Dave and Sarah object to my post about blogging during presentations, but in doing so they reveal some of the weaknesses of blogging.
Dave likens blogging to citizen journalism, a sort of you-are-there Capotian reportage, and justifies blogging during presentations accordingly. Sarah then expands on this point, saying that blog entries are really just note-taking.
But in my entry I never said not to take notes; I specifically stated that note-taking is fine. I wrote, “Take notes? Write a pre-bloggy entry? Make a brief blogtation, ‘psyched, great show?’ O.k., fine, even good.” If you read my entry, you can readily see that what I specifically objected to was those bloggers who “launch into full-length blog entries during a talk, IM back and forth, practically publish a newspaper filled with [their] thoughts and [their] ideas.”
A seasoned journalist wouldn’t misrepresent either the facts or his subject’s point (particularly when the subject had made the point in writing). I don’t think they misrepresent what I said intentionally; it’s that for all the romance of “citizen journalism,” Dave and Sarah don’t have the grounding in basic journalism that would make this misrepresentation so obvious. They are great librarians and I admire much that they do, but reporters they ain’t.
This kind of incident speaks volume to why, as much as I admire Dan Gillmor, I’m still on the fence on the issue of citizen journalism, even after reading We the Media–a required read, btw–and it’s largely because every time I feel just a little starry-eyed about information wanting to be free ad infinitum ad nauseum, I see an example of “journalism” that makes the Weekly World News look like a national paper of record (not that Sarah or Dave went quite that far). Call me an old fart, but as much as I read and enjoy blogs, I’ll still take my journalism from the likes of the New York Times.
Meanwhile, I’ll stick to my guns. I know the difference between note-taking and self-absorbed online bloviating at the expense of learning something new. Note-taking–paper, online, I don’t care–is reasonable, a good way to capture what’s happening; so too the real-time brief breathless blog entry noting with rapture a great presentation in progress (particularly when I’m the presenter). But when someone is far more enchanted with the upright pronoun than with the presentation he is sitting in (and I know you know what I’m talking about), I say ixnay on the ogging-blay.
Posted on this day, other years:
- ebooks, pbooks, mebooks, and parrots - 2011
- Kindle doesn't light my fire - 2007
- Pine Nut Macaroons, Version 2 - 2006
- Gorman's Latest: An Analysis (and Self-Analysis) - 2005
- Cal Freedom: A New Blog - 2003
Karen,
I think there are two issues here that you’re smushing into one:
1) poor quality bloggers claiming to be journalists (which necessarily irks you)
and
2) people not paying attention during conference sessions
I have never claimed to be a citizen-journalist blogger. That has never been my aim. The aim of my own site (and many other lib-blogger sites) is merely to share information and resources that I think other people would fine useful. So, you say of me and Dave “reporters they ain’t,” at least for my part, I agree with you.
I guess I just don’t see the fine distinction you draw between a “pre-bloggy entry” and a full-on blog entry. Perhaps other people blog differently than I do. When I blog, what you see is what I type, straight-away. There is no “pre-bloggy entry.” So, for me, whatever notes or quick comments I might happen to take during someone’s session are exactly what you would see on my site.
I also haven’t seen any entries on the IL Conference that purport to be “journalism,” to which you would object. Most are, truly, just notes on someone’s sessions. Some of them do include the thoughts & ideas of the author, but I do that in my notes anyway–ideas for future projects at my library, etc. Again, perhaps I just take notes differently than others.
I know that there is one blogger who has turned his/her notes of IL into a full-on “me-me-me” fest, and I agree that that is not only rude to the presenters (as there are paragraphs of “me” clearly typed during the session), but rather boring as well. However, this is not what most of the IL blogger posts are like, so I guess I would like to see less generalizing about those who post during sessions. That’s all.
Dang it – this is my third attempt at typing this. I keep clicking on links in your post, but forgetting to right-click and “open [the link] in new window” – and ‘poof’ my entry disappears. So one more time… 🙂
My objection to your original post came from what I saw as two conflicting statements:
1. “Take notes? Write a pre-bloggy entry? Make a brief blogtation, “psyched, great show?” O.k., fine, even good.”
2. “But launch into full-length blog entries during a talk…”
And this is why: I sat by Steven Cohen during a session – his blog entry on that session and his “note taking” during that session were the same animal. He basically blogged his session notes. But that was certainly a lot more than a “pre-bloggy entry” too. So my confusion with your post came from the idea I got that sounded something like this: “note taking is ok, as long as you’re not posting those notes.” I guess I don’t see the problem/difference.
You also stated “Where are the laptops, Michael asks? Where they should be, tucked into briefcases while your rapt audience hangs on your words.” (and yes, your next sentence states that’s a fantasy of yours – I’m with you there :-). So you certainly seemed to be drawing a distinction not only with blogging/not blogging; but also with note-taking with pen and paper versus notetaking via a laptop. Sorry if I mis-read you there. My thoughts when I read your post were “but they WERE taking notes… just on a laptop. And then they posted them…”
If someone decided to come to my session, sure – I’d prefer that they listen to me, rather than IM’ing their friends about the ballgame, planning for lunch via SMS, or writing an article about something. That’s rude (as is walking out “en mass” in the middle of a talk, which I saw in one session – probably 20 people walked out during the session). But if attendees are blogging their notes about my talk, or even riffing off something I said, and making it fit their situation – fine with me.
And last – you said “A seasoned journalist wouldn’t misrepresent either the facts or his subject’s point…” Point taken – I’m no journalist (although I did get a B- in my undergrad journalism class). But I wasn’t talking about myself or my blog – I was responding to your entry about the bloggers who complained about the lack of blogging during sessions at IL (I believe you mentioned Michael and Steven by name). They didn’t do what you said you didn’t like bloggers doing (“self-absorbed online bloviating at the expense of learning something new”) and I was just pointing that out.
I think I’m done rambling now… thanks for listening!