Justin, you may have misinterprested my Tweet, admittedly a limited forum.

I never said you offered a kickback. I said they should reject your contribution because it might look like a kickback -- even if it's not. http://tr.im/E9gE

My point is not about you. I'm a fan of your work, you seem like a hard-working freelancer with good instincts. My point was, they're getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from foundations, they should turn down your money. But as I said in a follow-up Tweet to Scott, that's easy for me to say.

I think it's interesting you asked them about their conflict of interest policies. What are they? They are blazing a trail in terms of nonprofit journalism, and I think that raises a lot of interesting questions about conflicts of interest. I don't see anything on their "Support Us" page that says they will turn down money from anyone. Sources, freelancers, whatever. They have received contributions from the mayor's spokeswoman and one of his close lobbyist political allies. I know about these contributions because Voice disclosed them on their Web site. But if you read the fine print, donors can also choose not to be identified.

What are the rules? They have an opportunity to navigate an ethical way through these new waters. I think it's interesting to watch.

You have called me to task before for piping up about the Voice, and I shut up for a while. But they are a phenomenon of national interest right here in San Diego, and somebody has to raise questions like this. You did, and it caught my attention.

If you don't think it's a potential conflict, why did you ask them? http://tr.im/E8Nr... As you say in your post, you were curious. Well, so was I. That's what makes us journalists.

Hi Ricky, Justin, we are also in the midst of a redesign of the site. For several weeks, we have been putting together a comprehensive ethics policy we'll have ready for the new site. I don't have any problem with the questions. But nonprofit journalism has existed for many decades. We are learning from those pioneers -- NPR, American Public Media -- and from institutions like universities and museums. We have a responsibility to be transparent and to build a diverse funding base and we're working hard toward both goals.

Glad you're doing that, look forward to seeing it. (Also glad you're redesigning, hope it goes more smoothly than ours did...)

Justin, the San Diego Union-Tribune doesn't hold any animosity toward the Voice. They do quality work. We respect them and their writers. The same applies to you and your work.

On many occasions, we have also shared their work with our readers through Twitter. Three recent examples: http://bit.ly/Q0N4t , http://bit.ly/LmQfg and http://bit.ly/1NAAZ8.

This respect doesn't stop us from asking questions or raising issues. That's what journalists do. I take Ricky at his word that he meant no disrespect. It appears he was probing an issue with the Voice's business model, not attacking you.

I'm looking for the "question" you raised in that tweet, but all I see is a statement.

I'm looking for the same voracious questioning of KPBS, a much larger non-profit news organization in San Diego. I don't see it.

I'm looking for the conflict-of-interest policy and ethical guidelines of the nonprofit the UT is funding. I'm not seeing them.

I'm looking for a list of that nonprofit's donors. Can't find them.

You're losing credibility with me, very fast. You made a statement about a competitor that you and other editors have made clear they don't like and you drug me into it for no real good reason. You did it with a reckless disregard for the truth and the facts and you impugned my character in the process.

I don't think you'd make such a haphazard statement about the mayor or a city councilman, so I'm not sure why I deserve any less respect from you.

You go to your editors and possibly the paper's lawyer and you ask if they'd have let you publish the statement you made in a tweet in the paper without any facts to back up it up, without any evidence, without any real understanding of what you were talking about, as you did. If they say yes, well, then I'll understand a little better exactly how journalism works at the UT.

It appears differntly to me and all the people who saw fit to point that tweet out to me. I'm owed an apology, and a retraction.

We write all the time about perceived conflicts of interest. The tweet said the Voice should turn down your contribution, as it could be perceived as a kickback, even if it's not...

That's it. Nothing about you, or your motives. You are misreading it and blowing it out of proportion.

Can I ask again, why did you raise the question about whether there might be a conflict, if you don't think this is an issue at all?

I have nothing to do with the Watchdog Institute, but I hope they will do the responsible thing that Scott is doing and establish a conflict of interest policy.

I guess my question is this - Why include a link to Justin's website if the tweet had nothing to do with him? Seems you could have made a point about non-profits accepting donations from freelancers, etc in a variety of ways that don't involve dragging innocent people (he was only asking about their practices after all) into it.

Well, he's the one who raised the issue, by asking them -- on Twitter -- whether he could donate. I thought it was interesting, but next time, I'll keep my observations to myself. Good lord.

