In order to foster a strong round-table I wanted to spur conversation among this group BEFORE the event takes place. In an effort to do this – we re-started the Carnival of Journalism. Welcome to the party! The first few rounds are on me!

Below will be my humble contribution as an individual. Soon I’ll do a wrap-up post that links to all the other participants who joined us in discussing this topic and wow WHAT A GROUP! I’m excited to see what happens as the “COJ” moves forward. I’m a big believer in social media, Twitter, Facebook and all our fast moving conversation. My hope is that the COJ might give us space to reflect on larger issues. So wait for the wrap-up post which will appear here and at Carnival of Journalism soon. Then, feel free to digitally meet your fellows carnival goers, mingle, drink, be merry, debate (at a high level of discourse) then go fourth and journalize.

This month’s topic and my humble contribution: The changing role of Universities for the information needs of a community: One of the Knight Commission‘s recommendations is to “Increase the role of higher education…..as hubs of journalistic activity.” Another is to “integrate digital and media literacy as critical elements for education at all levels through collaboration among federal, state, and local education officials.”

My post here will be greatly surpassed by the aggregation of everyone’s thoughts. But since this is my blog – here we go!

Universities have a unique advantage in this “changing media environment.” They are sheltered from economic realities. True – they do have a bottom line, but it is not governed by the same forces. Journalism programs don’t need to focus on the ad-spending rates of print vs. digital because it impacts whether or not a professor will have a job. They focus on it to the extent that it impacts their students lives once they leave the hive. With that advantage comes great responsibility. Yes, just like Spiderman.

In addition to this unique advantage – Universities have a distinct disadvantage. The reporting is done from within a university. When I went to Columbia’s J-school I worked on a project NYC24. It’s a great way to learn skills but the finished content felt as though it was placed behind a glass case – it was museum work. Aside from my parents and other class mates who stared at it – the impact was minimal. Being voted the EIC of this site was like being the hallway monitor (Our EIC went on to be do PR for Karl Rove – not a joke). Combine this with trying to get a call back when you say you’re a journalism student and you’ll understand what I mean by saying – it’s implication and attraction to the rest of the world is null and void. I like programs like News21.org, but I fear it’s more of the same. Now instead of just one j-school website behind a glass wall, we have several j-schools.

Taking those two things into consideration – I would make two specific recommendations for the changing role of Universities in regards to the information needs of a community.

ONE RECOMMENDATION: There are a few University projects that have shed the “museum” feel. In the Bay Mission Local is a bright shinning example. In Los Angeles check out Neon Tommy. I credit it almost completely to Lydia Chavez and Marc Cooper respectively. But since cloning them isn’t a strategy, I’d guess the following elements also helped.

(a. Neither are seen as ‘necessarily’ associated with the university. Rather – the sites have a unique flavor and they ‘happen’ to be associated with a university. Again, this is a tough nut to crack and I think requires individual professors like Marc and Lydia to be given the space and resources to produce independent sounding/standing projects.

(b. Partnering with other news organizations. This is a touchy subject because for some it sounds like student labor to prop up failing organizations – flooding the market with cheap labor so professional journalists can’t get hired. See UC Berkeley’s collaboration with The Bay Citizen. Watch carefully Patch and other universities.

Bottom line: I see almost NO reason why there should be a “student” newspaper at the graduate level. Or why any “student” work should remain such. It’s the real world. If journalists want to complain about pajama bloggers – why not add journalism students to the mix

On a broader level I want to talk about universities outside of j-schools.

RECOMMENDATION TWO: Universities play an important role in their communities beyond just being diploma mills that collect tuition. UC Berkeley is, historically, a great example. (See “Berkeley in the 60′s). In relation to this journalism students should be working with students from history, communication and other departments to train them. Yes, you heard me. Journalism students should be teachers. Journalism is no longer the art of story-telling. It can also be the art of story-enabling. If there was one change I’d want to see in curriculum across the board it would be to envision a class whereby journalism students find ways to get the broader student body involved in media projects. This, I believe, is the biggest change that needs to happen.

Or flip this on its head: History, communication, sociology, etc – all these departments should include journalism into their curriculum. Journalism doesn’t need to be done by big J-Journalism students. At the undergraduate level why isn’t every history major tasked with creating a blog and covering one local issue or partnering with journalism students? After all what is history but really really slow journalism

In short – the first recommendation implies concrete implications from student work. Call it an “Ameri-corp” if you will, although I hate that analogy (hoping Conor from Localocracy picks up this topic as I’ve heard him champion it before).
My second recommendation: We’re too involved in our own journalism programs. Knight (or some other entity with a ton of money) should find a way to lobby/change curriculum in other departments to include elements of journalism. EVERY student should leave college with some experience of reporting and writing.

And for extra credit!

Check out what Jarvis is doing at CUNY. There needs to be more of this. The goal here is not to cover a region, but to innovate. And not just in an academic setting. For some students his class even turned into real funds to start a project. Obviously we can’t do offer that at every journalism program – but we can create space to be creative.

