I wonder if more of a public outreach is required. If we who are working on these issues can get others outraged about the situation, in larger numbers, perhaps that will help free up more foundation money, and get more public officials thinking about how they can help without compromising journalists’ objectivity.

In some projects I’m working on for the University of Colorado, I’ve spent some time with recently laid off investigative reporters as they try to regroup and continue their craft outside of a big corporation. Each of them has a list of significant stories — government or business or land use corruption, malfeasance, misuse of taxpayer money, etc. — that they know about but are not covering.

So here’s an idea, perhaps for SaveTheNews: Crowdsource from laid-off reporters a list of uncovered, public-interest stories that the public does not know about because there are no journalists available to cover them due to lack of funding for an investigation. Publicize that big-time.

Investigative reporting often sparks public outrage and wrongs get righted. Might the public also be outraged by wrongdoing that continues because there are not enough watchdogs to do the work it takes to stop it?

I forgot who said it, but a quote a recall recently predicted a period of low-level corruption growing in many cities where traditional media have declined significantly.

Could publicizing this to a broader audience be a more effective strategy than issuing reports, like the Columbia one released yesterday, that get read mostly by media people? If commercial models cannot be found to support large-scale accountability journalism in the wake of old media failures, surely we need to get more people interested in supporting the new wave of press watchdogs.

But those firms and their people are also part of the community, and more to the point part of many communities when viewed through the digital prism. Too early to abandon looking for alternative arrangements. IMHO.