Live blogging MPR’s MSM vs. New Media Ethics Forum

Today The Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists and Minnesota Public Radio are hosting a UBS Forum examing the present state of journalism, the effect of new media on mainstream media (MSM), and ethical issues and quandries created by evolving communication, expectation and collaboration.

MPR called Erica and Greg, your Metroblogging Minneapolis Co-Captains, and asked if we would be the official live bloggers covering the event tonight. Of course, because we’re bloggers and all, we asked if they would pay us under the table. Not really, but we bet you $100 somebody believes that’s how bloggers operate…not to say that’s not ever true.

Inarguably, new and social media wouldn’t exist without traditional journalism. Yet with that said, MSM is hitting some growing pains trying for that sweet spot between relevancy, timeliness, responsibility and oh yeah, monetization. After all, just because the average netizen expects the news for free with no ads, somebody has to keep the lights on and journalists fed.

The MNSPJ has more details on the event. We hear all seats may have been reserved, but you can still give it a shot if you’d like to attend.

UPDATE: Event is sold out. We’re told MPR wouldn’t spring for live video streaming (?), but there will be an audio stream linked off the MPR front page with a form for web attendees to submit questions.

Otherwise, follow along here starting at 7:00 tonight.

List of expected attendees (to be edited once the event kicks-off):

G: It’s 6:42 p.m., and Erica and I are set-up in the auditorium stage-left. They have tasty cookies in the lobby and the auditorium is already hot. I’m sure it will only heat up once when the ethics throwdown begins.

Read on…


G: So many people here. Wish they were wearing avatar nametags. Jason DeRusha came over and sat next to us — therefore guaranteeing he will get coverage on the blog here. We’re talking about the photo he tweeted of Diablo holding her Oscar in bed.

E: Live tweeting from about DeRusha.

G: Ground rules – be nice, love one another.

E: Noah Kunin is setting up to stream live video for The Uptake. Mike Caputo is telling us to turn our phones off. There will be folks with mics in the audience. We “need to respect the views of others.” Stay on topic!

G: Bob Collins has livebloggers hold our hands up. Noah, Erica and Greg to the rescue.

E: Bob Collins is totally jealous that we get to liveblog and he can’t. Blogs: 1. MSM: 0.

G: Bob Collins paraphrased: As social media becomes mainstream media, there’s a need for standards. Perhaps shared or two different standards (MSM bloggers vs. independent).

The Uptake is now streaming live (

G: Dan Gillmor: Forget question if bloggers are journalists — might as well ask if people who write on paper are journalists. Blogs are a tool — a form for creating media. The answer: most are not, and a few are.

E: Dan Gillmor: “Blogging is a proxy word for all emerging forms of new media.” “It’s not about MSM OR blogs. It’s about MSM AND blogs.” Need a more diverse and robust media ecosystem.

E: Dan Gillmor “What does mainstream even mean anymore?”

E: Recent example of citizen journalism collaboration with MSM is CNN reporting on Virginia Tech shooting. Terrible example: Matt Drudge. “Recent good .”

G: Bob massacres CNN’s iReport concept — calls it “iReporter.” Meanwhile, Noah is sporting no less than two media wristbands, and I saw a guy yawn in the third row.

G: Dan: Per Drudge’s Obama in “traditional garb” coverage, no one dictated them to cover this. It’s an unfortunate failing of traditional media and bloggers alike, who are wiling to be part of something that may or may not have any meaning whatsoever. Clinton’s fingerprints?

G: Bob: Now we’re talking about easing of standards as exemplified by NYT’s running John McCain affair story.

G: Dan: NYT abused their trust. They screwed up.

E: Dan Gillmor: NYT abused the public’s trust. That was a major mistake.

G: I’m sorry, but listening to two old white guys sit in the front of the room and talk at us is so NOT 2.0.

E: Bob Collins: At least NYT has their standards readily available for all to read.

E: You know, so we can all know *exactly how* they fucked up with the John McCain story.

G: Bob: Is it reasonable to expect traditional media to have the same standards as new media? And are there areas that have become de facto standards online that should be migrating to traditional media?