Journalism is an interesting thing to teach in the first place. We call it a craft and yet I have a “Masters in Science” of journalism. It’s everyday history and yet it’s a blue-color practical job. The academics of it and the application of it are two distinct things.
For the sake of how Universities can get involved in the information needs of communities – they have been and always will be hubs. In the 60′s that mean giving a space for picketing. That lead to the shooting at Kent State, a tragedy for sure, but also a national moment. A space for the country to face itself in the mirror. Universities need to provide the same digital space today.

In some respects CFS gave me a needed shot of adrenaline into the Spot.Us project. If I’m not pushing boundaries and trying something new, I get bored. To date I still know of no other media entity trying anything exactly like it.

So what is community-focused sponsorship?
The quick version: We sell the sponsoring organization a form of engagement on our site (a quiz, survey, etc). Anyone who engages with the sponsor gets a slice of our sponsorship budget. They decide where the funds go. The sponsor gets the anonymized information from community members. Each side creates value for the other. Give it a whirl thanks to HP Partners PCRush.com.

When I first came up with the idea I approached the Harnisch Foundation for support. This is a foundation that considers news and information, among others, a priority. Bless their journalistic hearts. More-over they are interested in finding new models of sustainability. Bless their bold hearts.

When I told them about community-focused sponsorship I made a bold claim that, in truth, I wasn’t 100 percent sure I could deliver on. I told them I could double the money they gave Spot.Us. I asked for $15,000. They gave us $20,000.

I’m happy to announce that not only did we double up on this larger figure, we’ve made $7,250, to spare – for a total of $47,250.

What happened to the money?

Some of it went toward developing the infrastructure of our model. We already had a credit system on Spot.Us, but the database structure needed to be cleaned and a user-interface created, etc. I’ll spare you the geekery so much as to say, it took some work, but it wasn’t insane thanks to early thinking about our credit system and the fine work of CTO Erik Sundelof.

Some was used to prime the pump. When we got our first sponsorship from FreePress.net, we added some of our funds to extend the sponsorship. We even created a few of our own surveys/quizzes.

A worst case scenario of the Harnisch grant would have been if we had not sold any sponsorships. In that case – this would be like many other grants that fund content – except instead of deciding how the funds would get spent internally, Spot.Us was looking to engage community members to make that decision. Still worth it in my humble opinion. Whereas most nonprofit news organizations that get grants decide internally (the publisher makes the call) how to spend the money – we looked to the community.

I triple-dog-dare any major nonprofit news organization to take a little of their foundation budget on the side and let the community vote on how it should be spent. (Oh no he didn’t just bust a triple-dog-dare!)

So how did we double up?

Talking about money is never easy for me. I am a natural salesperson, but when it comes down to the closing and to put up a dollar figure, I wince. As Brad Flora will attest, you need somebody who can make the sales-kill. I’m learning.

Somehow I’ve managed to sell a few sponsorships.

Mortgage Revolution (our first) gave us 6k to get us started. That was quickly distributed.

FreePress did two sponsorships with us for 1k each (we matched it with 2k from the Harnisch grant).

AARP gave us two sponsorships totaling out at of 4.5k.

The Aspen Institute, marketing the Knight Commission report on news and information needs of communities, did a sponsorship for 1k (also matched by Harnisch grant).

Clay Shirky did a speaking gig and was given the chance to make a donation to the nonprofit of his choice. He chose Spot.Us but instead of keeping the money, we distributed it via a sponsorship model.

We did a focused survey for Way Out West News. The bootstrapped operation gave us $250. Because they are a news organization starting out and the survey was inline with Spot.Us’ mission – we subsidized it with $500.

And finally the biggie. HP Partners did a whopping 10k sponsorship! The main partner benefactor of the sponsorship so far has been PCRush.com.

Total: $28,750 raised for journalism.
That is ALL money that goes towards reporting (spot.us did start taking a commission near the end – details below). These funds are unlocked a few dollars at a time by community members (roughly 5,600 acts of engagement). That’s 5,600 choices made by members of the public to support independent reporting. That might not be earth-shattering in pageviews, but in terms of engagement it’s huge. The average amount of time spent on a survey is 2:45 (much more valuable than a banner advert).

Total spent from the original Harnisch grant?
Six thousand on development and just over six thousand on sponsorships.

Remaining in the Harnisch budget – $8,000
(so I might be able to turn the original 20k into more).

Un-expected

The extra funds from Clay Shirky was un-expected. And I’ll be honest with you – there was a fair amount of time I considered not giving it away via community-focused sponsorship, but saving the money for an organizational rainy day (see my triple-dog-dare above).

Even without those funds Spot.Us still would have doubled-up its original investment from Harnisch.

When I spoke with Clay to get his permission to publicly distribute the funds he brought up an important point – that this model shouldn’t be about Push/Pull advertising. The sponsored engagement shouldn’t dangle the $5 above a community members head and make them jump through an annoying hoop. This, in the long run, will isolate Spot.Us from its community members. As we get larger and more corporate sponsors (fingers crossed) this will have to be something we really “push” back on – pardon the pun.

Since Clay didn’t have anything specific to sell, although you should buy his book, he let us do whatever we wanted with his sponsorship. Keeping in mind his suggestion – we asked folks for their view on objectivity in journalism. The idea is that we (a. genuinely wanted to know (b. this is a stimulating conversation/question and (c. once we got responses we could turn around and share their aggregated answers creating value back for the the collective community. See: “What the Spot.Us community thinks of objectivity in journalism.”

