors. Many cried foul – Lyons cried the loudest. Both responded to Lyons saying ‘everyone’s doing it’ [the privacy SNAFU] you are just calling out Path because it was handed to you on a silver plate.

The problem here is that we get caught up in the personalities instead of focusing on the issues – and because their own personal egos are involved neither side can admit that the other is right. And that’s just the point – both sides are right.

Dan accuses Michael and M.G. of cashing in on their influence. I’d say technology journalism as a WHOLE is shallow and cashing in on their influence. An entire genre of technology blogs is built around peddling influence to get you to buy shit. They do this by pandering with the lamest, softest, link-baitery content possible. The case of M.G. and Arrington is a little different because their influence is undue. If the owner of a newspaper became Mayor, people would be concerned about the editorial influence of that paper. Something akin to real world events in Philly. People are concerned when the Washington Post sells “access” to editors for lobbyists and Washington insiders. They should be! And conversely people should be concerned with M.G. and Arrington. This is NOT akin to Disney owning the Angels and ESPN (as M.G. tries to suggest). This is not a multinational company with divisions. This is TWO people.

But as I said earlier – both sides are right!

The summarized response from M.G. and Arrington is that Dan Lyon is being lazy and should dig deeper into the story (ie: the old “do real journalism” line). The initial attack on Path was handed to him. Their defense was basically that “everyone is doing it” and they are correct. Today we see that the larger media world is catching up to the larger story. I’m not sure if this proves M.G’s point  or discredits it (it was just a matter of time and attacking Path was a gateway into the larger story).

The larger point M.G. was making, however, I have to agree with. The majority of technology coverage is lame. It is surface. M.G. and Arrington called out the other players who were just as guilty as Path and everyone else has now caught up. But it’s impossible to know if they did so because it was in their financial interest to shift (widen) blame or because they believed this was an issue society had to confront. So we are still at a tough spot. Should we rely on Whistle blowers and insiders to basically rat on each other (even Deep Throat had a dog in the race). At the moment that appears to be what’s happening in technology coverage. Sure, it can work, but only if there are enough insiders who are also at odds with each other so that society’s best interest is covered in total instead of just a few true power players (and it seems all the power players got in line behind Arrington).  Aside from the rare NYT expose on Apple’s FoxConn issue (which was fantastic and is having real world impact) the majority of what we read about technology companies is pandering, press releases, etc.* Unlike political journalism there isn’t a tradition or avenue for muckracking. The biggest idea of a “scoop” for many technology blogs is getting to see a consumer product before it should be released.

So we have two big problems and two anecdotes throwing mud at each other.

• On the one hand Arrington and M.G. are correct in pointing out that the vast majority of technology journalism is lacking.
• On the other hand there is a problem when the only folks that seem to be able to add substance can do so because they are true insiders in every financial sense of the word.

The reader is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Meanwhile the anecdotes of both sides fling mud at each other and the world watches because…. everyone loves to see mud flung.

*Another exception to lame technology coverage is if there is a business angle ie: the tradition of business reporting from WSJ supersedes the growing lameosity tradition of technology reporting.