As some know I was a pseudo-intellectual in college double majoring in rhetoric and philosophy. In my current situation I am against being too heady or academic. I have a bias towards action. As Matt Waite has put it, I believe in “demos not memos.”

That said, it’s my blog and I can be as hypocritical as I want and the following is a passage I’ve been reading and re-reading because it blows my mind.

So lean back in your armchair. Grab your tobacco pipe and put on your fez hat for a segment I will call: “Bathroom Reading with Digidave.”

Today’s reading comes to us from Jurgen Habermas. It is incredibly related to journalism and begs for rethinking since the advent of the internet. It is just the first section in a larger essay. Perhaps future Bathroom Readings will walk us through the whole essay. It is titled…

The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article

The concept: By “the public sphere” we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals attempt to form a public body. They then behave neither like business or professional people transacting private affairs, nor like members of a constitutional order subject to the legal constraints of a state bureaucracy. Citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion — that is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions about matters of general interest. In a large public body, this kind of communication requires specific means for transmitting information and influences those who receive it. Today, newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere [note from Digidave: What does the Internet change about all of this?].

We speak of the political public sphere in contrast, for instance, to the literary one, when public discussion deals with objects connected to the activity of the state. Although state authority is, so to speak, the executor of the political public sphere, it is not a part of it. To be sure, state authority is usually considered “public” authority but it derives its task of caring for the well-being of all citizens primarily from this aspect of the public sphere. Only when the exercise of political control is effectively subordinated to the democratic demand that information be accessible to the public, does the political public sphere win an institutionalized influence over the government through the instrument of law-making bodies. The expression “public opinion” refers to the tasks of criticism and control which a public body of citizens informally  — and in periodic elections — formally, as well practices vs-a-vs the ruling structure organized in the form of a state. Regulations demanding that certain proceedings be public for example, those providing for open court hearings – are also related to this function of public opinion.

The public sphere as a sphere which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with the principle of the public sphere — that principle of public information which once had to be fought for against the arcane policies of monarchies and which since that time has made possible the democratic control of state activities.

It is no coincidence that these concepts of the public sphere and public opinion arose for the first time only in the eighteenth century [Note from Digidave: Being radically re-thought in how they are organized today]. They acquire their specific meaning from a concrete historical situation. It was at that time that the distinction of opinion from opinion publique and public opinion came about. Though mere opinion (cultural assumptions, normative attitudes, collective prejudices and values) seem to persist unchanged in their natural form as a kind sediment of historically public opinion can by definition come into existence only when a reasoning public is presupposed. Public discussion about the exercise of political power which are both critical in intent and institutionally guaranteed have not always existed — they grew out of specific phase of bourgeois society and could enter into the order of the bourgeois constitutional state only as a result of particular constellation of interests.

I met Steve in 2007 at a Personal Democracy Forum conference and he has been a fantastic resource for brain picking. Now that our conversation has turned to the web it is an open brain picking session. Kudos to Steve for starting it up.

The recap

Steve: A Fundraising Question about Spot.Us

“the question, I think, is whether and how folks will shift their loyalty from the project to the organization (there’s a second question, too, which is whether this deeper level of donor loyalty matters for Spot.us-like organizations – maybe I’ll have to go have a conversation with Dave about this, huh?”

Steve: Coming up: A Conversation with Dave Cohn

This was the start of the more formal conversation between Steve and I. He laid out some questions about our approach and status.

My response to Steve: I thought I’d have fun and do it as a video.

Keywords are “transparency, immediacy, and control” (for the donor, that is).

I also ask Steve questions about whether or not Spot.Us is being naive or if we can learn a thing or two from how Mother Jones does its fundraising.

Steve’s Response to my video:

“So it’s not donor choice per se where Spot.us is innovating.

As Dave notes, it’s the possibility that interested community members connect with reporters on stories and issues they care about. Not only does that increase the possibility that people will actually pay for stuff they want, but it makes the reporting process more transparent (this was what made Chris Albritton’s Back-to-Iraq.com so damned exciting back then).”

And now for my response.

Steve actually brought something to light for me. I often say that “donating to journalism isn’t new – it is just having control over where your money goes that makes Spot.Us interesting.” In fact, I use NPR as an example all the time. They could blow me out of the water tomorrow by adding transparency to where donations go (and I would be totally fine if NPR did adopt community funded reporting).

Steve points out that what community funded reporting represents isn’t just participation through donating, it brings a new level of transparency to journalism.