This final analysis became another selling point we did not anticipate. When I showed it to Free Press, now on their second sponsorship, they wanted a similar analysis. On that note: here’s what the Spot.Us community thinks of public media.

In both cases the analysis became a topic of discussion in the Twittersphere and beyond. Here were REAL numbers based on REAL responses from people who were asking and answering difficult questions. That it funded independent media was icing on the cake from the sponsors perspective.

In some respects we are doing what Pew Center for Journalism does – in a less scientific and faster way. As organizations will constantly need to keep a finger on the pulse of things – I think our sponsorship model will be a way they can do that and support journalism at the same time. (I also double-dog dare Pew to sponsor a survey on Spot.Us).

Obstacles

I still don’t have a sales team. It’s just me emailing people I meet or know.

I am confident this sponsorship model sells, but it doesn’t sell itself – somebody has to be there to make the phone calls and talk people through it.

What next?

Sell more sponsorships any way I can – without falling into the push/pull trap mentioned above. I think that would be a death-spiral.

We hope to create an affiliate model whereby anyone can sell a sponsorship and earn a commission. I am in talks with SacramentoPress to be the first to try this out. They have a sales team (mostly does local) and if they can sell a sponsorship – I will gladly let them keep a healthy commission.

I also believe that this sponsorship model could be a way to bring in foundation support outside of the traditional foundations that support journalism. It is great that Knight, MacArthur, Patterson, McCormick, Harnisch and other foundations support journalism (they should triple-dog dare their large grantees to let the community decide as well). I believe that by sponsoring quizzes and surveys about topics of interest to them – we can get more foundations interested in journalism. A foundation that supports child education might not ever see funding independent journalism as high on their priority list. At best they would support journalism about children’s education which while well-intentioned misses the point of independent reporting that reflects a community’s issues – instead of trying to dictate concerns.

Through this model that foundation could raise awareness on issues of child education, getting feedback and educating the public and at the same time support independent reporting. it would be icing on the cake.

Finally: We are taking steps on Spot.Us to emphasize the community-focused sponsorships and de-emphasize donating from an individuals own bank account. With our HP sponsorships there are more funds to distribute than we can with our current audience size. It may turn out to be a bad idea. We might realize that by de-emphasizing donations we are leaving money on the table. But so far people have reacted very positively and we should give people more opportunities to support reporting without having to whip out their wallet. We won’t remove the ability to donate funds – it just won’t be the first option people see. Rather – they will see the option to earn credits until all those options have been completed.

(UPDATE: The above paragraph turned into a failed experiment, people complained, we reversed).

UPDATE #2: Spot.Us has always said that commission would be “optional and transparent.” well, now it’s just transparent. We take 5 percent out of every community-focused sponsorship. Which means when you earn $5 in credits and you start to donate $4.71 goes to the pitch of your choice and .29 goes to Spot.Us. Hey, can you blame us? If so – let us know in the comments.

We also need to build out the types of engagements we can produce. We started by mimicking parts of a Google Form. We still can’t do everything Google Forms offers. But we will get there. There are tons of potential engagement opportunities we could build.

What is WIkiLeaks: According to wikipedia it’s “an amorphous, international organization, originally based in Sweden,^[1] that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the anonymity of their sources.”

The organization has made a splash recently with its collateral murder video that showed U.S. soldiers killing suspected terrorists (turned out to be journalists) from a helicopter while not following standard procedures.

Bottom line: I think WikiLeaks is important and a positive thing for freedom and democracy. As Adrian Monck said via Twitter: “Nasty but necessary.” An idealistic free speech absolutist part of me wants to cheer them on until I lose my voice. But a very practical side of me asks tons of questions. All of these questions come back to ethics.

Quick disclaimer: I am not a scholar. I am not one who speaks on behalf of the journalism world. This is my personal blog where I have a conversation with myself. It helps me sleep better. I make no claims as to the ethical state of Wikileaks – I just leave with questions. I also have no doubt in my mind that the founders of Wikileaks have the best of intentions.

Why this post?: Since Collateral Murder was released there has been an ongoing saga with WikiLeaks. Their source has been arrested. Coverage of it in Wired has been very thorough (disclaimer – I used to work at Wired) and included chat logs between Manning (the whistleblower) and Lamo (the informant). In the chat logs Manning makes reference to 260,000 government cables that he leaked to Wikileaks. The WikiLeaks organization denies they have these documents but does accuse Wired.com of ethical breaches – helping Lamo turn in Manning to get a scoop. The back-and-forth has been analyzed by Salon, CJR and others. This post is not intended to add to that back-and-foth. The fact is, I don’t know what happened. I don’t know the series of events that took place. I can’t place blame on anyone. I’m an outsider. IF Manning is a spy – I’m glad we got him. If Manning is a whistblower – I hope they fight it and win. If Wired entrapped Manning, shame on them. If not, kudos on the reporting. If monkeys fly out my butt – it will hurt. I simply don’t know or care. It is an example of particular justice. I am more interested in a general and theoretical situation. Because the situations I concoct below are theoretical – I will cast no aspersions to WikiLeaks.

