Savaging the bearcubs of Media 140

Comments

Larry
9 Nov 09
11:53 am



love how duncan riley’s post is 85% him whinging that he didn’t get the accreditation he is obviously entitled to and how AU is such a backwater … and barely touches on the actual conference aside Riley taking shots at people/companies/inanimate objects that have potentially ridiculed him along the way.

suck it up whingebag! this seems symptomatic of the self important media ego brigade that they’re more outraged at their lack of recognition from the media establishment than anything else.

Linen Suave
9 Nov 09
12:02 pm



Oh Timbles! I am touched by you!

My Angelfires blogs iz not yets stylish for the pimping so there iz not link to my Twitter page und profiles but you can all follow me like gut kindemünchen at http://twitter.com/LinenSuave, ja?

Ed Charles
9 Nov 09
12:09 pm



You know, I was tempted to come up to Sydney for it but when I looked at the speakers I realised most were broadcasters rather than conversationalists, old fashioned journalists.

And I haven’t yet found anything useful from what I’ve read about it.

DidImiss anything?

commuter_dirge
9 Nov 09
12:12 pm



I thought it was disappointing that Linen her(?)self wasn’t invited to speak at Media 140; she was painfully conspicuous in her absence and the conference would’ve been greatly improved by her input and expertise. Such a shame really.

Stilgherrian
9 Nov 09
12:18 pm



While Duncan Riley’s dummy-spit was fairly spectacular and I probably wouldn’t have done it that way myself unless I was spectacularly trashed, he does have a point. The Inquisitr is visited by more than a million unique browsers a month, vastly more than many “mainstream” mastheads’ websites, and yet it’s still seen as a lesser beast.

Warlach
9 Nov 09
12:41 pm



I agree with Stil – Duncan’s reaction was colourful, but he raised many good points and there’s no reason he shouldn’t have been invited in the same way as the regular press or even invited to speak himself.

Meanwhile, I’m not even going to touch Linen’s story. There be dragons.

The Worst of Perth
9 Nov 09
3:32 pm



I hoped there was a scrolling #media140 so my twitter conributions could be appreciated, eg

Butcher to #media140 – Journos should try cheaper cuts of meat. Rabbit, brisket and neck are delicious alternatives for redundant media profe…

PR industry to sacked jounos – Fuck off we’re full. A hooded PR rep told #media140 that redundant journos were not welcome in the industry.

Julie Posetti
9 Nov 09
6:03 pm



As the conf convenor, I’d like to set the record straight re: Duncan Riley. He was provided with a “bloggers” pass by Media 140 PR (Sarah Allen) after a late night DM the evening before the conf issued via an intermediary. Wish graciously commanded by moi who was still online (worked thru many nights in the lead-up in fact) He was issued with a bloggers’ pass because it afforded him access to a front row seat with power! Accredited live bloggers were privileged in this way over & above those with plain old media passes!! It wasn’t intended as some sort of media apartheid!

MSM still has one significant thing over that sort of whine: the practice of fact checking

I’m starting to sense an appropriation of the “nick off out of our space” line MSM receives so much flak for, by the very people who fling it @ the mainstream & it ain’t helpful to collective efforts to re-invent journalism.

And, yes, those of you who didn’t come did miss out – both on some stellar content, some collaborative learning & much comeraderie in between. See the tweetstream #media140.

Legosity
9 Nov 09
9:53 pm



@ed charles – It was pretty good, although I think some of the speakers were under prepared or unaware of their topic.

@Julie Posetti – thanks for a great event. My tip for next time – no more bloggers pretending they know how a news room works

Gary Hayes
10 Nov 09
10:00 am



Legosity – “no more bloggers pretending they know how a news room works” – call me a space cadet but, at a Future of Journalism conference one would expect perhaps one of two people to be talking about ‘the future’ ?! Sadly what I saw at this conference was back to back traditional journalists for 90% of the 1st day talking about their partial and in-experienced knowledge of social media (worryingly distilled down to twitter only) followed by, very late in the day, deeper users of the ‘new medium’ having to sum up a large canvas in 5 minutes each. I would have preferred some of the bigger picture ‘transformation’ of the industry people up front followed by those in Journalism with a vision of what a ‘news room’ of the future may actually look like – but I realise Julie and others had political considerations as to the order of the speakers resulting in compromise, as is usual with these type of 101 conferences.

Ed Charles
10 Nov 09
10:25 am



Gary, That’s whatI thought the conference might be which is why I didn’t come. I’ma career journalist myself but have been immersed in social media since 2005 and keep finding colleagues who have a virtually no-follow Twitter account lecturing me on the dynamics.

Warlach
10 Nov 09
12:08 pm



Hi Julie,

Thanks for your comments and for clearing up the confusion, however
I’m confused by your comments towards MSM and fact checking.

Firstly, aligning all mainstream media together, especially these
days, as a bastion of fact checking is ridiculous – for every
dedicated journo, there’s another copy and pasting a press release,
reporting based on Twitter rumours or killing Jeff Goldblum. It’s not
to say there aren’t good journalists who check everything, just that
it’s a mixed bag, just as it is with bloggers.