Increasingly Spot.Us does reporter debriefs either mid-way or at the end of an article. We use BlogTalkRadio right now and we invite donors to get on the phone and chat with the reporter about what they are learning and digging up. There is an added service in here. The community in “community funded reporting” can get involved and as Steve notes the reporting is more transparent and accountable.

People often say that reporting for an ethnic newspaper is much more difficult than a large metro because the reporter is part of the community they are reporting on. They are more accountable. I’d say the same goes for a community funded reporter. In fact, I’ve been told as much. One reporter even printed out the list of donors and tacked it to their bulletin board as a reminder that he was responsible to a list of engaged citizens. The big step Spot.Us is taking, according to Steve, isn’t one of giving donors transparency, but it’s to make the reporting more transparent.

That sounds beautiful in a blog post, but as noted (and Steve conquers) it might be part of the reason why it hard to get other news organizations to adopt the Spot.Us model. They must be ready to put themselves out there in the open from day one. I have a million reasons why its a good idea to be transparent – but I’ll save my “pitch” for another blog post.

Let’s table that – but keep it in the back of our minds, because I’ll come back to it: “It’s hard to get news organizations to jump on board because of a cultural shift.”

Steve and I also discuss traffic. I still try and avoid traffic as a measure of success. But Steve is right in pointing out that it isn’t just a metric of success, it also measures impact. Impact is something that donors want. A good example: A recent Spot.Us story we did with AllVoices has a nice “number of views” metric. I can see that as of writing this blog post the video has received almost 5,000 views. That is a boon to donors. They want to know that the story they support is seen by others. When Spot.Us did a story with the Oakland Tribune, fundraising was easier because people knew the editorial would be tight and that the finished story would get distribution.

Raising traffic, however, is a beast in itself. One I don’t want to get locked into. Growing traffic can be self-defeating and from my Digg days I know how ugly and distracting it can be. I want to focus on making good journalism happen.

That’s why Spot.Us is also a platform that is designed to engage with partnering news organizations like Mother Jones, Center for Investigative Reporting, San Francisco Chronicle and others (The new Pocantico Watchdogs have me salivating).

In truth this goes back to Jeff Jarvis‘ saying: “do what you do best and link to the rest.” It goes for covering topics on the web but I also think it needs to be applied in how we run Spot.Us.

What we do best:

• Create tools for fundraising of journalism projects via Community Funded reporting.
• Do our own outreach on behalf of journalism projects.
• Create a sense of community around journalism projects and expose the sausage making to those who are interested.

What news organizations do best:

• The editorial for journalism projects
• The distribution of journalism projects
• Spread word within their own communities about how to get engaged.

I think some startups try to recreate the entire media sphere. That’s a mistake – one that Spot.Us has been cornered into from time to time (and will probably happen again) whenever we don’t have a partnering organization to share the load. Hence the irony of the situation above: What we do best requires a cultural shift and that’s why it is slow to find partnering news organizations when actually partnering with us is as quick as clicking a button.

Steve suggests another hire, somebody who can manage our relationships with other news organizations. I wouldn’t be against another hire at all but we probably won’t for budgetary reasons.

Instead I want to build out the platform so that these partnerships can be more lightweight. Right now it is confusing for news organizations to know all the different ways they can partner with us. Increasingly that is a part of the biz/dev plan that we are working on that I think will be crucial.

It still goes back to the question: Are we a news organization or a platform?

I think we have to be a bit of both without falling into the trap described earlier of trying to recreate the entire media sphere. So what parts of Spot.Us are a news organization and what parts are a platform serving news organizations as a main customer?

That is something we are still figuring out. It is where we start to look a bit more like a nonprofit mediabistro. A community for reporters and news organizations to meet and work together – but they are doing so in public and that way we can bring community funding into the mix.

As for Steve’s advice on traditional fundraising: A spaghetti dinner is on the way. We don’t have all the details yet but folks who donated to the City Budget Watchdog pitch are invited to a meetup on July 13th at the Grotto where we will talk about the reporting we’ve done so far and what is to come next. Afterward we will meander to 21st amendment (details to come). And if you want to come but haven’t donated….

And now – back to Steve: In my first response I asked if there was something naive about the Spot.us model. It seems that it isn’t naive – just a little “out there” still.

But Mother Jones as an organization is already somewhat “out there.” You have been pushing the boundaries of running a nonprofit news organization for some time. Politics aside – nobody can knock what you have all accomplished.