The Meat of this Post: A Theoretical Ethical Conundrum

If Manning did leak 260,000 government cables to WikiLeaks – the organization finds itself in a very big ethical conundrum.

Do you sit on the government documents? Aside from going against the “information wants to be free” philosophy you essentially become a spy. You will be sitting on way too much information and hence power. (if information is power, and power corrupts….). At the same time – you can’t just “leak” those 260,000 documents for the world to see. It would be irresponsible. Even if you could 100% verify the information as true these are potentially the kinds of documents that get people killed, start wars, trash economies and more. Even the most free speech absolutist must recognize that words have consequences and releasing 260,000 documents can do a lot of damage. It’s blood you don’t want on your hands. The only medium is to sit on the majority of documents and leak the ones that you feel are most important or ethical to leak. But that still puts the power in one person’s hand.

WikiLeaks claims they don’t have the 260,0o0 documents. I hope for their sake it’s true – because I would hate to be in the position above.

This theoretical situation, however, brings up two more poignant questions about ethics and journalism. One is about WikiLeaks itself and the other is about the “profession” of journalism and tension this profession has with the process of journalism which is (and should be) open to anyone.

WikiLeaks and The State

I was talking to Jay Rosen (affectionately called “Boss Rosen”) a mentor of mine who called WikiLeaks a “wild card.” I have felt the same way but couldn’t articulate why – until Jay put it this way. Jay studies “the press” which is a legal entity defined by the state. In other words – you can’t have “the press” until a governing body gives freedom of the press to some varying degree. If they provide no freedom of the press – then communication is literally an extension of the government itself (propaganda). In the United States we have the first amendment which gave birth to “the press” broad enough that the press can literally take down the government itself (Watergate).

What makes WikiLeaks interesting is that they have no national ties. They are not accountable to any foreign government’s laws. Well, at least, that was true until recently. I have not dived into Iceland’s new media reforms but I’m sure it has direct consequences for WikiLeaks. The reform itself was spearheaded by WikiLeaks, perhaps because they recognized that without a country providing that kind of legal framework they were operating almost as information pirates. Even a pirate that steals from the rich and gives to the poor is a pirate operating outside of any legal framework. It’s interesting that Iceland had to pivot itself to become the “Cayman Islands” of information exchange in order to provide a legal infrastructure broad enough for WikiLeaks. Again, this is a new development and I’m not 100% sure what it means – but it does start to address one of the underlying issues of WikiLeaks. Just as a business working internationally needs to have a legal home in some country, so too does an organization that works in journalism.

The problem that remains, however, is the theoretical situation I described above. I don’t know if WikiLeaks has 260,000 documents. If they do, however, they are in a tight ethical spot. Iceland is now right there with them. The country of Iceland might be able to protect them legally, but jurisprudence is just one facet of ethics.

Ethics in Journalism: Journalism ethics is very interesting. I was a philosophy major (many years ago) and studied Kant, Hegel, Peter Singer, John Rawls and others. Most of the time when we talk about “ethics” we are talking about a system of beliefs that constitute ones idea of right/wrong/justice/ etc. These beliefs then guide actions.In some respects, however, when we talk about journalism ethics we are talking about it within the context of a profession. The closest thing journalism has to an ethical code of conduct is SPJ’s code of ethics which I have always greatly admired. SPJ’s code seems to be based on a Kantian ideal that if one is to do something, they have to be prepared for everyone else in the world to do it as well. But it’s important to notice the “P” in SPJ – ie: “professional.”

How much of this “code of ethics” is based on professional practices, situations, scenarios, etc? For the most part I still find SPJ’s code of ethics to be pretty inclusive and stand on their own – but I wonder how much of it translates to the realities of folks outside of newsrooms? I would like to think that all of it does – but when you look closely you’ll see even in the preamble: “Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.” Why is “professional” the cornerstone? Shouldn’t ethics, especially Kantian ethics, be  universal?

“Hector Tobar colmn on low property taxes for wealthy country clubs from story 1st funded by micro-payment site Spot.us http://bit.ly/5Yzz6N“

This was quickly followed by Steve Rhodes

“@LATimesrainey @spotus is crowdfunding I’d think of a micro-payment site as one where people contribute after a story is written.”

James noted the difference:

“Thanks to @tigerbeat for correcting me. Spot.us is a pioneer in crowd-funding, not micro-payments. My apologies.”

To some extent – I think it’s splitting hairs. But I have an ongoing post that tries to do just this about journalism rhetoric.

So let’s take a moment to split those hairs even more. How would we define the difference between micro-payment and crowdfudning. I don’t think when the donation comes in is the difference maker.

Disclaimer: I don’t claim to be the person who should or does define these terms for anyone other than myself. But as I put thought into it – I might as well share them. This way as I engage in conversation with people about these concepts I have something to refer them to that shows the transparency in my thought.

Although I think Steve made a good point to say Spot.Us is crowd funding, I don’t think it’s when the money comes in is the defining difference between community funding or micro payments. After all, compared to the amount of money advertisers usually throw at newspapers the $10-$20 people contribute to Spot.Us is “micro.”

