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

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

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

1. The Mental Aptitude for Immediate Ups and Downs

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

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

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

A Team Player

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

Haters Gonna Hate, But Criticism is Your Best Friend

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

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

Everyone is a leader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. It never hurts to try something new.

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

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

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

And now – the ride really begins.

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

2013 SXSW Accelerator: (more info here)

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

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

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

Excellent question! To be eligible:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First two disclaimers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circa is hiring contributing editors. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Bethune was the first to point out this flaw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson #3 Some Old Values are Timeless

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

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

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

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

Lesson #5: Know your Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DEATH KNELL OF TELEVISION

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

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

THEY’RE NOT HAVING THIS CONVERSATION

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

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

A DANGEROUS IDEA

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

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

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

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.