Secondly, my main point is why you feel the need to aggressively denounce the lack of fact checking here? Perhaps Duncan should have checked more thoroughly before his post, but all Tim has done is link to that post – the news being Duncan’s outburst more than Media 140′s practices. If, instead, you believe those of us, like Stil and myself, who had already commented and expressed some agreement with Duncan are at fault, I find the idea that you believe commentators should go through rigorous fact checking before responding to a story ridiculous.

The best way to combat such misconceptions and misunderstandings is to do exactly what you have done, participate in the conversation* and provide an alternate viewpoint. However, you gain little by simultaneously attacking those who you seek to win over.

While I find it unfortunate you feel that people in social media et al are not responsive to the idea of reinventing journalism, I would also point out that journalism won’t be reinvented by a series of speeches on how individuals see the internet. Journalism, just as blogging or any industry touched by the power of new media, will be reinvented by people actually doing and trying new things, which is the reason I personally found Riyaad Minty’s presentations some of the most useful of the whole conference.

Yes, the speed of the back channel can seem overly negative at times, but it’s a sentiment. Participate, listen and respond, don’t give any one post or tweet more gravity than it deserves, and you’ll be much closer to achieving your goals.

*Yes, I recognise that with this sentence that I have gained a Level in my Social Media Douchebag class.

Stilgherrian
10 Nov 09
12:15 pm



Ed, while I don’t know you or your work (do I?), it sounds like you’re an example of what’s needed for the future: journalists who are willing to explore the new tools and methods.

As I see it, there are journalists who know how newsrooms work, and who practice the craft well or poorly. There are “social media” (ugh! I truly hate that term!) practitioners who know how the new stuff works, and they do it well or poorly. And there are wankers on both sides who pontificate without actually knowing much.

What we need is the first two groups — or at least those who do i well — to get together and figure out how to build the future. And for the third group to kill themselves.

julieposetti
10 Nov 09
1:10 pm



Well, hasn’t this thread turned into a robust little discussion

Firstly, please let me make it clear (as my exhausted brain & fingers did not adequately explain themselves in my earlier comment) that I wasn’t criticising you, Tim (i.e. Mumbrella) nor you, Warlach, nor you Stil for posting on this issue & commenting on it – all perfectly valid & amusing!

My (OK, slightly touchy reference to fact-checking was intended to be directed squarely @ Duncan’s original post., not Mumbrella or it’s contributors. Love your work…all of you.

And, yes, Warlach as I’ve acknowledged a bazillion times before in MSM appearances, on my blog, on Twitter etc etc pro-journalism has failed abjectly to maintain trust built on a credibility linked to accuracy & fairness. (I’ve now posted my own #media140 address @ my blog http://www.j-scribe.com – as you will see, I pull no punches where the mainstream is concerned!). However, I do think the traditional (i.e. ideal) underpinning of professional journalism that privileges fact-checking, accuracy, truth, verification etc is valuable – to all journalists…however you define them. It’s also valuable to social cohesion: nothing like a virally spread fallacy to damage individuals and communities.

So, what I was reacting to was the ungenerous, inaccurate (Duncan knew the circumstances of his inclusion @ Media140) rant that Duncan posted. And as much as I love a good rant, I’d prefer it if it the ranter asked a couple of questions and did a wee bit of investigation before ‘going off’. And, yes, I’m aware that ranting ain’t the preserve of Social Media/bloggers etc – Piers Ackerman, anyone? (You may also choose to point a finger @ this pot calling the kettle black!

To summarise: 1) I am utterly exhausted from the marathon effort involved in planning & executing the event…filters may be affected 2) I have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from those present on the bridges built between Social Media & MSM and what was learned @ #media140 and I am deeply thankful for the constructive contribution made by many in both ‘camps’ to broaden the middle ground where journalism IS being actively invented. 3) Much of the benefit of Media140 emerged in the cracks – within the audience in situ; over coffee; in the new connections formed etc – and there were clearly distinctions between the experiences of those who attended in person and those who absorbed it virtually…But I’d like to point out that people congratulating themselves on their non-attendance, and from that position, pontificating about how much more they know, don’t know what they missed out on.

I am passionate about social media…I’m passionate about journalism…I do both…and try to merge them. The future is here. I get it. I am listening…I listened as a pro-J too…but just as journos need to learn their copy has impact on real people at an individual level…so, too, do those feeding back and creating new journalism in new spaces.

Here ends rant. Thanks for listening.

Gary Hayes
10 Nov 09
1:11 pm



Ah Stilgherrian there is a 4th, much more dangerous, delusional group – those who ‘think’ they are in the first two groups and doing what they do well.

I don’t agree either that those who pontificate/commentate/opinionate (your 3rd group) are all wankers. I am personally not an expert on how to build or run jet aircrafts but I have a strong opinion if tickets are overpriced, the staff are rude or they almost kill me one day! I might even suggest the ‘participant audience’ are in this group, ones who give opinion on the services or content they receive ‘without actually knowing much’. The more ‘media’ (higher production value commentary makers) realise that this group are critically important, then, and only then will we transform the industry – not just by forgetting our differences.

