What a week!!!!!
- Sunday I left San Francisco for a wedding in Charleston.
- Tuesday I left Charleston to visit Columbia’s J-school to speak (video here).
- Thursday I left New York for Miami to help out with this years Knight News Challenge screening.
- Meanwhile: I launched a website and trying to keep startup hours. (Shameless plug here: it’ll take you three seconds to register on spot.us and make me a happy blogger).
But I don’t want this post to be about me or focus on Spot.Us. Instead it will reflect the feelings I’m left with as I meet people along the road I’ve been traveling.
I’m sitting here at LaGuardia feeling absolutely bullish about the state of journalism. Between the successful launch of Spot.Us and this visit to Columbia I’ve been in touch with entrepreneurial journalists from around the globe. I’m only going to encounter more as I view entries in this year’s News Challenge.
From VidSF and ReelChanges in San Francisco to Global Radio News and FeatureWell at the international level to Leapfrog News Technologies which is thinking way outside the box. Combine that with the New Business Models for News Summit at CUNY where people like Dave Chase, Scott Karp and Rachel Sterne explained their startups, the goals they have, the barriers they face, etc and you can understand why I’m optimistic.
There is a communion in commiserating and dreaming about the days to come when one of us (not all of us) find a way to support meaningful journalism.
I’m pumped, not just for myself, but for the potential that we collectively have. Yes, I know it is becoming cliche – but it is the truth: I have “hope” that change is coming – if we make it happen!
What we need right now is 10,000 journalism startups. Of these 9,000 will fail, 1,000 will find ways to sustain themselves for a brief period of time, 98 will find mediocre success and financial security and two will come out as new media equivalents to the New York Times. (The NY Times is part of this game, I’m not making a big/small media divide here, just using them as a standard).
I don’t know what that organization will look like or who it will be – but that’s what we need and we face some serious challenges along the way.
One of them is what I can only childishly describe as “retarded infighting.” This week Jeff Jarvis was the subject of an attack because he is “not a nice guy.” To me this article was equivalent to accusing Jeff of palling around with terrorists.
Journalists need to stop worrying about who to blame. I’m over it. Truth be told – I was never really into it. It is a waste of time. I’m already young and impatient enough.
What we need is inspiration, hope, a belief that yes “journalism will survive the death of its institutions.“ That a new media startup can serve the same mission that traditional media has done for us in the past. Hope that many of the institutions we love can find a way to steer their large bureaucratic ships to safety before taking on too much debt.
I am writing this post physically exhausted but emotionally charged. I feel like a lion. As if I could talk down the curmudgeonist of curmudgeons. Not because I know the answer(s) – but because if we can’t even talk those people down, then we might as well just crawl into a hole and give up. Fuck that! We are moving forward with or without them.
The answers are out there in every startup (journalism focused or otherwise), community, blog, micro-blogging, micro-financing and CMS on the web. The internet is ours for the taking if we only reach out and grab it with as many hands as possible.
So find one of those 10,000 startups. Support it with your time, expertise, money, content or just an encouraging email to say “I’m cheering for you.” Because if you don’t at least do the last, which requires only the tiniest of efforts, you are no longer part of the solution, you are just in the way…..
‘Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand for the times they are a-changin’.
Bob Dylan
Go ahead. Go get lost on the web for 20 minutes, find a journalism startup you like and email the founder to let them know you support what they are doing. You’d be surprised how much that means to them and how much that can make you feel like part of the process of innovation.
That’s the challenge I leave with you today. Find a startup you like and let them know. That can make all the difference in keeping our hopes alive.
“Fuck that! We are moving forward with our (or) without them.”
All this blather and name dropping is cute, and you sure get to travel a lot, and we’re all very impressed by your breathlessness, but please, figure out how to properly quote forty-year-old Dylan lyrics, and learn the difference between plural and possessive.
Of course, perhaps that’s the charm of community reporting. We’ll never know.
To the comment above: I realize the grammar here isn’t fantastic. I tend not to copy-edit my own blog. I know I should – but as noted this was written while waiting for an airplane with little sleep. I hit publish without a second thought.
The name dropping isn’t cute. It’s linking – a way of speaking my mind and directing people to others I think are doing good/interesting things.
The “charm” of community reporting is incredibly powerful. You don’t have to support it – but I hope you find some startup (geo tagging, database, linking) that you do support. Otherwise, as I noted above, you are just getting in the way.
There are so MANY different things to support. I’m sure you can find something to which you would believe in.
First off, congrats on launch of spot.us and good luck. I profess to having some skepticism, but definitely want to see it succeed and am interested in seeing the kind of results you get.
Secondly, you’re right. Journalists need to stop worrying about who’s to blame. Maybe Jeff Jarvis should too. Like you said: a waste of time.
Thirdly, interesting you should quote Times They’re A-changin’. Seems like every generation of 20-somethings since the 60s has embraced that line at some point, only to have it thrown back in their faces 20 years later.
