Things are starting to hit the proverbial fan.

This last week I was on two panels. One at U.C. Berkeley and the other at the SF Public Library organized by the Nor Cal Society of Profesional Journalists. (I was the youngest on both panels and I am starting to get annoyed. We need more young people in this conversation).

Berkeley had another panel on Monday which I missed – but got a sense of how it went down via Dave Winer and Scott Rosenberg. From what they post – it sounds like there is still a large divide between those who want to “save newspapers” and those who want to “save journalism.”

I am a big believer in saving journalism. That may include saving newspapes, but it isn’t a logical imperative. So I tend to disagree with publisher of the Guardian when he writes that we should “Save the Chronicle.”

Again – I don’t want the Chron to fall, but I think we should keep our eye on the larger ball. Perhaps if you are the Guardian the idea of losing the Chron is upsetting – there goes your arch-nemesis. Who will you be alternative to if the Chron is gone?

And here is one reason why I think we should “save journalism” not necc. the Chronicle. There is a chance that Media News Group could buy the Chronicle. This might “save” the newspaper – or at least keep it going for another few years, but it would essentially turn the ENTIRE nine county Bay Area into a one paper town. That is not how I want the Chronicle “saved.” I’d prefer it go down but we find a way to sustain independent journalists.

Or as I put it while on the panel, as reported by the Public-Press…

“Journalism is no longer a passive activity,” said David Cohn, founder of Spot.Us, an open-source project that develops “community-funded reporting.” “Journalism is participatory. What we need are thousands of online startups. … One or two will survive.”

This quote of mine comes with irony too. I want to tell this to the larger citizenry, but alas, the event was a “panel of journalists talking to audience of journalists and covered by journalists that expressed concerns.”

The panelist from Ideo got it 100% right: Journalists don’t listen to the audience. We need to be more relevant and stop telling them what the news is and start listening to what it is they want covered and how to do it. We should even include them in helping us cover topics if they want.

That is why one of the new Spot.Us features allows for anyone to join a reporting team. In the future – reporters might even make assignments and we could pay various people small amounts for doing different journalism work. (Note: I don’t have the development power or capital to do this – but I like the idea…).

So the tale of two papes moves onward.

I do hope that the Bay Area can figure out what the future of journalism looks like – whether it is with newspapers or not. I am not married to anything – but I do believe that we need a strong dialogue at the local level. We need a way to keep communities informed and engaged.

Spot.Us is one of thos 10,000 startups. I don’t know if we will succeed – but I do know that we (and 9,999 others) need to try. If we do nothing, I gauruntee nothing will happen but what we are already seeing.

Related posts:

1. The Future of Newspapers – May the Reporting Begin
2. The Chronicle Faces Collapse. A Collection of Links
3. How newspaper closings will affect online news
4. Future of Bay Area Journalism in Question?
5. Reporting Continues on Future of Bay Area Newspapers