In order to have a fully functioning democracy, we must have journalism that functions as well. I believe that this is particularly true on a statewide level.

I know that some are doing exciting things nationally and in niche journalism. The Magazine, Pando Daily, The Verge and Vox Media, Longform.org, Buzzfeed, and others are all experimenting.

While they have not perfected the model by any stretch, they are at least doing something interesting.

I am not sure that is true when you turn to the states. Am I wrong?

An interesting take on Chris Hughes' purchase of TNR:

One of the first experiments Hughes made at the magazine was to take down its paywall, to help it get back in the conversation in the months leading up to the election—it quickly got to over 3 million unique visitors... D.C. may be the capital, but it was too provincial for Hughes’s TNR, which wants to be about “power,” he says, defined more generally to include all that glitters—from technology to movies—beyond mere politics.

Even if Hughes refers to the magazine as a “brand,” which produces “content” oriented toward a “North Star,” he’s a sort of cultural revanchist, animated by affection for something that’s been in decline his entire adult life...

The New Republic under Chris Hughes could be an endlessly fascinating project, of course, but, again, it is focused on a national audience.

The questions I have could be boiled down to the following big questions:
1. Is it possible to create a new model of web publishing from scratch?
2. Can a model focused on a specific state be both profitable and beneficial? Can it be both a good business and good for democracy?
3. Is it possible to create an active journalism model that offers opinions without being overtly partisan?

I think the answer to all three is yes, but I could be crazy.

Chris Hughes alluded to "The North Star," which I view as the collective home of our Ideals. How we travel there is through unique, personalized stories. Simply discussing politics is amorphous: it doesn't lead anywhere positive, yet leads us all everywhere. But to put context to WHY people believe what they believe, based on their own personalized stories, leads us towards insightful conversations that help us travel to The North Star. If we as a collective can get past the minutiae and pursue more meaningful collaborations, I do not see why there would be no benefit for our State and future. Such conversations are not for everyone, yet those people were never much for solutions in the first place.

To answer your 3 questions more specifically:

1. Yes, it's possible. To be put to its best use, it would need to be accessible through various channels, whether from a mobile app or website. Citizens would need to be able to view this model whether they are on broadband or dial-up (did you know AOL dial-up still has 3 million members? Statewide broadband is a lofty goal with little public funding).

2. Yes. Yes. One of my major problems with the N&O is it has become less of a state-focused newspaper and more of a funnel for articles written by Reuters and AP. Its readership will drop with the application of their paywall due to the lack of quality reporting. If another publication was developed to fill that void, it would be profitable...

3. Being partisan is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it's grounded in fact. Yet once again, this is why personalized stories are important. If "regular" people had a medium to tell their stories, I believe the politics would be stripped away. For example, why does a single mother in rural North Carolina need food stamps? Why does a first-generation college attendee need student loans or even a Pell grant? Why should we use taxpayer dollars to help a fifty-something, laid off manufacturer gain a new education from a community college?

And we should tell these stories through their eyes, whether it is by text, video, pictures, or a combination. Have them tell stories from the first person. Make the audience "feel" their stories.

Matt, these are absolutely beautiful responses. I greatly, greatly appreciate them.

If I may ask a follow up to #1, how do you believe that we can successfully drive traffic and audiences? Such a platform won't succeed without an engaged audience that is more than just the choir.

It has never been easier to spread your message — and it has never been harder to make your message heard.

Nation, your question can be answered one of two ways, depending on whether you are asking on behalf of the audience or the publishers. If I was the audience, the most important characteristic to make me read and return would be the quality of writing. As you have said yourself, it's why you'd pay for the NYT's paywall, yet not from the News & Observer. To drive traffic, from the audience's perspective, the publishers must give something it cannot receive from anywhere else: Journalism is missing its romanticism. Quality journalism makes people think. It can piss people off. It can evoke emotions that are usually attributed to music and art. Ask yourself: why do I read what I read? Why do I return to that publication?