Personally, I think this Dylan song is a more appropriate inspiration in the pursuit for the future of journalism:
http://www.bobdylan.com/#/song/my-back-pages
Congrats on the launch, David! And thanks for not counting The New York Times out of becoming The New York Times of new media. 😉
Don’t let the grumpy old sods get to you! Good luck with Spot.Us.
I find it admirable that you are seeking out new models for sustainable journalism and that you are devoted to doing your part in ensuring the success of journalism’s future. I also find the spot.us model very interesting, which is why it’s inspired thought and several comments from me in the short time since I’ve heard of/read about the startup.
However, I disagree that those who may not share your attitude about startups (and/or journalism and its future) are necessarily “in the way” and “part of the problem.” Of course you’re entitled to your opinion but I don’t see views such as that being all that different from the “infighting” you denounce in your post.
At the very least, it’s a very “us vs. them” and “if you’re not with me/us, you’re against me/us” type comment IMO.
Perhaps others choose different ways of supporting journalism and have different views on the future of journalism and what may help sustain the field/industry than you have–why not be open to having a dialog with such people and considering their views and approaches rather than accuse them of being “a problem”?
Even those who may be doing *nothing* right now to help find new ways to keep journalism sustainable may deserve better than to be called “in the way” and “a problem”?
@ the comment above.
I agree that infighting and us v them is the WORST thing for journalism right now.
But I’m not adding to it. At least – I’m not trying to.
I didn’t say that everyone had to leave their day job and work on a startup. But at the very least – take a moment to leave a comment, leave a note, etc.
Just doing that is lending a hand. But if all one does is criticize – then they are in the way.
So you are right: Not everyone needs to work on a startup. But everyone should be following along.
I appreciate your response, but am not sure my comment was totally clear. I wasn’t referring to working on a startup in my comment. Just pointing out that IMO calling those with a different approach or ideas about supporting journalism “in the way” and “a problem” appears to be a form of infighting as well.
As I said I support your and any effort to make journalism more sustainable, I just don’t understand the basis for the comments from your post that I referred to above and in my last comment.
I commend you for your intiatiative and resourcefulness and commitment to the future of journalism but I don’t view those with different approaches or beliefs negatively either (In other words I totally disagee that those not taking a moment to support a startup are a problem and in the way, etc., that’s all.) Maybe I’m just interpreting your post too literally…
Good luck with the project.
“Not everyone needs to work on a startup. But everyone should be following along.”
I’ve been always suspicious of “the man with the plan” for $350K, who tells me what i should do. Following along? Where?
I am not a journalist, and i am not a blogger. I live in SF, so if you need to be a shake up, just email me.
Have you ever been held accountable for what you said/did? I highly doubt. Here is something to investigate: investigate yourself.
You talk about transparency. It’s been a year since you received your grant. You don’t have to report it here, but could you exercise your “free will” and post your financial report- how much you spent on spot.us and where did the money go and what’s the plan for project’s “bright” future? As developer see $5k of work max.
Your blogging is ehhh.. priceless of course. How much really?
Common sense tells me that ethical reporter should present both sides of the problem.
Could you please post your TOP 10 reasons why
– Spot.us is going to fail;
– gays deserved what they got;
– one should have a sympathy to “white trash”;
– real journalist shouldn’t use the word “fuck”;
– you’d never invest $25K into investigation no matter how important it could be
I voted for Obama /gay marriage/Prop.K.
I regret about 2 out of 3. Why?
Good luck.
To M – I hear ya. Good luck to you too.
To the comment above. You need to get a grip on reality.
It hasn’t been a year since I won the grant. Closer to 6 months. Combine that with bureaucracy to actually get the money and I’ve only had the grant money for 3-4 months.
I am actually very transparent about the money. While I haven’t posted it – I usually tell people what my budget is for spot.us. And I’ll tell you right now of the 340k that I’ve been granted, I’m barely paying myself minimum wage. The VAST majority of money is going to development and design. I don’t say that so you’ll feel sorry for me – just so you know that I’m not laughing all the way to the bank either.
I am not “the man with the plan.” I am a man with A plan. A plan for myself. I never claim that it is THE answer that everyone should follow. Yes, I have been accountable for myself. I investigate what I’m doing all the time. In fact, I try to remain highly skeptical of Spot.Us at all times. If you read the post above you’d notice that I mention not all of us will be succesful. That includes me. I have a high chance of failure. About 90% of startups fail. I am not an exception to that rule.
Journalists shouldn’t use the word “fuck.” But this is not a news organization – it’s my blog. I can say whatever the fuck I want.
Not sure why you are judging me. You don’t know me. It’s very easy to hate people you see on the internet. I’m not sure who you are really mad at – but I don’t think it’s me.
