Mind Numbing Conference
The We Media Conference is quite mind-numbing. At first I thought that what it needed was a break-out zone, where you could get away from the boring speakers and meet interesting people. Now, after hours and hours of this, I think it needs a darkened room where you can lie down with an ice-pack on your forehead, with an intravenous drip of some good whisky.
The main subject is how “We Media” - ie the BBC, Reuters, The Times, The Guardian, can “embrace” citizen journalism and use it to their own ends.
Far from being “We Media” it is “They Media” sitting up on the stage and talking without much knowledge about citizen journalism. For a moment it came alive when they had a blogger on the stage - Rachel North who was inspired to blog by being caught up in the London bombing. The rest has been open-ended and vague. The most cringe-worthy moment came when a “young” 31 year old BBC smarmy presenter introduced some “digital assassins” ie bloggers (some of whom work from the BBC), who sat down at the tables with the old fuddy-duddies so that they could talk to real bloggers. Oh God! That was the most embarrassing moment of any conference I have ever been to. Rightfully, it was heckled by an old Private Citizen in the Dad’s Army mode who somehow got into the conference.
Richard Dreyfuss did the Hollywood, “I’m not a typical star because I care” turn, with his tie loosely pulled to one side, telling us that the young can’t be trusted with “this technology” because they haven’t been properly educated in the meaning of Democracy. Then actors are always repulsive as themselves, even if they are wonderful being somebody else. (The Tin Men will always be one of my favourite films).
Even the survey which kicked off the conference was bogus. It was presented as saying that people don’t trust bloggers to tell the truth - but in fact it turns out that the question was whether people trust bloggers to have the good of society at heart. This is an entirely different question, and it’s a black mark against the BBC that they twisted this.
Helen Boaden, the BBC Head of news who decided to keep reporting that the London Bombs were a power surge on the tube got off lightly. Nobody asked her about it, even though an authentic victim/blogger was on the stage. Helen was asked what blogs she reads,and she named one by her boss and another by a BBC journalist.
There’s no sense here of the variety and liveliness, human warmth/spite, and sheer entertainment of grass roots media. All I can say is thank goodness I didn’t pay to get in. Actually, they could charge people to get out. I don’t think I’m going to be posting any nice thoughts about the BBC until I’ve got over this.





3. May 2006 at 17:00
For the most part I agree Hugh. The digital assasins was a bit embarassing. At no point, that I stayed for the chat, was there a conversation. the ‘young person’ told me what he did, told me why he did it. he didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know. But he didn’t ask me about me so he didn’t get to know any of that. In fact there was no conversation at all. Oh well.
3. May 2006 at 17:04
We have a fringe meeting tonight, and I have set up a wiki
http://www.gordo.uklinux.net/fringe/
Open, no agenda.
Gordon
3. May 2006 at 17:05
Hugh, you are so right. This has been probably the most tedious conference I have ever been to. I was going to blog about it, but I’ve lost the will to live.
3. May 2006 at 17:22
Nail + hit + head Suw
Hope things pick up tomorrow. Nothing new for me thus far.
3. May 2006 at 17:28
Hi Hugh
I was very disappointed when I realised I wasn’t going to be able to make this conference, but after reading this and other feeds I think I was the lucky one!
Hopefully the ‘big’ media sat on the stage will read this feedback and realise they have much to learn.
I hope you enjoy a few sherbets this evening as a reward for your dedication.
3. May 2006 at 17:41
Hey Hugh you just got quoted - FAME
3. May 2006 at 22:40
So did you like it or not ?
4. May 2006 at 11:27
[...] Misschien nog wel het interessantste beeld van de ontwikkelingen in het medialandschap was te zien in de verslagen van de eerste dag van de conferentie zelf. Mede-organisator Reuters publiceerde zelf een zakelijk bericht, zij het met een ondertoon van: kijk eens wat een bijzondere gebeurtenis (mijn interpretatie). Alles in het bericht klopte weliswaar volgens de wetten van de traditionele journalistiek, er stond geen woord gelogen. Maar gaf het ook een goed beeld van de conferentie, en van de manier waarop deelnemers (of in ieder geval: die deelnemers met een weblog) de conferentie hebben ervaren? Dat hangt ervanaf, lees daarvoor deze http://www.blog-relations.com/2006/05/03/mind-numbing-conference/ en deze http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/ zeer kritische verslagen. Is het een daardoor een beter verslag dan het andere? Niet per se, ze hebben alleen allebei een eigen functie. Dat brengt mij weer bij de enquete van BBC en Reuters: het overgrote deel van de respondenten gaf aan dat ze het liefst meerdere bronnen raadplegen bij hun nieuwsconsumptie. Trackback [...]