http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html Helping Communicators do More with Less Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:47:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-80 Matt Searles Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:47:49 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-80 I followed SNCR by Twitter and Seesmic and it was pretty amazing. I sorta felt like I was there, captured by the energy, and even able to interact with it via twitter.. and then even met up with some after the event. There's clearly a difference between what someone twitters at an event versus blogging about after words. It seems to me that that what constitutes value in these two cases is probably different. To some extent I think its best not to judge these things too fast as things are evolving so fast that what they really mean today, in the internet ecology of this moment, will be very different from what they mean 6 months from now.. where the ecology of tools, along with our sense of how to use the tools, will have evolved.. To some extent I think the most important thing is to try and see the potential in them. To Chip and Jason, I think there's no question that laws and rule sets will have to evolve overtime. It seems that technology, and the way people use technology, is moving faster then the rule sets. Many of the laws impacting social media were not drafted with our current challenges in mind. As boneheaded as the RIAA sometimes seems to me, I can certainly appreciate the interests of copyright holders. The RIAA does seem to be generating an unintended consequence of a lot of ill will towards there plight, which may have a long term effect of shaping a political reality that will eventually work against there interests as they currently understand them. On the other hand it might be there perception / conceptualization of there interests are there chief problem, so that it might be that there dethroning is actually in there long term self interest. I think underlying all this is that we have shifts in how we categorize stuff: In many ways social media is much like the sorts of stuff that would normally go on in private; it's as if we are having private conversations that anyone can listen into and join, just because its online.. So now it's not private use, or is it private use? There's the legal standpoint on one hand, and how we think about it on the other. How things get categorized is a complex subject: It's basically a and expression of a combination of our underlying collective and individual challenges, and power relationships. In the social media context the influence of power on the process is very different then anything we've had before. I imagine it will be very interesting to see what the long term effects of all this will be on the democratic process. I followed SNCR by Twitter and Seesmic and it was pretty amazing. I sorta felt like I was there, captured by the energy, and even able to interact with it via twitter.. and then even met up with some after the event.
There’s clearly a difference between what someone twitters at an event versus blogging about after words. It seems to me that that what constitutes value in these two cases is probably different. To some extent I think its best not to judge these things too fast as things are evolving so fast that what they really mean today, in the internet ecology of this moment, will be very different from what they mean 6 months from now.. where the ecology of tools, along with our sense of how to use the tools, will have evolved.. To some extent I think the most important thing is to try and see the potential in them.
To Chip and Jason, I think there’s no question that laws and rule sets will have to evolve overtime. It seems that technology, and the way people use technology, is moving faster then the rule sets. Many of the laws impacting social media were not drafted with our current challenges in mind. As boneheaded as the RIAA sometimes seems to me, I can certainly appreciate the interests of copyright holders. The RIAA does seem to be generating an unintended consequence of a lot of ill will towards there plight, which may have a long term effect of shaping a political reality that will eventually work against there interests as they currently understand them. On the other hand it might be there perception / conceptualization of there interests are there chief problem, so that it might be that there dethroning is actually in there long term self interest.
I think underlying all this is that we have shifts in how we categorize stuff: In many ways social media is much like the sorts of stuff that would normally go on in private; it’s as if we are having private conversations that anyone can listen into and join, just because its online.. So now it’s not private use, or is it private use? There’s the legal standpoint on one hand, and how we think about it on the other.
How things get categorized is a complex subject: It’s basically a and expression of a combination of our underlying collective and individual challenges, and power relationships. In the social media context the influence of power on the process is very different then anything we’ve had before. I imagine it will be very interesting to see what the long term effects of all this will be on the democratic process.