E: DG: Whose online standards? Joshua Micah Marshall/Talking Points Memo = good. Matt Drudge = bad. Man, this guy hates Matt Drudge. Okay, who doesn’t hate Matt Drudge?

Here’s the link to listen live, btw.

G: Sorry, we got so bored we started taking camera phone pictures. It’s been 30 minutes and they are still talking.

E: Talking to Jane Kirtley. One of two white women on a whole panel of white men. She quotes: “The best of blogs are about transparency, but not about fairness and accuracy.” DG doesn’t think accuracy is too much to ask. It’s part of being an honorable person. Most bloggers aren’t trying to or wish to do real journalism. But there’s lots of great journalism (advocacy journalism) that’s highly biased. If you’re gonna be biased, be transparent so people can come to their own conclusions.


G: JK: Judges are terrified at the thought of unshaven bloggers storming into courtrooms and taking photos with the camera phones

E: Who cares if bloggers are like traditional journalists? Can we stop perpetuating the myth of unscrupulous people with agendas?

E: The title of “journalist” does carry weight when credentials (i.e., access) are involved.

G: Check it out. In a 5 second Google search, I found a site to make my own press credentials.

E: DG: “We need to protect journalism, not the people called journalists.”

G: This isn’t how I thought this was going to go down, according to Bob’s comment earlier that this is a discussion forum, not just two guys in the front of the room talking.

E: Is Bob Collins missing a finger? Go for the left hand when you arm wrestle, Chuck! Oh, wait, it was just a shadow. Never mind.

E: DG: Anyone could follow anyone else around for an hour and get enough material to make someone look ridiculous on the web.

G: DG answers questions so slowly. I can’t believe the invited forum guests are only allowed to ask Dan questions. I wanted to see people ask each other questions, share ideas, etc. etc.

E: Steve Perry asking about economics. Paraphrase: Used to be only newspapers could afford to provide reporters and resources. As newspapers lose readers and revenue, what do we lose in the process that citizen journalism or smaller shops won’t be able to supply?”

E: Yeah, I’m bored with the “panelists” supplying questions for Bob and Dan. Can we get to the audience please?

G: Dear MPR, you are losing us.

E: I’d rather this was a little more roundtable. Maybe a difficult format for radio with so many “panelists.”

G: Garrick Van Buren tweets this format mirrors his last experience here: “There were 100 people in the room. Maybe 10 were on mic for the 90 minutes we were there. Like the elderly gentleman next to me, I too, expected more of a discussion, less of a performance. It would have been more interesting to actually have a discussion.”

E: I got distracted by Twitter. I think Dan Gillmor said “smaller/online shops won’t be able to replicate the original newsroom model” but he wasn’t sure why.

G: DeRusha tweets, ” Is it only 7:45? Good god this is slow.”

E: DG: “Best examples of CJ training has bloggers focusing on very niche subjects.” I wish he could give a good example.

G: If this was a podcast, I would move on to the next one.

E: DG did pimp MPR’s Public Insight Journalism initiative.

E: Dan GIllmor says Bakersfield, CA’s pothole map is a fantastic example of cititzens collaborating with MSM to provide info the people are really interested in.

G: Michael Caputo tries to save the panel by involving the crowd.

E: Mike Caputo FTW!

G: Producer at KSTP points out that we, too, have a pothole map. Says KSTP blogs are just for entertainment value.

G: 52 minutes: amount of time it took to mention bridge collapse. Wonder if they’ll let Noah Kunin talk about his apartment’s location and the importance of Aaron Landry blogging from that location while MSM took time to fly to Mpls and set up cameras. Instead DG is talking about MSM’s notions and reaction to crises. BC changes subject to “the bloggers” being more passionate about stories they cover.

G: Julio tweets: ” Enjoying Twitter and MBM reax to MNSPJ event more than actual event — I think I will sleep well tonight.” — yes! Bloggers 2, MSM: 0

E: Bob Collins: “Bloggers are way more passionate about the stories we cover than MSM is. MSM is bending over backwards to sound detached.”