As an example – look at Paige Williams recent example of reporting through small contributions. The contributions came in after the story was done. But what she did, whether we call it ‘micro-payments’ or ‘crowd funding’ is more akin to Spot.Us than the metered system proposed by the NY Times.

I’d argue the defining factor is transparency and control about where money goes. For every Spot.Us pitch and in the case of Paige Williams, ReelChanges documentaries, Kickstarter projects and more – a contributor knows where their money is going and it was their choice.

Compare this to what the Miami Herald is doing in asking for contributions (or NPR) which leaves little to no transparency or control over the money.

I believe this is the defining factor between ‘micro-payments’ and ‘crowd/community funding.’

Dictionary Definitions

Micro payments allow an individual to contribute a small amount of money towards an organization. That money is under the organizations discretion.

Crowdfunding allows an individual to contribute a small amount of money towards an organization. That money is under the individuals discretion.

I would argue that giving transparency and control to the community is a good thing. That’s the argument for Spot.Us and other community funded projects.

I’ll say it again.

NPR could start doing community funded reporting tomorrow and blow Spot.Us out of the water. The Miami Herald could as well.

Imagine this page of Spot.Us filled with NPR pitches from around the country.

Imagine a NY Times payment meter or a Miami herald tip jar where, after you pay, you get to decide what beat your money goes towards?

It isn’t hard if you try

What does the organization loose? It gains good faith, creates a small extra incentive.

Nothing too radical. Just a simple choice: “Thanks for paying to see more NY Times articles. Where would you like your payment to go towards (i. Political reporting (II. Environmental reporting, etc. There could even be an “I don’t care – spend it how you want” option, but at least it is THEIR choice, not the organizations.

That is the difference that I make be

By Colin Harman (colinharman.com)

2. Fast and cheap: If it works out then you’ve won the lottery. Again, I’m not saying quality is impossible here. But I personally know projects that went the fast and cheap route and in the long run it hurt them. What they ended up bringing to market failed. Most users are not as forgiving as they are to Twitter. If your site breaks, they won’t come back. It often takes an organization twice as much money and time to build a stable website if the initial site was built fast and cheap. If you are not a tech-minded person, you might wonder why everyone doesn’t outsource or go with the cheapest labor out there (and there are cheap developers on the market). To them I offer the following analogy: you could pay an Amish wood craftsman to build an heirloom cabinet that will last generations, or you can get something from Ikea that will last two to five years and require some assembly and maintenance on your part –but will cost a tenth of the price. There is no right or wrong answer. It often depends on where you are in life. When I was in college it was Ikea all the way, baby! In either case the trade-offs are apparent. That’s the difference between options number one and number two.

3. Good and cheap: The typical scenario here is that you have a great web developer (an Amish craftsman of code) who is ready to donate some of his/her time to your project. This is great. It means you can get quality at a cheap price. But this also usually means the development comes at a pace dictated by the volunteer, not you. Set all the deadlines you want in your mind — the reality is that you’re at their mercy. Again, this isn’t a bad thing. It’s just a trade-off. The good news is that when something does finally get put out, you’ll have quality and it won;t have broken the piggy bank. If you aren’t in a rush this can even be ideal (for example, maybe it’s something you are working on as a volunteer as well).

I tend to avoid the “professional vs. amateur journalism” debate, saying “I have constructive criticisms for both sides.” As we’ve hit a flash point for traditional news organizations, the evolution of citizen journalism networks like NowPublic, AllVoices and others may shed light on how the media space will resolve. Perhaps the two “opposites” will meet somewhere in the middle or, as I suspect, find out that they are more alike than they ever thought.

Recent news in the space has included Orato and Ground Report making shifts to require higher editorial standards in the submissions they accept and publish.

Alfred Hermida wrote a post on Reportr.net titled “Orato turns its back on citizen journalism,” in which he notes that the site used to focus on first person narratives of events but….

Instead the focus is on “concrete and trustworthy information that is objective and under-reported.” The owner and founder of Orato, Sam Yehia, said the changes were made to “further professionalize the site, focus its newsworthy content, create and enforce a viable business model and keep pace with Web 2.0 standards.”

When I met up with longtime friend Rachel Sterne, founder of Ground Report, at the Beyond Broadcast conference she explained that her network was making a similar change. While I’m one example shy of a trend, I think these two shifts warrant
some thought.

Rachel Sterne explains the changes happening at Ground Report:

What is the shift on Ground Report?

From what I gathered, there are four main shifts in Ground Report’s editorial policy.

1. Content from new users goes through a longer vetting period. Ground Report is trading speed for accountability.
2. Content from a trusted user or source skips this vetting period — but only because the contributor has proven themselves.
3. Expanding the powers of volunteer editors, who can now edit anything on the site. Again, these are trusted contributors.
4. A part-time managing editor who is in the process of writing editorial guidelines. This is a tough line to walk because they want to preserve the uniqueness of the writers’ voice but also make sure they are up to the higher editorial standards.

