Tuesday’s Loss
A sad episode unfolded last night on the Meetup page for an upcoming Third Tuesday Vancouver event that left me distressed over the health of our aspirations for social media: openness, discussion, plurality; you know, the good stuff about the stuff we’re trying to build and use.
Here’s how the panel was described:
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been notorious for its tight grip over media coverage in past years. The Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, dubbed by some as the “Twitter Games”, have been a dramatic departure, changing the way we experience large-scale events across the globe.
Rebecca Bolwitt, John Biehler and Kris Krug, leaders in the social media coverage of the 2010 Games, join us for our panel on how social media has changed the Olympics and the future of citizen journalism.
The bios of each centred on their work, and were vague enough they could be read them as social media professionals to different degrees. From that, the first comment suggested the panel was lacking representation of someone working in journalism or independent media that were also documenting the games.
The responses made it clear that the panel or the frame of the discussion were not changing. Then things went off the rails when questions about overlap between citizen journalism and social media consulting were taken as attacks on panelist integrity. My own two comments, for the record, now appear as Former Member; at Meetup, you lose the privilege of identity when you leave the group. That gripe aside, I do recommend investing in a 5-minute read of the comments.
Things quickly unwound into defensive postures that never became outright nasty, but culminated in organizers rejecting an offer of panel participation and asking the commenter to take his thoughts elsewhere. That’s too bad, because he writes in-depth on the very subject at hand and participates to good ends in comment-based discussion, even with dissenters.
But it wasn’t to be. Despite Kris Krug’s solo attempt to build a bridge to a positive outcome, things hit a dead end with an organizer’s post:
Tobias: This has become tiresome. If you’d like to continue this discussion, you have a blog. Or you can attend the event. Wait, you likely won’t because you don’t appreciate the direction and don’t approve of the choice of panelists. And you don’t intend to come from Whistler.
Followed by shortly by:
…I myself have enjoyed following this discussion, however there are a lot of people unwittingly subscribed by email to this thread and find this tiresome….
No such comments were posted by the unwitting recipients, so who knows where that insight came from, but it helped make any further discussion unpalatable.
This is distressing. These channels are supposed to enable communication, but they can easily become echo-chambers of agreement that set us up for bad reactions to dissenting opinion. I’ve long believed that linear comment forms do little to facilitate online discussion, and Meetup’s are about as bad as they get.
But when we take questions about commercial orientation personally, when ambiguous bios go un-edited to clarify the positions of participants, when an offer to participate is sarcastically rejected and attempts to keep a discussion going are called ‘tiresome’ by an organizer, we can’t entirely blame the medium. We have to see that we have momentarily given up on communication and slipped into broadcast. And that’s not healthy.
Leave a Comment
Thanks for your thoughts. I came across this comment through pingback, and not because I am playing web stalker, nor trying to flog a dead horse.
There’s some good news from all this, indeed. It’s probably not clear but I have been corresponding with Kris Krug (and to an extent John Biehler) as we were all contributing to TNMH (of which Kris is a cofounder). Kris suggested a panel for Northern Voices on “hacking the olympic media,” and we got it together last night before the deadline — it aims to include Kris Krug, Dave Olson, Steve Anderson (W2/Tyee), representatives from Van Media Co-op, the Ubyssey and the Tyee’s editorial staff, as well as myself as moderator/panelist.
Also of note, Jeremy Lin from Third Tuesday offered to present a few questions if I am unable to make it to the meetup (as I don’t live in the city), and Monica has followed up with a gesture of goodwill. I thought this was an awesome gesture. I’ve sent them questions, which I reproduce here, just because, hey, the idea was to expand some thought around the topic at hand:
==
So, here’s two questions, each with a bit of preamble, to set some different perspective:
(1) Citizen journalism was arguably invented with the first modern newspaper (probably Addison and Steele’s “The Spectator,” in 1711, which Jurgen Habermas says contributed to the emergence of the “public sphere”). In fact, it appears that every successive generation reinvents citizen journalism with the tools at hand, be it pirate radio, ‘zines, BBS servers, forums, blogs, or now what is known as social media. But social media is perhaps the first medium that has been commercially designed as a data-aggregating tool for various purposes, from advertising and public relations to government surveillance. So is citizen journalism enhanced or degraded through its use of social media?
