So how will public broadcasting revert to the boldness with which it was born?

Cleveland’s ideastream public broadcasting house, which came as a merger of that city’s public television and public radio stations, in 2001 is an interesting idea. Sadly it doesn't do what Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) does. It may be inevitable even in the Twin Cities - MPR has a tighter belt. After you converge you must remain independent and bold! Oops. Remain is the incorrect word. Revert is correct.

What about afflicting the comfortable often and consistently? That could be especially effective when the story lends itself to presentation across all media, especially the "new" ones.

Maybe you’d like to hear about a multiplatform story idea that insists on being told with text, images, sound, video and intercreativity? A hint: compare communities of color in 1968 to those in 2008.

American Journalism Review has mentioned, even sworn by, the need for journalists and journalism that take risks like they used to a generation ago. Many revered journalists are convinced that the Watergate stories could not happen now.

Do you remember the controversy that arose when 60-Minutes fell in line with CBS News’ decision to shelf the Jeffrey Wigand story, on which the 1999 film “The Insider” was based, ten years ago? Too few newsrooms can boast the audacity, the support, or the money and other resources to afflict the comfortable without fear. This is one of those founding pillars of journalism that has trembled into a shambles.

Yes there need to be troublemakers or innovators! The average person hates change because it disturbs or upturns their comfort zones; most people are very attached to those zones.

The Center for Innovation in Journalism (CIJ), at American Public Media (APM) houses the troublemakers – the good kind! Of course APM and MPR are conservative so that fulfilling CIJ’s mission can seem Sisyphean. They want to do scary stuff; ideas that challenge people and shove them out of the bounds of their comfort zones.

One must wonder, as one plants seeds for this change, this reversion from business as usual, if public radio funders will install the same defacto editorial influence that commercial funders do? It’s a vital question because that could be the first and largest sinkhole MPR would meet aside from the anticipated internal hesitance and wariness.

MPR is revered and feared as a leader (and in other ways). The best leaders do some scary stuff; they make people change or make them change things or change what they do.

Back when Gene Siskel was alive and working with Roger Ebert, they talked to influential and bankable African-American actors about the “New Black Cinema” on a special program. One of the actors was asked what she would do if she had the great good fortune to run a film studio (or the grave misfortune depending on how you see it)

She said that half of the films she would green light would be “obvious” hits. The other half that she would green light would take chances – great and big ones. Her suggestion was simple, bold and ballsy.

It would be great if MPR would take that chance and take that lead. I would like to help them with that.

They’ll be frantically busy with this year’s historic presidential election. It would be understandable if that story idea - to compare communities of color in 1968 to those in 2008 – were pushed into 2009. 1969 is equally memorable. The United States may become astonishing change makers by having elected Sen. Obama their president.