Newspapers have some tough times ahead. But as Lisa Williams has said (and I've oft repeated) "journalism will survive the death of its institutions."

So what does that look like?

It seems every few weeks there is a new bitch-meme in the journalism world. Last week it was micro-payments, this week if we should halt all newspaper websites for seven days and a few weeks ago it was that major metro-newspapers should be endowed.

While I have opinions about all these, I still find the discussion somewhat limited. They are focused around newspapers! In a world where anyone can publish, newspapers don't have to be the center of journalistic activity.

This has been brewing in my head for some time but as I sat at the We Are Media discussion today led by Beth Kanter I began to think about all the existing nonprofits that can be the force behind great journalism. As Dan Gillmor pointed out, some of the best early coverage of Guantanamo Bay was done by the ACLU. Rightly so! the ACLU recognized there was an issue, reported it accurately, spoke truth to power, defended the defenseless and helped make a positive change in this world.

How many nonprofits are there in this country? Roughly 1.5 million.

Do ALL of them need journalists? No. But many of them have issues that can benefit from good reporting. And the best nonprofits, the ones that really have a social mission, will hopefully recognize that reporting, fair and accurate reporting, will benefit their cause. Integirty in how they cover an issue will bring them more supporters.

And a good journalist, the sort that will be hired, will be the total package: In addition to reporting and writing they'll do some mulit-media storytelling, set up a YouTube account for the organization, manage their blog, do social media outreach, engage in pro-am citizen journalism and more. They will not work within a newsroom which means not all their colleagues will be reporting or making the news. They'll be part of a larger organization with a mission.

As I see it this IS journalism: Media is a form of community organizing now and journalists should learn how to play in this space. Because this WILL happen. And journalists are in the position to do it very well. The only thing that will get in the way is if they decide that is work for "the bloggers" and is "below their standards" or other poo-pooing nonesense.

I'm not suggesting that newspapers should go nonprofit. I don't think that is a saving grace (although I myself am working on spot.us as a nonprofit). I side with many who pointed out that endowing failed businesses is no solution. What I'm suggesting, however, is that more independent organizations will be in need of a communications outreach strategy. Nonprofits are poised to focus these communications towards the public interest – and what is a journalist other than somebody who works in communications for the public interest?

Does all this bode well with traditional journalistic standards. Perhaps
not. I'm not writing this as the all knowing perveyor of journalistic
ethics. But I am positing a very real future that the larger journalism
diaspora should prepare itself for. Lets have that conversation now!

For journalists that are currently looking for work: Look into local nonprofits that have a strong mission and perhaps a weak communications strategy. Are they interested not just in marketing, but reporting? It's probably a question they've never asked themselves. If you started up a blog for them, would they give you editorial freedom? If so – perhaps you've found another reporting job

Today's Los Angeles Times has a column on Spot.Us that includes some constructive criticism that I am taking to heart and some that I'd like to respond to. In a not-so-ironic twist, I can't respond in the form of a comment on the article itself and have to blog it here (does the LA Times still not allow comments?!?!?).

First: My hat is off to James Rainey who reported this piece out more than most that have written about Spot.Us. I'm also happy he pointed out that although I am filled with enthusiasm (that I hope is contagious), I remain realistic. I never want to identify myself as a "savior" of journalism and I am also aware that Spot.Us could prove to be unsuccessful. I think the only way we could "fail" in the true sense of the word is if we learn nothing on the journey to our (un)successful future.

Yes, there is a "but." To wit: My response to the second half.

First let me say: I value constructive criticism – which is what I took this to be. In fact, it is some of the best criticism I have received on Spot.Us. Anyone who builds an online community should have their ears open. Listen, learn and adapt. Which is to say: Spot.Us is process – not a product. In fact, next week's Spot.Us email newsletter will be asking our community for specific feedback, feature requests (cheap plug: please register to give feedback!). As I noted when we first started building the platform – "if Spot.Us is never 'finished' – then it will be a success."

Rainey asks: Could the journalism be better on Spot.Us?

My response: Of course!
(Afterthought: You could say this about any journalism).

While I don't think we'll win a Pulitzer with our content so far – I am proud of what we've produced and the reporters. At this stage I refuse to let perfection be an enemy to the good.

While the content might not fit the sensibilities of an LA Times columnist who admits getting "queasy" about the new age mindset, nobody has recently died to crown them judge of all things journalism quality. Rainey points out weaknesses and I could just as easily point out strengths.

But I do want to improve the content and recently have made some decisions that, I hope, will do this. Specifically: A reporters agreement that lays out how much a reporter can ask for their reporting and more importantly: Soon Spot.Us will be filtering what pitches will be highlighted in our browse page. We still will let anyone upload a pitch (that is within our categories and local), but we may not highlight them if it is a pitch we don't think can also be thoroughly reported and turned into a great story.

"The site's platform outperforms its product."

As an open source project this put a HUGE smile on my face. I also think this comment points to exactly what James missed. This is like finding a crappy WordPress blog and claiming that blogs need to work on their editorial vision. Don't confuse the medium and the message.

Anyone can take the code for Spot.Us and create their own version of it!

I tell people right now that the code isn't ready to be used – but I think in a few months it'll be stronger and I WANT people to take it and launch their own community funded reporting projects. I intend on expanding Spot.Us but would LOVE it if somebody beat me to their city.

They can use their own editorial methods, conventions, etc. Perhaps they can take the strong platform and produce stronger content than Spot.Us as well. This is the BIG picture. Spot.Us will absorb 98 percent of the cost of building this platform and others can take it, apply their own editorial standards and create a new local journalism organization using their own policies and rules.

Even without launching a whole new organization Spot.Us is a tool that existing news organizations can use and while we provide a platform – they can apply whatever journalism quality standards they want to the freelancers procured. In that sense, if Spot.Us was in Los Angeles we could fund stories for LA Times freelancers.

That is why I say: "Spot.Us is a platform not a news organization."

I want to examine this quote particularly because taken out of context I don't think the second half conveys what I meant. This is often my response to people that ask if I'd let bloggers or "non-profesionals" put pitches up on Spot.Us. To which I say – of course!

I often use the N Judah Chronciles blog as my anecdote. This blog is not maintained by a "professional journalist" – but if the author wanted to pitch a story on Spot.Us about the N Judah line or general public transit, obviously his expertise, who would I be to say "sorry, no bloggers allowed." That would be a HUGE step backwards in my opinion.

But hey – others could take the code and make their own version that is restricted just to "professionals," however they want to define that. I won't stop them, although I'd advise them that it would be a silly distinction to make.

As for the end of the column:

I won't respond in full only to say:

• Don't box me in – the Internet is far more diverse than just being described as the "wisdom of the crowd."
• I drink no koolaid. I always try and remain realistic about what is and isn't possible with the "wisdom of the crowd" which again – is just one of many phenomena we see online with journalism.
• Your old road is Rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand.

Next Steps for Spot.Us

In one week I will be going out to visit my developers to discuss next steps for the platform. I hope to record this on the Spot.Us blog. My sincere hope is that as we improve the functionality, so too will we improve the content. Rainey's challenge is accepted with open arms.

And so once again I leave this blog post saying "ONWARD!!!!"