(2) In 1999, at the Seattle WTO convergence, the darling story of what is called “mainstream” media was the rise of Indymedia. At the time, Indymedia was the citizen journalism of its day. But it not only advanced citizen journalism, but sought to empower citizens to make media by putting together a media centre, inventing and coding self-publication software, distributing equipment, and offering courses in web-based media production. In light of indymedia, and the alternative media tradition it follows from (punk ‘zines, pirate radio, underground nespapers), and what indymedia and alternative media managed to achieve in upsetting the conventional reportage of Seattle in 1999 and other world events, what has been the comparable benefit of social media in revealing news otherwise untold?
Or to put it in Darren Barefoot’s words: “We’re covering stories. But how often are we uncovering them? Where is the local, investigative citizen journalism? To put it another way, who’s doing the citizen reporting that isn’t fun?”
==
I *wish* I had a web stalker
Thanks for stopping to post the followup. I’m glad to hear that there’s been some reconciliation, but still surprised that things went the way they did.
Your questions are good ones, though I admittedly know much more about the first than the second. In the early days of web 2.0 we saw experiments around content sharing transform into services after bandwidth and other operational bills started to pile up.
The original dreams of grassroots participatory media making never quite came to terms with the need monetization pressures that come to bear so strongly on social media precisely because of its ability to scale quickly and globally.
Quoting Darren’s question is very appropriate, and the link to his post on that is added for posterity: http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2010/02/citizen-journalism-covering-and-uncovering-the-news.html
Keep asking and building: though there are rough spots like last night I think the effort is worthwhile.
[...] who knows where that insight came from, but it helped make any further discussion unpalatable.link: Tuesday’s Loss – Corvus Consulting (italics added by author to distinguish quotes from [...]
The discussion should take place, most definitely. However I have some personal concerns about the thread that unfolded last night.
VANOC does not accredit blogs, they are a non-existent form of “journalism” in their eyes. I covered the Olympics regardless on my own blog and I covered them extensively. I was really happy to be offered a chance to speak with John, a hobby blogger/photography, and Kris who also doesn’t really have an official outlet.
I don’t work for the Tyee, the CBC or the Province. I never went to journalism school. I don’t “break stories” or have someone “vet” my work. My publishing tool for the Olympics was my own WordPress blog that I built from the ground up since 2004. The fact that this isn’t recognized as “Citizen Journalism” by some commenters on the Third Tuesday thread is beyond me.
I agree that concerns should be heard and a discussion should take place. A panel should happen at Northern Voice or maybe even at W2 one day (like it did in February). However, because my bio included that I wrote a book about Blogging for Business, somehow my entire decade’s work as an independent blogger who covered the Olympics got thrown out the window. Instead, The Ubyssey was named as an even more “independent” and “citizen-powered” outlet as Miss604.com.
It used to be that I worked my darndest to be a reputable blogger that traditional outlets would recognize and now it seems I have to strive just as hard to prove to social media critics that I am still just a blogger.
That’s my concern with the thread. Thank you for continuing the discussion outside of the Third Tuesday group and allowing me to post this without annoying people with more emails. Cheers, RB
Thanks for commenting, Rebecca. I have to say I think it’s a fair call to be questioned about possible professional motives intersecting with the panel seat when the book is included in your bio. There are people who aren’t aware of the history of hard, independent work you’ve put into your blog, and the book is about blogging and business, so it’s hard to see how things don’t get confused.
When we freely interpolate the professional with the hobby, we invite that kind of scrutiny in the public sphere. Just as much that we invite scrutiny of our work for standards if we choose to label it with Journalist of any flavour. If there are not formal aspects of journalism in the work, maybe we should just call it blogging.
For sure, fair enough, Todd. I don’t think of myself as a journalist however I do hold my work up to a certain standard. Sometimes I love being “just a blogger” but other times that label goes hand in hand with “sits in parent’s basement in the dark writing about kitties and cereal”
I think blogging’s come a long way and that this topic is most definitely something worthy of multiple discussions, in any venue possible.
I hear you on both points: it’s impossible to be proud of work you’ve done for so long without having some kind of standard for it. That those standards aren’t necessarily journalistic is what makes the label dangerous.
As for the label of blogger, I feel it as well when it comes to Gamer. I like my video games, I think and read about its genres, but the connotations out there would also put me in the dark basement, and maybe add some sort of deviance to boot.