E: Garrick Van Buren asks: “Is a 30 second sound bite journalism? TPM didn’t win the Polk award for 30-second soundbites.” Also, “We need to liven things up here.”

G: Oh Garrick, God Bless You! BC and DG are acting like they don’t know what he means by 30 second segments given to cover the news, which makes me nervous.

E: GVB talks of reporters on campaign buses being under pressure to file and not having the luxury of time to step back and reflect.

G: I can’t believe they changed the subject so quickly. Totally ignored Garrick’s question like they didn’t understand it. Should the WCCO guy have a chance to talk to his question?

E: Bob Moffitt asks Bob Collins about voting, gives BC the opening to talk about how awesome Polinaut is.

G: BC doesn’t vote for candidates he covers.

E: Bob Franklin: “I worked at the Strib for 39 years and DAMN they were passionate! Is it still that way?”

E: 8:00pm. Bob Collins thinks the great thing about blogs is that you know exactly what a blogger thinks about things. And calls DeRusha out for Twittering about going out for drinks before the forum.

G: Okay — here we go.

E: DeRusha talking about how he couldn’t caucus as a reporter because that would call into question his bias. Thinks it would be more damaging to his career to be caught at a caucus than at a strip club.

G: DeRusha talking about how that will be on 4 blogs right now (true, btw), and the MSM echo chamber where people look for news stories they believe in and circulate it.

8:05 p.m. — first bashing of Fox News (courtesy of Dan Gillmore)

E: David Brauer does not look like his MinnPost black-and-white cartoon. Talking about reporting on Rake discontinuing print publication. Invited Tom Bartel to leave a correction in the comments on the MinnPost story. Bob Collins asks if DB felt “liberated” going from MSM to MinnPost. DB: “Uh, not really.” Like any good blogger, DB loves the page views.

Noah’s live-blogging here.

G: I can’t believe it’s 8:10 and they aren’t even close to letting Chuck talk. It’s a MSM love-fest.

E: Terry Sauer (managing editor of Talking about corrections. Concerned that it’s too easy to make corrections online. People view different versions online and have no way of knowing which one’s “right.” Asks if it’s a credibility hit to not be transparent with corrections. Nice softball.

G: People are talking to each other in the rows. Others are ranting on Twitter. Chuck Olsen looks like the last puppy at the pound at closing time.

E: Someone in the audience is actually nodding off.

E: Dan Gillmor — I think, I nodded off in the middle — is talking about ways to manage story versioning when making corrections.

E: Grad student in Journo/Mass Comm asks about blogging ethics. Greg ties it all together nicely with Garrick’s point that you sacrifice some quality for speed.

G: I just gave the example of Bob making a comment on our blog, it being updated immediately, and how MSM could never have reprinted, redelivered, etc. vs. not having an editor. Nobody picked up my question on at what point is it okay to relax quality standards for timeliness?

E: Noah delivers the news that folks following The Uptake’s liveblog are bored with the forum.

G: I wish the forum was like this the entire time. Finally getting energized with only 10 mintues left.

E: Chuck Olsen announces he’s from The Uptake and “we come in peace”. Thinks citizen journalism is definitely maturing. Calls for a middle ground between MSM’s and CJ’s techniques. The Uptake is trying to develop standards, asks DG for middle ground suggestions.

G: Chuck shows off his homemade press pass. He actually used the site I shared earlier to make it. Talked about live streaming from caucuses vs. MSM giving it 30 seconds. No further discussion – just back to DG again.

E: Dan Gillmor brings up Tim O’Reilly’s suggested Blogger Code of Ethics. DG says the principles of journalism are: thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, independence (aka objectivity), transparency. Standards are about putting the principles into action. Principles should stay the same, standards can vary between organizations. Most concise answer from DG yet today.

G: DG reading out a little black book. I bet he used a “pen” to write notes on “paper” – ha! But seriously, talking about the necessity for moderation on blogs, and anytime discussion becomes uncivil, calling for a ‘halt.’ Says people should use their real names. There should be accountability in using pseudonyms.

E: Wendy Williams It’s important to have this conversation because everything a journalist (citizen or otherwise) is an ethical act. Also, can’t discount citizen obligation/engagement.