But “when life is hard you have to change.” And times are tough. Even the NY Times is re-thinking itself. So my question is: How does Mother Jones, a much larger organization than Spot.Us, approach all this? Are there plans being plotted? Moves being considered? Are things pushing on as usual? What is on your radar that I’m not aware about?

It just so happens that the following question was sent just before I got on a plane. So this individual will get a long and detailed response. And because it is a question I get regularly, I will point people to this blog post in the future when they ask the ever popular question: “Should I go to graduate school for journalism?”

My Background: For undergrad I did a double major in philosophy and rhetoric at U.C. Berkeley. These were both useless unless I wanted to sell thoughts on the street. To get started in journalism straight from undergrad I did a little over one year as a “professional intern.”

If One Doesn’t Go to J-school?

If you are set on journalism and straight out of undergrad be prepared to do the year of professional internships. You will not be handed a job. This has nothing to do with the current state of things. Even ten years ago when profits were high, you wouldn’t have been handed an ideal job. Journalism is a craft and has an apprenticeship model. They say a fair percentage of students don’t get past the first year of law school. Well, think about whether or not you can get past the first year of internships in journalism. If you aren’t prepared to pay some dues and start at the bottom, then don’t start at all.

Getting some experience: After about 1.5 years of professional internships at various places I had a fairly steady gig at Wired. In fact, I suspect if I didn’t leave to go to J-school, I would still be at Wired (I hired my replacement, a friend, who has moved up the ranks and is still working at there).

So, I’m confident I could have made it in journalism without getting my masters at Columbia. By no means is a graduate degree required. I repeat: BY NO MEANS IS IT REQUIRED.

So Why Did I Leave?

My gig at Wired was turning steady but I still felt stagnant. This is in part because I wanted to do more than tech journalism (the irony is that once I got to Columbia, I realized I LOVED tech reporting). I needed to start somewhere fresh where I wouldn’t have started as “David the Intern” but “David the guy who came from Wired.”

There were two amazing editors at Wired who, whether they knew it or not, have had a big influence on my career.

Marty Cortinas: Never went to J-school (if memory serves) and didn’t think it necessary by any stretch of the imagination. For him, it wasn’t – he continues to be a great editor. He advised me against it. (UPDATE: See comments. THANKS MARTY!!!!)

Kourosh Karimkhany: Had gone to Columbia and filled my brain with starry eyed visions of taking over the world. He would point back to his time at Columbia as origins for the business savvy he uses today in various jobs within Conde Naste. Journalism school was very fruitful for him and he recommended it.

Both were right.

So I left because I needed to get out of the Bay Area for a bit. I got a paid internship at Columbia Journalism Review and figured that was my “in” for J-school.

My Standard Line on J-school (here’s the meat of the post)

“I don’t regret having gone to J-school.” But I say that for the same reason one should never regret anything they do in life. I met lots of great people – folks who I can earnestly call my friends. I had the opportunity to write/report about things outside of technology. I lived in New York!!!

What I do regret is the student debt that I still have on my shoulders.

The reason J-school worked out for me: I was a part-time student and continued to work while I was a student. As a result my loans aren’t that bad, I paid some tuition out of pocket.  More importantly, I was WORKING the whole time. I got practical experience while I was in New York. And in truth – I learned more on the job than I did in J-school. And while my connections from Columbia are great (and some would argue the whole point of going to J-school is to make connections) I got more practical and meaningful connections while working. I got to work for folks like Jay Rosen on NewAssignment.net. Without a doubt, that helped bolster my young career.

If you can find a journalism program that has a part-time option. Take it!!! Be prepared to slog, sleep on couches in the student lounge, etc. But if you are young, it can be a wildly awesome ride.

A practical warning: J-schools are figuring themselves out right now.

I went to school at Columbia. I worked for Jay Rosen at NYU, Jeff Jarvis at CUNY and I consider Geneva Overholser at USC’s Annenberg program a colleague. I speak with journalism professors all the time. I know a thing or two about J-schools and one important footnote that I bet they’d be willing to admit is that their programs are in flux. From my perspective CUNY and USC are drastically pushing the envelope. I just found out that even Columbia, the flagship of J-schools, has an entrepreneurship class.

Which forces me to ask the question – what is the best way to learn entrepreneurship? Is it by taking a class or just by going out and being an entrepreneur? (There is a side question here about whether or not young reporters should learn how to report or learn how to be entrepreneurs and I think the answer is both, so the conversation becomes very nuanced at this point).