]]> http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-79 John Johansen Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:42:22 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-79 I wasn't following all the Twitter conversations that were going on (not enough outlets and my laptop battery doesn't last very long) but I could see people reacting to them around the room. From this very limited perspective, I would say that Twitter was being used by the attendees to talk with one another without substantially disrupting the presenters. The context of being at the event would be crucial to understanding the content of the tweets. I don't know if that should be extrapolated. Do micro-blogging platforms allow enough information to pass outside the venue that followers can get a real sense of what's happening? I wasn’t following all the Twitter conversations that were going on (not enough outlets and my laptop battery doesn’t last very long) but I could see people reacting to them around the room. From this very limited perspective, I would say that Twitter was being used by the attendees to talk with one another without substantially disrupting the presenters.
The context of being at the event would be crucial to understanding the content of the tweets. I don’t know if that should be extrapolated. Do micro-blogging platforms allow enough information to pass outside the venue that followers can get a real sense of what’s happening?

]]> http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-78 Judy Gombita Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:38:41 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-78 Doug someone who was at the SNCR symposium commented to me (independently of this post) on your table: My favorite moment: watching six people at a nearby round table, all facing the center of the table, supposedly listening to the speaker, but buried in their laptops. Then, they would ALL laugh at the same time, with no connection to what the speaker was saying that moment. Do you suppose they might have been blogging for each other? (Sounds to me like the Twitterati were a wee bit disruptive to the rest of the attendees.) Doug someone who was at the SNCR symposium commented to me (independently of this post) on your table:
My favorite moment: watching six people at a nearby round table, all facing the center of the table, supposedly listening to the speaker, but buried in their laptops. Then, they would ALL laugh at the same time, with no connection to what the speaker was saying that moment. Do you suppose they might have been blogging for each other?
(Sounds to me like the Twitterati were a wee bit disruptive to the rest of the attendees.)

]]> http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-77 Lauren Vargas Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:26:05 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-77 Doug, this post dovetails perfectly into my active listening post: Are you wearing your listening ears? It is all about balance and respect. Doug, this post dovetails perfectly into my active listening post: Are you wearing your listening ears? It is all about balance and respect.

]]> http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-76 Doug Haslam Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:38:43 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-76 Chip and I should add, SNCR's Jenn McClure was well aware of the live-tweeting of that paid event. If there had been any objection, that battle had been fought and finished before it started. Chip and I should add, SNCR’s Jenn McClure was well aware of the live-tweeting of that paid event. If there had been any objection, that battle had been fought and finished before it started.

]]> http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-75 Jen Zingsheim-White Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:34:11 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-75 It will be interesting to see if live-Twittering moves over to previously public but not widely-attended forums, like legislative committee hearings. Way back when I was a lobbyist, people would wait for the hearing to end, then run out and call whomever was interested in the legislation to let them know what had transpired. I can see Twitter changing things in that arena substantially. It will be interesting to see if live-Twittering moves over to previously public but not widely-attended forums, like legislative committee hearings. Way back when I was a lobbyist, people would wait for the hearing to end, then run out and call whomever was interested in the legislation to let them know what had transpired. I can see Twitter changing things in that arena substantially.

]]> http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-74 Chip Griffin Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:26:15 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-74 Jason, I have to differ with you here. I don't think that any journalist -- professional or citizen -- has an absolute right to cover an event live. The fact of the matter is that when you buy a ticket to a conference or a sporting event, you agree to the terms and conditions. If you are admitted for free as a member of the media, you agree to the terms and conditions. If the event organizers don't want you to provide live coverage, they have a right to revoke your admission. And they should. Jason, I have to differ with you here. I don’t think that any journalist — professional or citizen — has an absolute right to cover an event live. The fact of the matter is that when you buy a ticket to a conference or a sporting event, you agree to the terms and conditions. If you are admitted for free as a member of the media, you agree to the terms and conditions. If the event organizers don’t want you to provide live coverage, they have a right to revoke your admission. And they should.