G: Phil Wilson tweets, “it official…the MPR forum can be as sleepy as too much public radio. Somebody throw something.”

G: Reporter for MinnPost (didn’t catch her name): Inverted pyramid doesn’t cut it anymore. Audience completely different than what it used to be. Now more about topics. — OH MY GOD — Check this out: “I had a story picked up by Google Alert that went to Alaska.” Seriously? I want to go home now. Jason, Erica and I are heckling.

E: Jason DeRusha is the MSM expert on bloggers, apparently. He knows what all of us are saying and thinking at all times.

G: I just laughed out loud that people assume if stuff ran on blogs DeRusha knows about it.

E: Not that the J-man isn’t down. That’s what people here keep saying.

G: DG re: standards of MSM and blogs combined: “National Inquirer’s standards moving up.”

E: The problem is that people don’t understand how blogs are consumed. Especially how blogs are consumed by people who blog. Bloggers go through a different process of reputation-building, sourcing, and vetting than MSM does. Just because you read something on a blog doesn’t make it news. Reading MSM is for lazy people.

G: I’m not really sure why they invited bloggers to this event if the two guys in the front of the room just want to talk about NYT MSM issues over and over w/o addressing audience questions/interests.

E: You wade through the glut of info by trusting people to curate for you.

G: More MinnPost people here. After hearing Joel Kramer’s take on blogging at Life After Newspapers (didn’t get it, basically), I’m not entirely sure about his writers.

E: Every time Jason DeRusha pulls out his phone, I know a great Twitter is coming.

8:40 — “The Glory Days of Newspapers!” meanwhile Erica and I are tired and giving up.

G: DG is talking about “combining human and machine intelligence to find things that are much more likely to be trustworthy about things we care about.” Comparing to supermarket tabloids but forgetting supermarket tabloids are old the second they’re printed, don’t have comments, permalinks, crowd-sourcing, etc.


Jeremy Pavleck tweets, ” Holy cow, 2 blocks from the UBS forum and the blogger egos are seeping into our loft”

G: Erica’s gearing up to ask a question!

E: DeRusha’s boss just asked DG a question that kinda stumped him and now it’s gonna be another 5 minutes before I can respond and then I’ll be totally off topic.

G: DG: “That guy from Hong Kong who..uh…”
Noah: “Jackie Chan?”
Crowd: laughs in relief. DG’s trying to talk about audience responsibility but is having trouble getting to his point.

Erica asks a question! It’s something like what she said above, plus MB can be journalism or fluff. People form their opinions, which then shapes our reputation, but reading us and deciding for themselves.

G: Forum decides not to give Erica love, but DeRusha says: Bloggers have to work 20 times harder to get credibility I get w/wcco call letters

G: Audience person asks about MSM covering the immigrant status of illegal alien who ran her car into a bus and killed children. She’s blaming right-wing talk radio for influencing all MSM’s opinion. Jason Lewis would laugh in her face. Conservative talk radio really shapes our liberal local news, lady. Yeaah. Meanwhile, does this have anything to do with “New Media”? No.

G: Dave Pyle, AP: Talking about their reasoning in including the fact that the assigned this person the status of “illegal.” Still has nothing to do with new media.

G: This illegal immigrant story has not turned up one single new media example, nobody has any on Twitter, and I sure as hell can’t think of one. NEXT TOPIC. DeRusha tells me broadcast TV stations think e-mail is new media.

Noah reports, that 100% of his live viewers don’t think media is transparent.

E: The very title of this forum implies that MSM is complaining that bloggers aren’t playing by the rules. Why can’t somebody just come out and say that? Also, it’s completely unfair to lump all bloggers together, especially those that in no way purport to be “reporting.” People that think that are just plain dumb. I guess that’s why they read the newspaper, so they don’t have to decide. I guess choosing between the PiPress and the Strib is hard enough.

G: Someone mentioned monetization and the forum suddenly ended.

E: Bob Collins announces the end of the forum. Stay after for arm-wrestling with Chuck! I think he just called Chuck a beast.

