Join NewAssignment.Net’s Facebook Group.
WHERE WE ARE
BeatBlogging.Org

13 beat reporters build social networks into their beats.
OffTheBus.Net

Help us cover the presidential elections at OffTheBus.net
Broowaha.com
![]()
A citizen journalism network to experiment with distributed reporting.
Readable Laws

Explaining Congressional legislation in plain English.
Assignment Zero

Published in Wired News.
Check out this 7-minute interview with Jay Rosen. Or watch the full presentation at the Berkman Center, also available in MP3, or this five part nicely edited
series.
![]()
The We Media conference in Miami has come to a close, and undoubtedly there are more conferences being planned right now.
But I wonder if the type of conference that just finished is the model that should continue forward? If we want to walk the walk of user-generated content and “We Media,” let’s start by changing the way journalists organize conventions.
Only a few weeks ago I asked why journalism doesn’t have a go-to unconference model? “Let’s expand on the latest mantra of “take a blogger out to lunch” and serve a buffet instead.”
If blogging is just a tool, not a defined status, and “we are all media now” — then journalists should organize a “We Media” conference without set panelists, judges or jury on whose who, and what the latest achievements of main stream media are.
Michel Tippett, of Now Public suggested to Mark Glaser that the conference would have been better served as an unconference, the open source child of traditional conferences. Now that’s the ticket.
Besides, everyone knows the best ideas, networking and conversation at these big-time conventions happen in the hallway anyways. Why not admit that, remove the talking heads and really throw the spaghetti on the wall to see if it sticks.
Doc Searls had the right idea when he organized a Newspaper 2.0 meeting in Santa Barbara this weekend modeled after unconferences.
Perhaps he is taking notes from his experience with BloggerCon, one of the original unconferences. The key here, however, is that he is adapting that method for traditional journalists who haven’t grasped the horizontal shift completely.
Understanding that the audience knows more than you doesn’t just mean hosting public blogs. It’s a re-think of how an entire field learns to innovate.
Isn’t that the point of these mass gatherings anyway? Some reports from the ground made it sound like everyone was sitting around trying to knit the emperor some new clothes — and quickly.
Unable to stand the self-congratulatory attitude from mass media organizations that were finding ways to exploit the whole “citizen journalism thingy-mo-bog,” Mark Glaser asked a poignant question:
“What no one wants to admit is that the mainstream media has lost power and lost control to the people,” I said. “And Big Media is here to try to figure out how to exploit or make money off of citizen media. I’m not saying that they can’t be part of this new world, but they need to engage it in an authentic way.”
Outside in the hall, our own Jay Rosen approached Glaser and put it this way “They are trying to change the vocabulary without changing the grammar,” he said. “They use the new vocabulary [of new media] but they are not changing their mindset, and accepting a loss of control.”
And what better proof of that then the We Media conference itself?
——-
David Cohn, the editor of NewAssignment.Net’s blog has been to three types of unconferences and is eager for more.
Karl…I actually *like* the unconference format, and think it works really great…
for certain groups….
case in point: some friends and I are throwing around the idea of a one-day social media con out where I live. We thought about the “uncon” thing, but then talked about what we know of the region’s economy, technology and ad/marketing scene, and that if we tried to totally “uncon” it at this point in time, we may not be effective getting our point across about the “social” end of social media (vs. what software to use…)
So, I think astute conference programmers have to take into account what format may be best suited to the group they’re trying to reach. And given the scope of We Media, the way it was done this time was more effective than how it had been done in ‘05
The main thing about *any* con—and I’ve b*tched and moaned about this before—is the *cost*. There are few cons that aren’t cost prohibitive for the “average” citizen. But, then again, the cost of the con is often determined by its administartive costs (a complicated and thorny issue indeed)
but methinks thou art being a bit tough on an event you didn’t attend…(don’t worry—I’ve done that myself…)
actually, for me, this was my second We Media event (I met Jay at my first—long story there), and there was a tad bit of progress—in that there were some great people in the crowd with great projects who got the opportunity to meet some big money people who *just* might fund their projects…and a few less big media on the panels (although their voices were still a tad too loud…)
Yet the thing that I noticed, that Jay and Mark and Jeremiah and a whole bunch of us noticed is that there were no people up there talking to the group that are just carrying on conversation out here—and who are pretty good at it. Some of us are credible, even, when we do some kind of reporting on our blogs. We could most certainly give Big Media a clue as to why we just converse with one another without wanting to monetize our conversation…
One thing I’ve learned from all the tech guys I know is that blogging should never be an end…it is only a means, a tool, to bigger things. Conversation can help create connections, add perspective, and blogging doesn’t have to make anyone any money….and that’s something the folks at the top don’t quite get either.
As Jeremiah said on his blog, its an AND, not an OR. Both citizens and journalists side by side, complimenting one another’s work. But for some reason, Big Media still thinks it has to absorb all in order to make it “credible” and “trustworthy.”
Without knowing a darned thing about how credibility and transparency work out here…
The We Media folks are trying to build bridges—and I think it’s time for those of us who truly understand the medium, understand conversation and collaboration, to have our own panel to teach that it isn’t always about money.
But we need to organize, present ourselves as a unified front…or else we’re just going to look like the grousing few…we have our own work to do if we’re going to get “them” to relax…
(FWIW, this was my 12th con in roughly 18 months—4th I think I’ve had some kind of role at, and think I’ve also done 3 or so “uncons” our of that…rather enterprising for someone who’s merely an “online journalist” wouldn’t you say :-) still have my own blog entry to write on this one though… )
Tish
There is a lot to absorb in that comment and I just wanted to thank you for sharing it. Your input is always valued.
No — I didn’t attend the conference (blushing), but I would like to see some innovation in how these types of conferences are run.
The larger issues here you addressed in the comment above (and I look forward to your own blog post on it):
“..for some reason, Big Media still thinks it has to absorb all in order to make it “credible” and “trustworthy.” Without knowing a darned thing about how credibility and transparency work out here…”
Thanks again for giving your tid-bits. It’s always nice to see someone with your experience drop in and comment.
thanks David….and see my comment to Karl above about conference innovation. That’s really kind of a new thing, too, I think…and it’s going to be a slow transition out of “talking heads”.
another thing that bothers me at most conferences in general is when I hear activists talking about how every conversation must be balanced, and every conversation should be about persuading someone of some particular opinion… to these guys I’d also like to administer a chill pill and then ask if they’d go into a Red Sox bar and willingly talk about the Yankees just so that bar wouldn’t be an “echo chamber.” Activist-types tend to aid in putting Big Media on the defensive, which makes it tough for the rest of us to get them to see that conversation isn’t all that bad.
the norgs unconference
I’d like to remind folks of the unconference we held last year in Philadelphia. See what Jeff Jarvis had to say about it.
It *is* possible to run a conference that is inclusionary, and it *is* possible to run a conference that actually builds bridges for once.