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

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.

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.

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).

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)

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?