G: Upon review, this was more snarky than I anticipated. You know how bloggers are.

36 Comments so far

  1. Chuck Olsen (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 10:04 am

    Don’t forget, I’m totally going to arm wrestle Bob Collins from MPR!

  2. Jason (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 10:52 am

    It’s pretty awesome to be on a list of people who may show up. I’ll be there.

  3. Robin Marty (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 11:02 am

    I can guarantee you paul won’t be there — he’s still in Thailand until the 6th.

  4. Erica M (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 11:09 am

    And you, Robin?

    Julio Ojeda-Zapata from the PiPress gave me permission to ridicule him if he didn’t show up. Julio, consider this a warning shot.

  5. justin heideman (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 11:15 am

    I’ll be there. But I’m not anybody special. I just want to see the MSM guys arm-wrestle the bloggers so we can finally end the debate on who’s a real journalist or not.

    Actually, I want to know why design seems like an afterthought on blogs and MSM sites (except the big guys), and why there seems to be so little thought to the relationship design has to credibility.

  6. Bob Collins (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 11:33 am

    From what I can see above, I’m not even there. Which actually may be an improvement in my ability to provide arm wrestling competition.

    Can I ask this question, though, since I can’t ask it on my own site: who cares what MSM thinks of whether bloggers are journalists are not.

    Eat their lunch and let the question be one for them to ask: what happened?

  7. Matt (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 11:52 am

    I agree, Jason. I’m thrilled to have made the "might show up" list. Unfortunately, it conflicts with book club, and we all know my priorities lie with book club.

  8. Greg (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 11:59 am

    Bob, you are now attending…thanks to me adding your name to a bullet.

    Try to see a print newspaper correct a mistake, reprint and redeliver that fast!

    Of course, an editor would have reviewed before he published, but blah blah

  9. Bob Collins (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

    The design question is an interesting one, Justin. Tell more. I know nothing about good design.

  10. Erica M (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

    Try to see a print newspaper correct a mistake, reprint and redeliver that fast!

    Of course, an editor would have reviewed before he published, but blah blah

    The corrections are transparent and were delivered via crowdsourcing, in the comments. That’s exactly what’s great about blogs!

  11. Bob from ALAMN (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 1:16 pm

    I’ll be there.

    But, please, don’t let that stop anyone else from attending!

  12. Robin Marty (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

    I love design…and Justin is one of the best…

    I was planning on attending, but I can’t get a sitter to get out in time, and no one wants to have a 2 month old in the audience. If someone needs a ticket I can email you mine.

  13. Chuck Olsen (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

    By the way, we’re going to attempt a live video stream from my laptop to – gods be with us.

    Justin – name names, who has sucky design? I know The UpTake does… hey, we got no money and a modified WordPress template. We’ve got a 2.0 and a 3.0 in the works. Not that any of this is too connected to ethics.

  14. Peter Fleck (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 4:54 pm

    I won’t be able to attend so you can take my name off the list but I’ll be here and there on this web thing.

    (Wow. You already got my name off!)

  15. justin (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 6:26 pm

    I’ll refrain from naming names for the moment, but some food for thought for the forum, guidelines from the Stanford Web Credibilty project.

  16. Kyle (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 7:02 pm

    Kathy Hansen definitely won’t be there… she broke her hip a few weeks ago (i do IT for SJMC)

  17. Noah Kunin (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 8:54 pm

    Great liveblog MB. I’m sure to use this as liner notes if we do an edited tape piece on this.

  18. taylor (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 9:54 pm


  19. justin heideman (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

    SON OF A B!!!!

    I was the guy who wanted the arm wrestling. I knew I should have hung out a little bit longer. I agree with Taylor.. Who won?

  20. Aaron (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

    Thanks for liveblogging. Pretty much summed up exactly why I didn’t go. Thanks for taking one for the team. Dan Gillmor seemed to say some very intelligent (yet very basic) concepts:

    "It’s not about MSM or blogs. It’s about MSM and blogs … what does mainstream even mean anymore?"