]]> http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-73 Sarah Wurrey Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:21:29 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-73 Tim, I absolutely understand where you're coming from. And Todd also makes the same observation. The constant clacking of keyboards during a presentation does give the presentation a less formal feel, and the impression that people aren't paying attention. But I do think that there's value to live-tweeting, and as it becomes more common, I think presenters and rooms will adapt to the challenges it presents them... Tim, I absolutely understand where you’re coming from. And Todd also makes the same observation. The constant clacking of keyboards during a presentation does give the presentation a less formal feel, and the impression that people aren’t paying attention.
But I do think that there’s value to live-tweeting, and as it becomes more common, I think presenters and rooms will adapt to the challenges it presents them…

]]> http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-72 Jason Falls Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:18:32 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-72 Great article, Doug. The one thing that struck me during reading was that exclusive live rights cannot hold under the pressure of an audience of citizen journalists. The law is going to change because of microblogging and mobile technologies. And it should. As the primary source for an individuals media shifts from mainstreatm to niche and from traditional to within one's network, no longer can organizations, events or governing bodies expect to maintain a stranglehold on the rights to what they do. If you weren't in the crowd at the NCAA baseball regionals here in Louisville last spring and weren't watching on TV, Brian Bennett was your source for information. This time, the NCAA won. Next time, someone (say Jason Falls) sitting in the crowd and not subject to press box rules, might be Twittering it. As long as people know where to go, the information will get out. And with 5,000 people sitting there, chances are, I won't be the only one live blogging the event. It will take a lawsuit and someone willing to fight for our right to be citizen journalists. But we'll win. Mark my word. Great article, Doug. The one thing that struck me during reading was that exclusive live rights cannot hold under the pressure of an audience of citizen journalists. The law is going to change because of microblogging and mobile technologies.
And it should. As the primary source for an individuals media shifts from mainstreatm to niche and from traditional to within one’s network, no longer can organizations, events or governing bodies expect to maintain a stranglehold on the rights to what they do.
If you weren’t in the crowd at the NCAA baseball regionals here in Louisville last spring and weren’t watching on TV, Brian Bennett was your source for information. This time, the NCAA won. Next time, someone (say Jason Falls) sitting in the crowd and not subject to press box rules, might be Twittering it. As long as people know where to go, the information will get out. And with 5,000 people sitting there, chances are, I won’t be the only one live blogging the event.
It will take a lawsuit and someone willing to fight for our right to be citizen journalists. But we’ll win. Mark my word.

]]> http://blog.customscoop.com/mb/2007/12/social-media-and-the-changing-nature-of-conferences.html#comment-71 Doug Haslam Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:03:23 +0000 http://www.mediabullseye.com/?p=111#comment-71 Tim-- and I'm the one who gets called an "angry Nerd." I think there is a balance. Journalists have always resorted to note-taking at press conferences/speeches etc. Even the bloggers take notes during the conference, some of them posting in real-time, some of them waiting. I think if you dig a little deeper you will see that a good number of the SNCR Twitterers actually produced lengthier blog posts after the events. Just as the blogosphere has opened up the editorial process to the public, live-blogging and twittering has opened up the on-the-fly thought process. do you think the Engadget live-blogging of MacWorld was insubstantial? That was a single blog post made of live updates that might as well been Tweets (though with pictures and without character limits)/ As silly as our table got (and Shel I. was definitely hip to the silliness, no question-- he was comically "shushing" people all day), that was probably an extreme. Short posts usually need a cumulative effect to make any sort of real impression anyway. Tim– and I’m the one who gets called an “angry Nerd.”
I think there is a balance. Journalists have always resorted to note-taking at press conferences/speeches etc. Even the bloggers take notes during the conference, some of them posting in real-time, some of them waiting.
I think if you dig a little deeper you will see that a good number of the SNCR Twitterers actually produced lengthier blog posts after the events.
Just as the blogosphere has opened up the editorial process to the public, live-blogging and twittering has opened up the on-the-fly thought process.
do you think the Engadget live-blogging of MacWorld was insubstantial? That was a single blog post made of live updates that might as well been Tweets (though with pictures and without character limits)/
As silly as our table got (and Shel I. was definitely hip to the silliness, no question– he was comically “shushing” people all day), that was probably an extreme. Short posts usually need a cumulative effect to make any sort of real impression anyway.

]]>