Public questions for Young and UT: Is it true that UT reporters/editors must pay for their own subscriptions to do their part for circulation numbers/revenue? And if so, doesn't this appear to be more kickbacky than Justin's donation?

You're really unbelievable.

I asked, and here it is in great detail, lest you think there's some giant kickback conspiracy so I can get stories, because I was working through my tax payments for the year and deciding how much money I have to give and how much I'd already given, then considered the the organizations I'd like to give to and thought of Voice (because I saw a fundraising letter recently) and Spot Us and the student press law center. Then I did some research on some organizations that work on autism research.

Then, I remembered that I'd written for Voice of San Diego and thought back to my parent's church a few years back when it was struggling to pay its pastor and he wanted to donate his salary because he didn't really need the money and the church wouldn't let him do it. So, I thought to myself, maybe they had a rule and maybe, other places did, too. I've never heard of one, but I'd also never worked for a nonprofit and thought that I should ask before I make any decisions and save us all the trouble.

But you construe that as a "kickback" or that it looks like a kickback, big difference -- with no facts and no obvious idea of what a kickback even us -- and then have the unmitigated gull to try and cover it over as if it's some kind of journalistic watchdog altruism when no one, no one believes that because we've all watched you snipe at Voice over and over and over again for the smallest reasons.

You want to attack them, fine. Just don't try and call it journalism or attribute to "that what we do" -- that's insulting to all of us.

For the record, I do not consider tweets journalism, any more than an offhand comment in our break room would be. I think of it as a place to start conversations. In this case, it seems to have worked. I appreciate you explaining the background. Your church had an interesting policy, and I'm glad you raised this issue. I can see why you didn't appreciate me commenting on it, and for that, I now offer the apology you requested. Also, I'm going to go delete the tweet... That's as close as I can get to a retraction, although I know deletion is not terrible effective.

Davemass, I think you are mistaken. Like every company I've worked for (both newspaper and non-newspaper), the U-T sells its products to its employees at a discount. For example, we get a discount on newspaper subscriptions and classified ads. But we are not required to buy anything. I have never been asked, told or pressured to subscribe to the U-T or any of its products.

Rob Hopwood,
Social media specialist
The San Diego Union-Tribune and SignOnSanDiego.com

The day when opinions are kept to themselves is the day that I get drafted into the NFL.

I'm an employee, and I have completely evil intentions for donating. I really, really want an arts section. I am excited, annoyingly so, to see what we can do with it.
Employees, parents, grandparents - donate. For the reason above, so we can do more, cover more, do the projects we want to do.
Full-disclosure: We also occasionally get cookies from our editor's mom.

Contrary to popular belief, every day at lunch time, we do not go out back to our giant money room and go swimming through the gold like Scrooge McDuck.

Thank you.

We all know you're evil... I mean, your intentions are evil. :-)

Fair enough, that's the answer to the question. I would've rather have just asked it over the phone and left it at that, but Mr. Young was unwilling to return calls.

If I back you up on this, Nomatophobia, can I be back in the good graces of the Nerd High Council?

Did that whole photographer thing put you on the outs?

That's was Nomatophobia said. Of course, today's a new day, with a new agitator to hate on.

I'm chiming in late here.

I don't know all the in's and out's of the discussion - but I can see that it is a very good discussion.

I can agree to this: The appearance of a scandal is just as bad as the scandal itself.

I think that's why Justin, who I really only know via online, got upset. The tweet can seem like an accusation and even if it's untrue (which as Justin pointed out - it had no kickbackery but was a heart-felt donation) it still stings. Then again the statement "the appearance of a scandal is just as bad as the actual scandal" can be applied to the initial donation as well - until you consider that Justin did it publicly. That Justin put it out there as a Tweet to Scott was the best move IMHO.

This is an interesting ethical space for nonprofits which are rising up all over. I've chatted with Scott from VOSD about this stuff before.

I still believe that transparency about where money comes from is key.

Bottom line: There is no such thing as clean money. If that's what you expect of nonprofits - it is impossible. If somebody finds me clean money - I will find them fairy dust and we can do an even trade.

But: One can make money cleanER by making it transparent.

In this case Justin's contribution which is probably smaller than contributions from others is the cleanest of it all!

If you're not making someone mad, you're probably not doing anything right.