The reasoning

Sterne explained the logic behind the new system: “It is something that in the commercial world has just started to enter the dialogue while it seems obvious in an academic world.” There are several reasons why the policy change makes sense to me:

1. Trading speed and accountability seems like a no brainer to me. Twitter has come on the scene to dominate the speed world, which means citizen journalism networks can offer an added value of accountability.
2. Ground Report, Now Public, All Voices and others are looking to syndicate their content to larger distributors. To do that, they must provide a sense of trustworthiness.
3. iReport, YouTube and other large user-generated sites have begun highlighting well produced work from dedicated contributors while making the larger mass of content they host harder to find.

Even more interesting, according to Sterne, contributions on Ground Report have dropped 50 percent in the month since the site began implementing the changes, but traffic has increased 10 percent. That seems to be a trade off that most publishers would take — giving them a more streamlined workflow and process along with higher traffic.

Some things to note

According to the Wikipedia page on Citizen Journalism:

Allvoices was also the first citizen journalism site to measure the credibility of contributed reports and their authors, providing readers with a gauge launched in March 2009 for assessing the accuracy of news accounts.

I am friends with several of the folk at AllVoices and hope to follow up with them next time we speak.

Most people don’t know, but I am the editor in chief of citizen journalism network Broowaha. We have had similar conversations with our own members and internal team. Not surprisingly, some of the most dedicated contributors have voiced a preference towards structure, guidelines and policy.

Where are we left?

I don’t claim to have a crystal ball, but I wouldn’t be surprised if more citizen journalism networks make this shift. I think it is perfectly possible for these networks to be picky about what they publish without being exclusive. This will be a fine line to walk so as not to lose their citizen journalism souls as they try and up their game.

Stamps are a funny requirement. It is not a tax – but if you want to send anything through the mail it is just as guaranteed as death that you’ll have to pay for it.

And while the fees are small, they can add up. A book of 20 stamps is close to $10 now.What is also unique about purchasing 20 stamps is that they represent credits. I can use those stamps however I want. To mail bills, postcards, or store them away as prized possessions. There is a decision made for each stamp. There is transparency in how I use them privately (it is my choice) and publicly if I use them.

In a Sunday Digi-Dream I brainstormed about how taxes could be revolutionized online.

That thought process went like this.

• The government (local, state, federal) still determines how much money is needed for specific programs (roads, education, bailout)
• Individuals still figure out how much money they owe in taxes every year.
• The individual decides where they want their taxes paid. Which programs do they want to support?

The fun part is that the individual decides where the money should go. If they are passionate about education – they can donate all their money towards the education fund. If that fund is already filled with the money it needs, the individual must give the money towards another government need. This encourages people to file their taxes early (so you feel as though your money went towards something you believe) and might make the feeling of paying your taxes suck less.

Note: The shift in mindset. My taxes almost become a “donation.” While it wouldn’t really be a choice (taxes are guaranteed like death), it would be a choice about which government program my money goes to support. There is a sense of transparency, civic engagement and more.

Recently a bunch of newspaper execs met in a dark room to talk about micropayments.

I’m actually happy that something in the micropayment space might happen. I’d much rather a major company try it and fail then for the larger industry continue to debate about it back and forth for months. Somebody has to suck it up and try something.

But here is my advice: Add transparency and control for the user of where the money goes!!! People aren’t used to paying for the news. Charging somebody a small fee for access to an article they are going to read once is bound to disappoint somebody. Those people won’t become regular consumers.

In truth this notion of transparency and control over a donation is the real revolution of Spot.Us and why people continue to find it fascinating. Because we let the user decide and know exactly where their money is going.

It is the difference between donating to the Red Cross and donating on Kiva.org, the difference between giving to a sludge fund for educators or giving on DonorsChoose.org.

Giving to journalism isn’t new. NPR has been around for some time. But when you donate to NPR you are throwing money over a fence and hoping your money lands on good journalism. It is a donation of guilt or hope, but there is no sense of control or power on the part of the contributor.

Donating on Spot.Us is a choice that engages. It defacto brings the user into the editorial process and encourages them to be engaged throughout. They aren’t donating to a finished product – they are donating to a process that invites them in.

NPR could try something like Spot.Us tomorrow and blow me out of the water. So could any of these newspaper companies that are thinking about micropayments.

I’m not trying to prescribe anything – just sharing how I use these words because it helps me think through what is happening online and where Spot.Us stands (look for the joke at the end of this LONG post).

That 2007 post landed me a small freelance piece for the Press Gazette where I wrote a cleaner version: “Time Citizen Journalism Pulled its Act together.” As noted – the original post was inspired by  Steve Outing’s Poynter post 11 Layers of Citizen Journalism.

It is time to revisit these definitions, update them, and add explanations to what I mean when I use certain phrases like “journalism is a process, not a product.” In reading through all of them – I hope one can see how they play off each other in my mind.

My definitions and updates for

• citizen journalism
• Stand-alone Journalism
• Pro-am Journalism
• Networked Journalism (including “Distributed Reporting.”)
• Open Source Journalism (including the re-release of stories and content sharing).

And I try and explain what I mean when I say….