David,
I wonder if you felt that being so “friendly” (financially) towards the establishment — allowing free lancers to just reimburse the original donors in exchange for exclusive rights to the profitable stories — was necessary for getting that grant.
I mean… why did you set it up this way? Did you think you would not have had much of a chance to get the grant if your project would have been friendlier (financially) towards the spot.us community, instead?
I find it hard to believe you made this choice without any such pressure… it makes no sense…
Delia
Delia
No. There is no conspiracy here. Again, I’m really just trying to do what I think is best and will work for all parties.
In fact: This aspect of spot.us was not part of the grant – so no, I did not make it “friendly” in order to get the grant.
I’m concerned that you continue to think I’m some evil guy out to make a buck or exploit people. If you knew me or anything about me – you’d realize that is simply not the case. I also think from reading your comment, that you still don’t grasp exactly what spot.us is and how it works. Remember: The freelancers make money via the donations. They don’t double-dip from the news organizations.
Truth is: There is very little money that can be made from online advertising. If I were to try and put ads on spot.us against the content the community funds: That would NEVER without seriously crazy advertisers willing to basically donate huge amounts of money, reimburse the original donors.
I also believe that most cases of spot.us won’t result in reimbursement. It will simply be a donation towards producing content that is released under a Creative Commons license.
Thanks for the upbeat post. I’ve been dragged down this week by friends leaving the business and looking for jobs for after I graduate — but it was nice to have the reminder that in the end, I do believe in the future of journalism.
David,
I really don’t know you at all so all I can go by is your project and the choices you make within it. It doesn’t seem to be a difficult project to understand so I would be shocked if I indeed misunderstood it.
I do apologize if I misunderstand this but please explain why would you not have any sort of profit sharing between those who would stand to make money from a particular story (you did acknowledge this) and the spot.us community that made that possible?
Here is what I would have done: at the point where somebody expresses an interest in acquiring exclusive rights, an auction would ensue and the story would go to the highest bidder. This would mean that the rights would have been bought at fair market price and the spot.us community would have shared into the profits that can be made.
Anything less than this is favoring the buyers at the expense of the community, is it not?
Delia
P.S. something about my blogs and my comments in general: they are just my thoughts… sorry if they come across as accusing or anything of the sort…(they are not meant to be — I’m just putting down what I am seeing and I do not benefit one way or another).
P.P.S. no, I don’t think it’s at all funny that people like Dan Gillmor didn’t see the issues with your project … even if your project may not be the only one that has these problems (makes me wonder if he really meant the things that made me decide to continue reading his blog); D.
Delia
That’s actually not a bad idea. But it comes down to “what if’s” which my plan is subject to as well. There are a million “what ifs” because this is a model that has never been tried before.
What if it’s put on the open market and we got 1/4th value of what the public put up front?
How do I redistribute that money?
What if We get 4x what the public put out?
Can I, as a nonprofit, let individuals profit as though it was an investment from their tax deductable donation?
Not to mention the sheer cost of just implementing the kind of legal/code framework to do what you just described: I would still be building the site and probably wouldn’t launch till mid-2009 and it would exceed my budget three-fold.
This is a bold experiment and if it works then it will be tweaked and reshaped and molded. But first it has to work.
It’s a fascinating idea & seems to be working. I wish I had money to toss in the kitty.
Keep plunging ahead. There are lots of us watching and rooting for this to do well.
David,
I do believe you have huge problems. In spite of that, I wish you best of luck! (I hope you come to see them and solve them one way or another).
I’ll have to respond to your last comment on my blog only (just to clarify things for those who want to see my side of this — I had already posted my prior comment on my blog also).
I would not have put anywhere this much time into this topic if you would not have emailed me and asked for more (I had already closed my online journalism blog).
Delia
We should feel bullish– I agree completely!
I think different times favor different personality types– stable, prosperous times favor the types who are adept at advancing within institutions, and times of change and chaos favor outsiders who follow their own ideas. The thing about journalism is, the first type make crummy investigative journalists, as we’ve seen over the past several years, because they’re afraid of going against the flock. So, good riddance! (Although they are good at trend stories, culture, and other flock-watching.)
This all reminds me– a friend was telling me about the early days of FM radio and the rise of the AOR format (“album-oriented rock”). Long story short, a handful of mostly young radio innovators knew there would be an audience for stations playing the kind of music they liked. The existing AM establishment wouldn’t support them because they thought they already knew all possible successful formats. So the upstarts flocked to FM, which didn’t have nearly as much hierarchy in the way, succeeded wildly, and changed radio. It’s a classic tale.
Sure, FM was the first broadcast technology to support stereo– but the AOR revolution owed as much (or more) to the medium’s lack of established institutions as it did to the new technical capabilities it carried.
Maybe the same is true for journalism today. In X years, what will be considered more important about journalism online– that it supported audio, video, and conversation, or that it let in rebellious people with good ideas who otherwise would never have made it to the table?