Disqus - Friends of nancydaley

Re: The "Nuclear Disaster" At SXSW Was Nothing More Than A Witch Burning

Brad King — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:01:12 -0000

To start, here's my bias: I'm a long-time tech journalist, long time SXSW attendee and a college professor now.

The reason this was a nuclear fail is simple: Lacy seemed more intent on talking about her relationship with Mark than asking him insightful, journalistic questions. She appeared more intent on telling us what she thought (based on her repeated interruptions to interject her thoughts - not because he was avoiding the question) than probing his thoughts. She was, apparently, under the impression that the crowd was there as much for her as for him (as they were with Steven Johnson and Henry Jenkins).

Interviews are hard. I've done these before. Every journalist has. Sometimes subjects open up. Many do not. Our job is to fight through the walls. Claiming it's hard is a bit ridiculous. Of course it's hard. That's why everyone doesn't do it.

She also seemed to have no idea who the audience was and what they expected. Even afterwards, when she referred to this as a "developer" conference missed the boat.

All in all, it was an epic disaster of a keynote conversation. Mark, however, did quite well for himself -- and during the redux the following day, was engaging and funny as he took very substantial and difficult questions from the 100 or so people who showed up.

As for the belief that this was "a few people in the back", as someone who was there, I can attest that wasn't the case. The general unease was happening around both the main and overflow room. The Twitter nation merely confirmed everyone's growing discontent with the nature of the interview, which led to the now-infamous final 15 minutes.

What the whole incident does provide an insight into modern discussions: know your audience, tap into the meta-conversation and be knowledgeable.

I insist on being tapped into the social media networks when I'm moderating or otherwise engaged in a public event for just such a reason. This is just the way of the modern world.

Re: The "Nuclear Disaster" At SXSW Was Nothing More Than A Witch Burning

Brad King — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:28:05 -0000

@ Simon Brocklehurst

If your best defense of a journalist is that the person being interviewed thought it was okay - then you FAIL when it comes to understanding what journalism is.

Brad King

Re: The "Nuclear Disaster" At SXSW Was Nothing More Than A Witch Burning

Brad King — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:31:58 -0000

@ lemonobrien

I have a graduate degree in journalism - and started programming in 1984...none of that focuses on the issue that happened at the conference with her interview.

It was a poorly done interview - no preparation (it appeared), a lack of understanding about the audience and a weak job at taking care of the source in a professional way.

Be shitty all you want - the reality is, it was a whiff. The end of the world? No. But definitely a three-strike, sit-down whiff.

Brad King

Re: Public Documents + Shoe Leather Reporting = The Smoking Gun's Staying Power

Brad King — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:05:32 -0000

Yowzers, the site ate this comment twice.

The simple point is this: The Web isn't a tough nut to crack. You use the medium for what it's best used for. We've seen similar success with political contributions lists and child predators, for instance.

Kudos.

Re: Public Documents + Shoe Leather Reporting = The Smoking Gun’s Staying Power

Brad King — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:05:32 -0000

Yowzers, the site ate this comment twice.

Kudos.

Re: Public Documents + Shoe Leather Reporting = The Smoking Gun's Staying Power

Brad King — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:05:32 -0000

Yowzers, the site ate this comment twice.

Kudos.

Re: Track Distributed Conversations With YackTrack

Brad King — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:56:47 -0000

It will be interesting to see if traditional media companies begin adopting technologies like this, aggregating conversations about their stories (or whatever they post) that they can't control.

Right now, if there's a post that violates the TOS, for instance, companies can easily remove them. With a comment-stream, I would assume that would happen.

Even if it did, however, the question becomes: Do you trust a media outlet that scrubs comments that exist in another place because you don't like what is being said. Do you censor the feed from another site?

That's two questions, obviously.

This is a very cool idea though. Looking forward to watching it unfold...

Re: Are Veteran Media Execs the Ones Who'll See the Future?

Brad King — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:02:54 -0000

I'm a Berkeley J-School alum, so I'm a bit biased here. Paul was my mentor (and I just visited the school for a project I'm working on).

The fact is, though, everyone has it wrong. They are still discussing online journalism in terms of traditional journalism. Online journalism is different - not because it's broken up into small pieces, because the TOOLS allow different data to be given.

For instance: every local paper should have a database of legislation passed by city and county governments, with geo-located tags, that can be mapped. With links that go to summary's of the legislation.

The database should also cross reference things such as: campaign contributions, crime, education test scores.

And should be OPEN to the public to create their own maps, their own data, their own stories.

The journalists can still use that information to write stories, BUT their main job should be gathering data and making sure it's usable in a very Web-type way.

Newspapers aren't losing circulation because of the Web. They aren't losing money because of Craigslist. They are losing money because they believe they can template THEIR way of doing journalism onto a personalized, on-demand Web world.

Re: Are Veteran Media Execs the Ones Who’ll See the Future?

Brad King — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:02:54 -0000

I'm a Berkeley J-School alum, so I'm a bit biased here. Paul was my mentor (and I just visited the school for a project I'm working on).

The database should also cross reference things such as: campaign contributions, crime, education test scores.

And should be OPEN to the public to create their own maps, their own data, their own stories.

The journalists can still use that information to write stories, BUT their main job should be gathering data and making sure it's usable in a very Web-type way.

Re: Are Veteran Media Execs the Ones Who'll See the Future?

Brad King — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:02:54 -0000

I'm a Berkeley J-School alum, so I'm a bit biased here. Paul was my mentor (and I just visited the school for a project I'm working on).

The database should also cross reference things such as: campaign contributions, crime, education test scores.

And should be OPEN to the public to create their own maps, their own data, their own stories.

The journalists can still use that information to write stories, BUT their main job should be gathering data and making sure it's usable in a very Web-type way.

Re: Newspapers and Google News: An Analysis

Brad King — Sat, 03 May 2008 10:35:47 -0000

What is more concerning for traditional news organizations is how much of their content was read in RSS Readers, which display no banners or other forms of advertising.

The metrics that news organizations use to track their success -- and what they use to sell ads -- is skewed.

When I worked in the media -- and I was on the digital side since 1999, I repeatedly tried to convince folks that banners and page views were such a bad way to think about business because the world is quickly become a syndicated reality.

Re: Ten Things Journalists Should Know About Surviving In a High-Tech Industry