Stilgherrian
10 Nov 09
1:23 pm



Gary, you’ve missed my qualifier on group three: those who “pontificate without actually knowing much“. There are also those who pontificate cluefully. I think your fourth group is the same thing, at least practically speaking.

Stilgherrian
10 Nov 09
1:24 pm



Bother. Screwed up the italics.

Ed Charles
10 Nov 09
1:38 pm



Stig – can I call your that.

Agreed. I can’t say I’m perfect in the social world.

I’d like to see the end of this divide which I stride in my tiny niche.

Stilgherrian
10 Nov 09
4:56 pm



Having to stride the divide in your niche sounds painful.

Jeff L
10 Nov 09
7:41 pm



@Julie – It must be a terribly hard thing to organise a conference like this – so I choose my words carefully. All in all a good event.

The value of a conference (at least to me) is 2 distinct outcomes:
1. Networking – quality & diversity of attendees (Job Done)
2. Taking at least one real world outcome from each presenter (half marks)

Some of the presenters were good, others adequate. Suffice is to say that it lends no credibility to have academics present their view of the world. I know that Papworth will tell you she is an expert, and perhaps at somethings she is, but I really didn’t take anything from her stuff. I guess organisers feel compelled to have self appointed experts there, but to me its becoming a deal breaker.

Gary Hayes
11 Nov 09
2:04 pm



@Jeff L – who said Laurel was self appointed expert? Not that you will but perhaps read some of her testimonials here – I can’t cross reference your testimonial as your just another Anonymous Nobody. Also suggest you trip across to Crikey to see a more balanced view of Media140 including what Laurel had to say – if your’e after real world take out vs the kind of real world that you might expect in the sewer…Go here Highlights and Lowlights of Media 140

Jeff L
11 Nov 09
7:03 pm



@Gary – didn’t mean offense – and to do justice to your repsonse I have read the testimonials

The point is, If I come back from a conference with an opinion about a presenter, reading their testimonial afterwards is unlikely to change my mind (and it didn’t). With all due respect, this is a very odd defence – wouldn’t laurel be better to listen to feedback, and improve her act as a result?

I dont mean to upset her/you, but @laurel’s presentation did not add any value to my day.

PetaKat
12 Nov 09
8:03 am



Why do @Gary & @Laurel always feel the need to quote testimonials and their rankings on blog lists. Its a bit cringeworthy isn’t it? Imagine walking into a party and telling everyone how good you are – you would soon be sipping a drink all on your lonesome – maybe its more acceptable in 2nd life rather than real life?

you seem to have a hard time taking feedback.

Gary Hayes
12 Nov 09
8:54 am



@Jeff L – point taken. I don’t like lots of individual speakers at conferences I attend BUT I generally don’t go into public forums and tell everyone unless I have a particular agenda against that person – Like Tim has against Laurel on his blog on a regular basis.

@PetaKat – Good analogy. If this (and other) threads WERE a party what would you be? Perhaps one of the anonymous, masked, under age drinkers, making snarky comments, backing up the hosts friends as he stands on his crate of beer taking pot shots at someone at a party set up for that purpose. Be careful of talking about behaviour, virtual vs real, second life vs real life. In this conversation, remaining anonymous means you are absolutely, the dysfunctional virtual alias.

Anonymous, masked, under age drinker
12 Nov 09
9:32 am



Really Gary? Firstly, you seem to be advocating one not speaking their mind regarding conferences etc, when I think you’ll find Jeff has every right, nay responsibiliy, to share his insights. This industry is a circle jerk enough as it is and if politicians, journalists or stand up comics have to learn to live with nefaive feedback I think the new media can too.

As for your accusations against Mr Burrowes having never met the man in person I’m not taking sides but a quick Google search of ‘Mumbles’ – the passive aggressive pet name Laurel uses – will turn up a vast history of cannon blasts from both sides of this rivalry. And before you respond is “he started it” really the most mature response.

Speaking of Google – it’s time to turn off the Alerts and stop instantly leaping to Laurel’s defence. Having heard her speak many times surely she’s able to speak for herself?

The hilarious thing is that this article isn’t even about Laurel, and yet through your interaction that’s what it became about. If it had been about thr fact she appears to be gaming Twitter followers* while decrying lack of real engagement hat would be fine, but all this is is a hijacked thread.

And yes, I chose to remain anonymous – not because Im intimidated by you, but because I can’t be bothered dealing with the future retaliation.

*In regards to this statement, a post on Laurels own blog mentions her reaching 4000 followers in April of this year. She now has approximately 16000. If anyone wants to make a case of organic growth I’d be glad to hear it.

PetaKat
12 Nov 09
6:35 pm



organic growth – bahahaha. Autofollow back much Laurel?

@gary – no need to resend testimonials – 99% of the people I ask for references tend to give me good ones as well.