But that’s one of the good things about language, that it’s malleable over time. To be proud of being a blogger who knows her standards for what she does, you’re helping get the term out of a ghetto and into the respect it often deserves.
I might as well join in the discussion here…like others have said, this discussion definitely should happen. I’m just not convinced that it needed to occur in the comment section of the Third Tuesday event page. Too much context and emotion is lost on the screen versus real life.
As Rebecca mentioned, I’m a a passionate photographer and a ‘hobby blogger’ although that term REALLY sounds like I blog about kitties and cereal.
I have a day job that I have purposely tried to separate from my online presence for a number of reasons (it’s no secret to most in the local community) but for context, my bio includes my title (although doesn’t name the company I work for). The 3T organizers simply grabbed (and paraphrased) my bio which doesn’t accurately reflect ‘me’ with respect to my Olympic coverage. I do agree with Tobias’ point that some assumptions could be made out of context from that bio. It’s something I need to update but frankly have been too busy to really care about it.
I’m not terribly fond of the ‘citizen journalist’ label – at least for myself…even the ‘social reporter’ line that is on the TNMH badge implies more than I’d like for me. I simply take photos of events that happen in front of me so am happy with simply ‘photographer’ or ‘documentarian’ as occasionally I wrap words around my images for context but always try to leave the conclusions and editorial up to the reader/viewer.
These are all items that I expected to discuss in more detail at 3T and potentially Northern Voice (I submitted my own, separate session idea) and any other venue that wants to hear it…including this comment thread.
I do hope that Todd comes to the meetup despite the comment storm the other night…the same goes to Tobias…Whistler isn’t that far
Hey John; I appreciate the comments. You’ve prompted a few thoughts.
We agree on a lot here, especially that your photos are presented without editorial; your truly talented at capturing the feel of events I’ve also been to.
As for the bios, it all makes me wonder if they should always come with something like ‘why this person for this panel’ (but with a shorter name than that). The relation of the bio to the conversation at hand isn’t always direct or easy, and informs a lot of sentiment, as we saw.
I don’t know if I agree that the comments were not a good place for the question and following discussion. There’s certainly no ideal one online, and the conversation all but totally stopped when moved to the Facebook group. It makes me think it’s partly a problem deep in comment form design, in the way it shapes the online dynamic. I hope we can figure out why these things break down online, because so much of how we engage with each other is leaning on the online tools. If they’re not adequate to question and debate through them, then it’s urgent that we get ‘em fixed.
I do appreciate the call to come out. I’ll do my best to be there.
Thanks for raising the concerns, Todd, and thanks to Tobias, Rebecca and John for commenting. The fact of the matter, as you all agree, is that the hard work of Rebecca, John and Kris was independent, and that it’s sometimes hard to separate. But I celebrate the fact that they took the time to come here and continue the conversation.
That is, Rebecca, John and Todd, the reason why I feel truly blessed and privileged to call you all my friends. The fact that you are able to deal with dissenting opinions and provide more information so that people can make informed decision. You all make me proud of calling you my friends.
Dissent is good for growth, and you all have shown that. My truly deepest respect to all (that includes you, Tobias, for raising the issue – although I think it could have been raised in a more subtle, nicely-worded tone!)
Yours faithfully,
Raul
This is feeling pretty much resolved, but at the risk of drawing it out I wanted to sum up my take-aways:
1. Backgrounds and histories are not self-evidently relevant, and should be tuned to the scenarios that they’re used in.
2. Switching channels can make a difference: I got a lot of bridge-building discussion from the panelists, but one defensive exchange with an organizer and no followup from them. That Rebecca, John and (privately) Kris weighed in speaks to the value they’ll bring to the panel. I’m still curious as to why the conversation didn’t resume at Facebook as intended.
3. At least two more good things happened:
Raul’s comment called out the value of dissenting opinion. Social media ironically gives us the ability to tune our intellectual environment to what supports our opinions and dispositions. It puts us at risk of unwittingly creating ghettos of ideas: cut off, stagnant and eventually toxic.
The dissonance that difference creates can make us uncomfortable, but learning to work through it is what makes us cosmopolitan. If the internet is to truly be global, it must be cosmopolitan, or it will become just a bunch of sound and fury that gets us nowhere.
Been following all these comments, thanks indeed for the wealth of thought.