• Journalism is a process – not a product.
• Collaboration is Queen
• Media is an act of community organizing
• Community Funded Reporting
• Journalism will survive the death of its institutions.
• Hyper-local
• Computational Journalism
• New Media skill set
• New Media mind set
• Journalism (yes… I get that bold)
• Professional journalism

“citizen journalism”

Update: Boss Rosen defines citizen journalism as such: “When the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools in their possession to inform one another.” The reason I wrote my initial post in 2007 was because this definition (although not articulated at the time – it was in the ether) is too broad. It defines a class of acts. What he is describing is Citizen Journalism with a capital “C.” I tend to avoid this term because it clashes with “citizen journalism” which I describe below, as an act that happens under very specific circumstances. I tend to refer to the class of acts as “Participatory journalism.” Here’s why.

Old def of citizen journalism: This is the catch phrase that started it all. “Citizen journalism” with a capital “C” refers to an entire class of terms, and hence some of the confusion. If we are talking about a single act of “citizen journalism,” we most often are discussing an individual, who is not a paid journalist, who bares witness to a newsworthy event and broadcasts it. Acts of citizen journalism in this sense happen by mere coincidence. People are everywhere and when disaster strikes, someone usually has a camera.

Examples: Oscar Grant shooting, London train bombings, terror attacks in India.

“Stand-alone journalism”

In contrast to citizen journalism, this is when the individual isn’t reporting out of happenstance. The reporter, who is not acting as a “professional,” (see below) made a conscious choice to go out and report on a topic. This term was coined by Chris Nolan at Spot-on.com. Many people still refer this to fall under the class of “Citizen Journalism (with a big C) but that starts to confuse citizen journalism acts that are happenstance. I call this “stand-alone journalism” which is under the class of “Participatory Journalism” – but it is not “professional.”

Update: These might also be called “Placebloggers.” One of my favorite stand alone journalists in San Francisco is N Judah Chronicles. To my knowledge this blog is a passionate hobby, not part of the author’s profession.

“Pro-am Journalism”

The most basic form of “Citizen journalism” that news organizations tend to engage in is when professional and amateur journalists work together. It occurs through basic comments on an article – when those comments add extra information or new views that the original writer left out. These comments can be an incredible source of value to a story and are very easy to invoke. This is the basis of “pro-am journalism” but it extends to include more (below). Reporters need to learn the art of community management; and acknowledge that they now have a nuanced relationship with readers and must repeat, every day, “my readers know more than I do.”

“Network journalism”

Although it hasn’t reached its full potential, the idea is to organize groups of people through the internet to work on a single story. Like stand-alone journalism, it is a conscious decision, but large groups, rather than a lone reporter, do the work. Networked journalism rests its fate on two principles: the “wisdom of crowds” – the idea that collectives can be more intelligent than individuals – and “distributed reporting.”

Update: This is often espoused by Jeff Jarvis and I believe it is what Dave Winer often describes in his posts on the future of news. Almost two years later I still don’t think network journalism has reached its full potential, which is to say, we can expect more and better coverage in this fashion. I think what is needed are mature platforms that can allow groups of like-minded individuals to find each other and do “distributed reporting.”

Distributed Reporting

The art of organizing an online work flow, so that volunteers are efficient and happy to donate time to commit acts of journalism that in aggregate helps produce news. In distributed reporting – the work load is spread out. This is contrasted nicely with “community funding” where the cost of reporting is distributed.

“Open source journalism”

Like networked journalism, these projects are collaborative. They have multiple points or “sources” of information. But open source journalism adds an important element. Either a) the re-release of stories or b) sharing information among competitors. These factors make a project “open.”

Update: I think we are starting to see the emergence of this. ProPublica, the new Huffington Post investigative arm and Spot.Us all make content available to be republished. What happens when everyone starts doing it? We focus less on “scoops” and more on collaboration.

The re-release of stories

In networked journalism, people work in collaboration on a single story. In open source, they work together on a story that is constantly refined and republished in public. Imagine a journalist who releases a story to the public. Then, using participatory or networked journalism, more reporting and information is added and the story is reworked and republished. This method can produce amazing results. Covering an election, you’ll need a definitive story once the results are in. An open source story will feel very anti-climatic. But covering development in a community, the story will probably last several months, lending itself to new versions.

Update: Not unlike this blog post where I started defining these terms for myself. This would be the third release of it.

Sharing information:

While this has major potential, it has yet to be realized. Imagine 100 newspapers covering the same topic: “Local effects of global warming.” Each paper covers its own neighborhood, gathering the same information, local bird migration, average temperatures and more. Each paper would have a story serving its local readers, but if it shared that information with the other 99 papers, they could create a national view of global warming. You lose the scoop, but you get to be part of a story that is greater than that which your single paper could ever produce.

Update: See “What happens to my recyclables” on Spot.Us. Now imagine we raise $4,000 instead of $400. We hire ten reporters to do this story in ten different cities – all sharing their methods and ideas, so the finishes package is better than the sum of its parts. Spot.Us in this sense becomes the SourceForge of how to do this story. I also think that the move of ProPublica and Huffington Post to share their investigative work with newspapers is incredibly interesting and, not to pat myself on the back, validates a lot of my early thoughts on sharing of content. Scoops have the half life of a link. Being the first one to cover a story is not nearly as cool as being one of ten or more organizations to all cover a story together.

Phrases

Journalism is a process – not a product.