Now if you're the publisher, you want to create articles that make people give a damn. It's why I love reading Pando Daily and the NYT. The audience can tell those outlets passionately care about the writing and stories they produce. As the publisher, you'd want to give the audience long reads that showcased investigative journalism, but also provocative photos and videos, and even short posts that simply enticed the reader to read more. If it were me as the publisher, I'd want to create a medium that had characteristics of Pocket/Instapaper + Medium + NYT + Google. In other words, mobility (with options to share) + personal stories + quality journalism + the algorithms that helped readers find such stories. This is Big Idea territory.

You have to make things easier to share as well. One big question that I have been wrestling with is whether or not it is possible to completely redesign discovery within a news platform. One reason why I love the Sunday NY Times is that I read the entire paper from front to back most weeks and I learn far more that way. When I go online I tend to make quick decisions on a few pieces that interest me. If we could recreate the atmosphere of absorbing a paper online...

Simplicity is key. I believe it would be important to have a medium that was designed in such a way that reading was enjoyable without the visual noise that is found on many online news sites. Removal of ads and placement of images (more on that later), with focus solely on the articles would be optimal. I envision a front page to look like a physical newspaper: Masthead on top, main story in the middle. The main story would be a longread. Instead of embedding links in the article (which can cause a person to leave the original story without coming back), use columns on both sides of main story to showcase shorter posts about the same subject. Sharing buttons would be on the bottom of the articles, so they don't get in the way of experience

Yet I did recently read that the number one way people share articles is through simple cut and paste. I would like to see images on the bottom of the page. My problem with images in relation to articles is that they give the reader an expectation of what the material will be about or they have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand (such as stock photos). Images should continue the story, not introduce it. I actually sketched all of this out, but didn't know how to share it on Branch.

I understand your want of absorbing a newspaper online. My mom has been a journalist for most of her life. I spent many days as a boy in the back rooms watching a newspaper being made. There was nothing better than getting black ink on my fingers as I read a freshly-printed newspaper. The idea of anyone believing that he/she can create a blog and then write about something of questionable importance bothers me (like the tweet you shared today about Russell Brand and what's-her-face). And the popularity of Brain Pickings is proof that people still do crave the beauty in words and art. People will read, share, and crave quality work if it's presented in a way that reminds them of how things once were and how they should have never changed.

I wonder if you would need to recruit name journalists and/or attempt to launch around an event to break through the noise initially though? A number of folks seem to have followed that model of late...

The ability to tell a story well is the most important necessity. Whether you were to find that from seasoned journalists and/or generic writers would be up to the people sculpting the message. Speaking from experience, I find fiction harder to write because I need to create the entire environment that entices the reader to finish the story. So moving from fiction to nonfiction would be easy for me. That being said, finding an important event is just as crucial, especially if you're covering something no one else is covering. It gives you an edge in gaining a worthy audience. Paul Carr and Mark Ames from NSFWCORP are doing this extremely well. You almost need to work backwards: why do you want to tell the story, then find people to tell it.

One struggle I have seen is that without a large team pumping out daily content is difficult, but it is daily content that builds audience and buzz frequently.

Grantland has done a nice job of entering the sports market by building a niche.

Could the same be done in daily reportage on the state level?

Yes, I believe it could be done. Each day of the week would be categorized by a different topic, like Education on one day, Politics on the next... something different from Monday through Friday. This is beneficial, especially from the reader's viewpoint if you were going to be creating longreads since the reader has the opportunity to save the article for later and not miss out on any investigative journalism if he happens to wait until the next day to read it. Sure, the buzz comes from the daily content, but it also comes from really good investigative journalism about topics that no one else is covering.

By the way, I recently came across some great research from the Columbia Journalism School that should be great interest to you (if you haven't already read it). I've skimmed through it and the overall subject matter is exactly what we have been discussing and can be used as guidance as our conversation continues. It can be found here: journalism.columbia.edu