    Yeah. It’s the same that goes with ethics, integrity, and level of "journalism." MSM, bloggers, and everyone in between has the exact same issues. Bloggers aren’t special. Nor is the mainstream media. They’re both pretty snarky of each other but really for no good reason. If I were to be general, I think the people that think there’s a big difference are pretty na├»ve about the other.

    So different individuals and different organizations have different levels of journalistic integrity, bias, skills and experience. Some people just document experiences from their point of view with complete bias. Who cares?

    Things would make a lot more sense to people if they really treated it more like baseball. We have professionals, minor leagues, little leagues, pick-up games and games that only happen at family gatherings. All are respected as baseball. It’s not like someone on the Minnesota Twins is going to show up at the little league game and declare that so and so isn’t a real baseball player. It’s no disrespect to the pros that have have trained and have tons of experience for decades. In fact, a professional baseball player likely plays better baseball than most other baseball players. The world respects this for good reason. This is a good thing. And the pros should never go away.

    (Yeah, the issue is that little league and minor league baseball might be really taking off these days — this is not a time to question other leagues — it’s time to embrace the love of baseball and see how it helps everyone.)

    (And this is what pisses me off the most about MinnPost attitude: They’re in the minor leagues. They have some major league players. They want to be in the major leagues. But in no way shape or form are they ANYTHING like the non-professionals! Those filth!)

    So why I didn’t go: It boils down to the fact I’m sick of the line drawn by both sides. I’ve dealt with some unethical blogging experiences with MPR’s blog and when I read how the Minnesota SPJ describe their event:

    "Professional journalists build credibility through accurate, timely reporting and adherence to clear ethical standards. But how much do the traditional journalistic touchstones of vetting sources and fair and transparent reporting matter at a time when anyone with a cell phone can publish images instantly for the entire world to see?"

    …I said to myself, "give me a fucking break."

    I’m glad to see there were some voices that were all about breaking those lines.

  21. Ed Kohler (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 10:37 pm

    Great live blog. In the end, I had to decide between going to this or rollerblading in the Dome followed by free enchiladas. I think I made the right choice.

    Sounds like it was a little too high level with over hashed thoughts for the crowd.

  22. Chuck Olsen (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 10:51 pm

    I totally got Bob’s take on the "Thanks, no. Bob" thing. And he totally kicked my ass in the arm wrestling match – poor helpless me! But I really have to eat this fried egg sandwich right now.

  23. David Brauer (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 11:03 pm

    The question every page-obsessed ex-MSM blogger wants to know: better or worse than my picture?

  24. Peter Fleck (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 11:05 pm

    Great live blogging. For some reason it wouldn’t update for me during the show so I thought you had stopped after the Jane Kirtley post. Fun to see the full blog now available. Nice job Greg & Erica.

  25. Bob Collins (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 11:38 pm

    Folks. There are two different conversations going on, in reading the live blog. There’s the actual conversation in person… and then there’s a whole ‘nother conversation taking place online. Folks were encouraged to jump in and make it a conversation and not a presentation.

    So…why didn’t you? I’m not exactly thrilled at wasting *my* Monday night either. The dog missed me, apparently.

    MPR, which was not the sponsor of the event, wasn’t all that thrilled with the whole MSM vs. Blogger conversation, believing that we’re past that by now. But maybe we’re not. Maybe we still want to have that conversation.

  26. Chuck Olsen (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 3:26 am

    My thoughts – such very, very important thoughts – are on my blawg.

  27. Bob Moffitt (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 6:50 am

    Glad the communications guy from the courts was there and spoke up — I was wondering if I was the only flack in town with an interest in New Media and stuff.

    So at least there are two of us.

    I’m trying to remember — did Collins groan when he heard my question, or when I identified myself?

  28. Bob Collins (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 6:58 am

    And mine are in the comments section of mine.

  29. Bob Collins (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 7:01 am

    Bob. I groaned at the question because the particular incident you highlighted was about blogger transparency and the hypocrisy of some people who advocate and then are outraged when they get it. Also the people who claim to want an unbiased journalist and then are similarly outraged when they get one who admits not voting in order to attempt to preserve it.