There is obvious benefit from taking time and really thinking about what one wants to do in the wide open space of online journalism. J-school gives you the space and time to screw up without it reflecting negatively on one’s career. if anything J-school provides a buffer space to screw up and get positive feedback rather than getting fired and burning a bridge.

So the Answer Is??

I would never prescribe anything for anyone I didn’t know personally. Sorry – this post is and may just remain a back and forth of the positive and the negative.

In that same vein I’ll add that there is no right/wrong answer here. That is the beauty of it all. J-school works out for some folks and it doesn’t for others. Whichever you pick you have to commit to it 100 percent. If you are on the fence and decide not to go – you can’t ever look back and say “if only I had gone to J-school, I’d be handed positions left and right.” That isn’t the case – and you have to be prepared to slog through some dirty internships before you reach dry land.

And if you do decide to slog through a year of J-school, don’t worry about the student loans (which is the major practical downside). You are young, lots of folks have student loans. My sister is a social worker with student loans. Much like journalists, social workers, teachers, chefs and other schooled jobs don’t make much money, so save the sob story. And if you do decide to go – don’t think that means you get to skip the slog of working in the real world. Even recent J-school students start at the bottom. I think there is a misconception that they hand out jobs at the end of J-school. I think 10 years ago this may have been true, but it isn’t right now, perhaps never will be again. The goal for when you come out of J-school is to start at the bottom, but be so refined and qualified that they’ll recognize how good you are quickly. Whereas others straight out of undergrad will be learning on the job – you’ll be showing off on the job. And there is real practical benefit to that in one’s career.

So that’s how I see it. Go forth and journalize.

Spot.Us recently had its second community advisory board meeting at Tech Liminal. We experimented with making the meeting more open by invitingnew interns, volunteers and people in the community, so that we could have an open discussion about setting goals. We felt it was important to get as much input into this process from different community members in order to create a conversation about the direction of Spot.us as an organization.

On the agenda: mapping out where we wanted to be in three months from now until we reach September 15, 2009. We received a lot of amazing and useful points to consider and are eternally grateful to our Advisory Board. Keep reading to learn more about what we hope to accomplish and how you can help shape our future.

Below is a quick recap of what we’ve accomplished and  the goals for the next three months, without any particular priority. We want you to help us prioritize them.

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.

On background from me.

• Henry Jenkins is now the third in my “Professional Mindblower series” I only wish I had video of his talk.
• My take on The Rhetoric of Journalism.
• Stop Gawking at Citizen Journalism.

Henry Jenkins said the term “citizen journalism” is as useless as the term “horseless carriage” which was often used to describe cars when they were still a new phenomena.

It makes perfect sense that this is how we described automobiles at the time. Our culture was so fixated on the horse for transportation that when we found something that got us from place A to place B, we had to define it as something that did a horses’ job – without the horse. The “horseless carriage” term was perfect for that transition phase.

But today if you ask people for 10 facts about automobiles, that they replaced horses probably won’t be on the list. People don’t define cars by what they aren’t or what they replaced over 100 years ago.

I have been using the term “participatory journalism” but many years from now I have a hunch people will just call it “journalism” (what a crazy term, huh) and that will be just fine by me.

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 never thought I was a “design thinker” but maybe I am. Corey and I were speaking each other’s language within 10 seconds of chatting. Where I often say journalism and startups need to practice an “agile and iterative” processes – Corey describes this as the process of design and innovation. Below are a few slides from his handout that 100% overlap with the type of thinking that I often tell people we need in journalism.

• Slide 1: Just a nice clever cover.
• Slide 2: The process of innovation. One could start anywhere – as long as they make a complete circle through the steps:

1. Empathy (of the user experience/problem).
2. Define: Narrow it down, give it scope
3. Ideate: Brainstorm 100 possible solutions
4. Prototype: Do what you can real quick.
5. Test: Put it in front of users – don’t continue to mull it over for months and months.

• Slide 3:  Another way to look at this process is the repeated process of focusing and flaring. A good project leader knows when it is time to flare (come up with new ideas and get open) and focus (test, test, test).
• Slide 4: Some good rules of thumb. My favorite: “Bias towards action.”

If you are already a web-head it won’t be anything new. I think this video is more to convert folk. But even if you are already a convert to the idea of collaboration on the web – this is an inspiring video.

Us Now from Banyak Films on Vimeo.

But you don’t have to take my word for it….. (a Reading Rainbow).

For those keeping tract – that is interview #108