An interesting point has come up here concerning the representation of the panelists in their bios. Given the mandate of Third Tuesday, the bios were representational of a business orientation that doesn’t undermine the position of social media (far from it — social media is commercial through & through: invented by corps to sell data aggregation to corps). That said, for the panel to really get at the heart of citizen journalism it does call for more representatives from the field, significantly those that work to distance themselves from commercial usage of the medium.
So I don’t buy that “the bios should have been different.” To write the bio without mentioning commercial involvement in the field of social media while pretending to speak for a new current of citizen journalism would have been worse, as it would have attempted to downplay these evident links between biz & hobby, journalism & commericalism, citizenship & capital.
What intrigues me is the underlying commercial interests represented here and how that feeds into the concept and practice of citizen journalism. There is first the question of transferable skills — people with tech careers see themselves as citizen journalists more easily as they already know how to work the medium(s) to their advantage.
The point being that this interplay of biz & hobby is indeed representative of the majority usage of social media. You’d be a fool to believe that the two don’t complement each other. Indeed, it is this very hybridity of work/play that marks the entire marketing strategy of social media (in political theory we call it cognitive labour). So we all know that. Your blog makes you as a brand, which creates a cultural buffer to the hard commercial work you do, and allows you to dabble in soft forms of promotion/research that are also creative, such as writing a book about blogging or contributing to something like TNMH. It’s not about “independence,” which is a completely threadbare ideology in the contemporary mix of technological fields of labour and play.
And indeed, many “independent” bloggers leverage this independence to contract their apparently independent work and take pay for work that, in actual journalism, could never accept pay. This is how bloggers get schwag & schmooze. We all know this is how it works to varying degrees, at least within the field represented here, and none of the panelists should feel they have to defend themselves for operating this way. No defensive postures need be taken. On the contrary, transparency would probably alleviate various questions.
That said, there is a completely alternative view to this commercial hybridity of labour/play that needs its voice to be heard, if only to really get into what this conversation could offer (and I’m speaking here, I know, to marketing types: if you want to know what’s up with the curve, and the long tail, talk to the opposition, the dissenters, and those on the fringes). This perspective needed is one where citizen journalists using social media quite simply have nothing at all to do with social media as a commercial enterprise, career, or business — and even to the point where they question the efficacity of social media in comparison to other alternative media technologies and forms.
((In a stimulating conversation with Jeremy Lin, I also mulled over some thoughts concerning the efficacity and value of social media in relation to previous forms, but I will post or blog that later.))
Tv: I think the bios should be different not in that they remove mention of professional work, but so that they relate what the person is bringing to the panel at hand.
That said, the ways that online tools have created a soft zone that has blurred the line between when we’re ‘working’ and ‘not working’ is of interest to me. As an independent consultant, my blog is one part of the self-branding that I do, and for non-professional bloggers it’s created a sort of nom de plume that enables one to do business without fully committing to it. The reactions to your question about that interplay suggest a raw nerve was hit, and means there’s more there to learn.
To be honest, it’s a more interesting topic to me than citizen journalism, which has never come across to me as meaningful. Journalism to me is a genre of communication with a set of guild-like standards. That ‘citizen journalism’ is often treated as part and parcel of ‘social media’ is, to me, a confusion of tool with process.
Great comments.
I don’t believe there will ever be complete separation of business and journalism. If news and journalism didn’t make money then we wouldn’t have the media we do today. The idea that those who write for money are any more or less journalist than those who don’t is part of the larger discussion around what a journalist is now in an age when the tools to publish are readily available.
Or is that the definition of a citizen journalist? Someone who reports and doesn’t make a penny from it? What happens if that person is asked to do it for money? Do they lose the ‘citizen’?
Business and journalism have always been intertwined often to the detriment of journalistic integrity.
Ultimately it is up to the consumers of ONLINE media to decide/discover for themselves (each on an individual basis) whether what they are consuming is biased, ‘sponsored’ or inaccurate and that is unfortunate and prone to misinterpretation.
If someone blogs about social media and business and makes no money directly from it are they any less of a citizen journalist than someone who blogs about social issues or social media and education?
As people we often view business as the enemy. Businesses are people; people are businesses. Complete separation of the two is unrealistic.
Business is a part of our society. It’s not perfect and it needs a hell of a lot of work, but it’s not the enemy and it’s not something to be held against people whatever their association with it.