    Actually, I thought it could’ve led to a good thread on standards but instead reinforced that what we often went more than anything else, is the opportunity to be outraged. (g)

  30. Bob Moffitt (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 8:11 am

    Well, the evening had its moments, and I’m glad I went. I’m still thinking about it today, which is a sign that some of the points made found their mark.

  31. Dale (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 10:02 am

    Great topic considering the changes happening right now with old and new media. There are some pretty interesting parallels with topics at

  32. Art Hughes (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 10:33 am

    Thanks folks for coming to this and putting energy into it. I and my SPJ cohorts take your praise and pans to heart. I helped organize the thing so any shortcomings largely fall to me. I think we’ll take another swing or two at this topic–perhaps a little more informally. I know I really wanted to hear from all the various perspectives in the room–from Don Gemberling to, well, Greg Swan–much smarter and cogent minds than mine. So, bravo to you and Bob Collins (arm wrestling winner) and Dan Gillmor. Between all of us let’s see if we can all meet face to face regularly and cook up something else.

  33. Erica M (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 10:44 am

    Greg and I discussed this last night: Keep in mind the liveblog consists of in-the-moment commentary, lacking any reflection. Today is where we get all the reflection. For said reflection, make sure you see Bob Collins and Chuck Olsen.

    My thoughts this a.m.:

    **The format was limiting and offputting to would-be commenters and it was exacerbated by the boring kickoff. I waited literally 5 minutes to get my comment in. And, as Greg said, totally NOT the new media/Web 2.0 way to do things.

    **I think we spent way too much time talking about the differences between MSM and CJs/bloggers and not nearly enough time talking about where the middle ground is.

    **It would also have been interesting to hear a little talk of the different issues in print vs radio vs tv. Blogging as a medium is just that: an additional medium to consider.

    **There’s talk about taking the conversation further in a less rigid setting. I really hope that comes to fruition. I think it’ll be more productive, but of course it does require participation from bloggers/CJs (Uptake, Metroblogging?) AND "traditional" media in online-only publications (MinMon, MinnPost) AND "traditional" media in "traditional" media outlets (MPR, WCCO).

  34. Greg (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 11:09 am

    This is the comment I left on Bob’s MPR blog:

    Bob, first off, thanks for your involvement with the forum. I did think the event was "great," enjoyed the evening and the venue for different viewpoints.

    However, they were mostly all the same viewpoints — Dan Gillmor’s. While I respect him and his writings, that guy talks very slow and monopolized the entire night, every comment, example, etc.

    My personal frustration so noted in the MB liveblog came from my expectation of the evening — an expectation set by you in a MB comment:

    "It’s worth noting that there IS no panel, so questions about why someone isn’t on it are relatively irrelevant. Gillmor is the guest. But the panel is the audience."

    As the moderator, your role was to ensure discussion happened with that audience. Instead, the invited guests found their observations monopolized by more Dan Gillmor ideas. My expectation wasn’t met, so I said so.

    Overall, however, it was a great "first" discussion – and one that by its very nature reinforced stereotypes on both sides and raised even more good questions. I look forward to #2 and hope that even more people will take advantage of new media to share their POV at events like these in the future.

    After all, the old MSM concept of one person telling you what they think is dead. It’s time we all agree on that, at the very least.

  35. Bob Collins (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 12:19 pm

    I think once you fly in a guest, the die is pretty much cast. You can’t with any sense of decency, in my opinion, pretend he’s not there. So once that decision was made, the format was pretty well dictated.

    And like I said, "I need to have a fight tonight" was an attempt to get people to verbalize what they were writing. From my position, I didn’t have the benefit of knowing what was online, although I’ve been around long enough to know the dynamic.

    You know, though, if you get 100 people in a room, 100 people are going to find 99 reasons for why something is wrong. And they’d be right. There were at least 99 reasons. But I think it’s important as we debrief this to encourage us to think about #100, too.

  36. Hannah V. (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

    There are parts I wish I’d been there for, but only if I could have read your notes at the same time.

    Sad to hear there wasn’t much of a discussion going on, however. Maybe next time? *shrug*

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.