Newspapers, TV shows and magazines are products that contain journalism. But journalism is a process. It is a series of acts one does to collect, filter, distribute and add value to information. Journalism is never finished. Even when you package a story in a newspaper – the story is not done. Stories are never open and shut cases. They develop over time and this can be reflected in the re-release of stories.

Collaboration is Queen

Analogy is of a chess board: Content is king (the most important) but collaboration is queen (the most powerful.

Extending the analogy

• Rooks are technology (I love Casteling as a first move)
• Bishops are your project managers – either technology or community.
• Knights are your editors/reporters
• Pawns are your community (and can become queens if you get them to the other side of the board)

Media is an act of community organizing

I missed the 60′s – but I hear they were awesome! When you wanted to make a change back then, you’d get a bunch of people together and picket something. That still occurs.

But a YouTube video can be the modern march. Many YouTube videos are made with this in mind. It is media – but it is also a force of change. Before you whine “that it is all bias and unfair,” consider a well accepted motto, that journalism is supposed to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Also – get off your high-horse.

Community Funded Reporting

Distributing the cost of hiring a journalist across many different people. This can be contrasted with distributing reporting – where the work load is spread out. It is a new business model. Nothing else about the journalism changes. It is contrasted with micro-payments which are related but distinct because there is transparency and control about where the money goes.

“Journalism will survive the death of its institutions.”

One of my all time favorite quotes. The rallying cry should be “save journalism” not “save newspapers.” It is a mistake to conflate the two. Journalism is a process (see above) that can and will survive the death of its institutions.

Hyperlocal

I hate the word “hyperlocal.” I don’t know why “local” isn’t enough. For me hyperlocal is a word used to avoid having to say “community.” We should be doing “community journalism” not “hyperlocal.” When I read hyperlocal – I often replace it with “community” and don’t need to skip a beat.

Computational Journalism

An evolution of NICAR or database journalism. The world is filled with data sets. Computational journalism turns these data sets into something digestible. Think info graphics. More than that, however, the data becomes interactive. One can easily slice and dice the data through their computer to find the information that is most relevant to them. Adrian Holovaty‘s work are great examples as are Matt Waite‘s and Derek Willis. Having the programming skills of a second grader (maybe today that isn’t so bad now) this is probably the field of journalism I am least involved in, but I respect it greatly. There is also something to be said for the name: I believe Adrian has said he doesn’t like the term “computational journalism.” But I go back to the disclaimer at the top – these are the terms/defintions I use. I am not prescribing them to anyone.

New Media skill set

This is now 1/2 of what journalist schools are repeating over and over again. We need to teach “new media skill set….” For me this boils down to digital storytelling. In Greek times oration was the only way to tell a story. And some individuals got really good at it. Jouranalism consists of stories and ideas. Telling a good story is an art and a new media skill set means being able to tell stories well online. This includes photos, video, audio and more.

New Media mind set

The other half of what journalist schools say they need to teach “… and new media mind set.” Too often, however, I get the impression that journalism professors think that teaching a “new media mind set” is to make sure students keep in mind they need a “new media skill set.” The two are very different. A new media mind set means engaging with readers. It means using tools like blogs, twitter, social news sites like Digg or Reddit, blip.tv and other free networking sites not just to tell your story (skill set) but to engage with communities on their level.

Journalism

Journalism is a process: Collecting information, filtering information and distributing information. Often this consists of analyzing information to add value or meaning ie: with all this information here’s why it is important. It also includes caveats: the information must be accurate and throroughly researched. Through this process journalism takes the form of stories and ideas.

Professional Journalism

“When somebody makes money doing journalism.” Analogy – if somebody plays guitar on the streets for money – they are professional musicians (just not very successful ones). Doing something with the intent and expectation of being paid makes one a professional journalist.

Simple, right? So why did I feel the need to define it as such?

Occasionally I hear people say “professional journalism” when they mean “good journalism” because they equate the two. They say: “Yes but this is ‘professional journalism.’” Note: citizen journalism can be good and professional journalism can be bad.

I love the folks at Public-Press, so I hope they don’t mind me using them as an example.

I often hear the Public-Press refer to what they do as “professional journalism.” At the same time, however, the Public-Press, except for one individual, is run by volunteers. Most of the content they publish is produced for free or is from Spot.Us. Since Spot.Us’ content is paid – I would argue that this is the “professional” content they have. That said – I think A LOT of their content is good. Either way an ex-journalist who is volunteering at the Public-Press is now a stand-alone journalist. And guess what – there is nothing wrong with that. Don’t ghettoize it!

People also refer to Spot.Us as “citizen journalism.” Spot.Us is, without a doubt, participatory. I wouldn’t have it any other way. But the content we produce in the end is made by reporters who get paid. So the finished work is not citizen journalism – although citizens are involved in every step of the process.

Social Media Expert

A jackass that is trying to get hired so they can sell you snake oil.

So how do I describe Spot.Us? Simple….

“Spot.Us is participatory journalism that believes journalism is a process not a product, funded through community organizing efforts. We strive to use networked practices and open source principles, enabling stand-alone journalists to reach further and become professionals, pushing content sharing among news organizations so that collaboration can produce powerful stories of distributed reporting. The endeavor is run by David Cohn who is a social media expert.

I need to work on my elevator pitch

To wet your appetite, here’s Jeff Howe.