A little spat has developed this week over something called Liveblogging, which I found quite interesting because it brings up some contentious ideas and opinions about blogging in general. And I’m not referring to the shameful ‘heavy fingers‘ incident that spoiled the Guardian Changing Media conference for one unfortunate woman…
Liveblogging refers to people blogging an event as it happens, typically conferences and so-forth. When I’ve tried, it looks like this, and thankfully, I never hit the ‘publish’ button:
Tall bloke says media doomed cos no use young. Ginger man says maybe right but not yet if right. Woman with long hair – Yeah. What he said. Sky research figures 100mn. 90% of people; 90% of the time.
When someone who knows how to type and listen at the same time does it, it looks considerably more impressive. Like this.
Anyway, the spat concerns live blogging by Naked Conversations co-author Shel Israel of the Social Media Conference in Las Vegas at the beginning of the month. One of the subjects of the blog post, Steve Crescenzo, feels he was misrepresented and cites another liveblog that gives a different account as proof. Various bad feelings and comments ensue. Yesterday, Shel Holtz, who appears to be a friend of both parties, weighed in.
Crescenzo’s main contention (over-simplified): Live blogging is going to lead to inaccuracies. Don’t do it: listen, take notes and write them up later.
Holtz’s retort (over-simplified): Blogging isn’t journalism. Live with the messiness of the blogosphere, which is primed for conversation.
I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling a little uncomfortable about both poles of this argument.
On the one hand, live blogging is here; it’s going to happen; I want the option to do it; when conferences ban it or don’t provide access, it leads to less coverage; it’s often useful if I can’t go myself. I don’t want it stopped.
On the other, live blogging will sometimes lead to mistakes and misrepresentation, and perhaps rather speedy judgements. Yet they do pose as being accurate reports of what took place. If I read your blog post about an event, I’ll probably trust you: I won’t go round comparing it to every other account looking for inconsistencies. While blogging isn’t journalism, it’s not billed as fiction either. Bloggers are increasingly likely to ask for press passes to events, are described as ‘citizen journalists’ and, in many, many cases, deserve such respect. Plus, I certainly feel I should be personally accountable for what I say here, for example. And I expect the same of you. We’re all public figures nowadays, so we have to bear that responsibility for what we attach our names to. To have that categorised as an unreliable mess you shouldn’t worry about too much seems a bit odd, to say the least.
Ah, you say. But blogs allow the right of reply. Barring a couple of notable examples, every blog has comments and people can point out mistakes or reply to criticisms and everything becomes even again. Or alternatively, you can publish your own version of events on your own blog to even things up.
Yes, but… (a) comments have a lesser status than the original post, and aren’t distributed by RSS; (b) they can be deleted, faked and manipulated; and if the blog author retorts, ‘no, you’re still wrong’, then I think they carry the balance of readers’ trust because it’s their ‘place’ and their readers that see that comment; (c) if the criticised party’s blog has a lesser status than the critic’s, then that isn’t balanced – and vice-versa.
Still not quite certain what I think as a result.
I am not really inclined to read live-bloggers’ live posts for a few reasons.
Firstly I know that if I was interested in a speaker I certainly wouldn’t spend my time typing instead of paying full attention. It may be that some can type and listen at the same time, but if my school days are anything to go by you really can’t have a conversation and listen properly no matter how one sided it is.
I also wonder about the point. I spend a lot of time rewriting, correcting mistakes, and reconsidering what I write on my blog and I still make mistakes and miss significant alternative viewpoints. I strongly doubt the contribution a live blogger can actually make to a conversation that isn’t two way, isn’t finished yet, and that hasn’t been given time to sink in.
Finally, I do wonder whether live blogging is really just another “look how clever I am”.
Hey Andrew – unless I’ve changed my mind about some point I’ve made, I don’t think I need to advertise it, but – like you say – I typically tidy and correct posts several times after I write them: another reason why I should never be allowed to live blog anything.
I ought to add that I find Suw Charman’s live posts genuinely very useful – as advertised in the post. But she clearly has uncanny audio typing skills that most of us lack.
Ian,
I really meant more that I write a post then stop and think about it some more before posting it. And of course that it takes me hours to write it in the first place. It is not unknown that I change my entire opinion between the start and end of writing something as I stop to consider what I am actually trying to say.
I have also found that I can walk away from a conference with thoughts about everything, including how I’m getting home, and form my real opinions on what was said once I get a chance to site down and think for a while. My immediate thoughts are usually mental notes just to try and remember to consider the points later on.
Perhaps it is simply the type of person I am, i.e. sober and fully considered, but I would far rather read something fully formed. The popularity of live blogging would suggest however that others would not.
Yes. And I go through that process too, don’t get me wrong. And, yes, that does raise serious questions about ever live-blogging opinions or reactions about what you’re seeing.
Ian,
If Shel had done as Steve suggested by taking notes and reporting on it later AND still getting it wrong, what would have been the outcome? I ask this because I really don’t think it is the medium here. It is the reporting…in this case, bad reporting (as Steve contends).
I did read both reports. Steve suggests that the second one by Chip Griffin was closer to the truth. But I think Steve inadvertently validates my point. If one of the Live Bloggers got it right and the other got it wrong, then don’t you think the jury is out in terms of Live Blogging?
Again, bad reporting is bad reporting.
I can personally attest to the fact that journalists and bloggers get it wrong despite notes, further thought, and everything.
But that’s more likely with live blogging (or reporting), I think.
And in a blog environment, that’s more likely to include reaction and opinion, too, which doubles the risk.
Still in a quandary, though, because when it’s done well, it is very useful and helpful.
Right now, I think conferences should appoint qualified stenographers that write directly to the net. That would solve everyone’s problems, especially mine as I try to scribble down my notes. …Not so good for conference organisers, though.
In fact, whenever I do a series of live blogs, I always begin with an advanced apology for the typos and inaccuracies I am about to make. Earlier in the day I got part of my coverage on David Weinberger wrong and made a correction. Last week, I flubbed part of my live blog coverage of Phil Gomes in Chicago and he immediately commented and I apologized.
I am not apologizing to Steve because I know of no factual errors. He says I got his comments on Weinberger wrong, but the people who were there that I asked agrees with my interpretation.
In fact, I do not believe the debate is actually about live blogging, since Steve pointed out no inaccuracies. he got a bad review and if you read what he had to say, it was the fault of me because I was typing while he was talking. It was the fault of two panelists who failed to show up. It was the fault of just about everyone but him.
It is my view that he got a bad review and should think a little longer and with less sour grapes of how he presented himself and how many people, including me perceived him to be.
Steve and I seem to have a couple of things in common. We both like Shel Holtz, one of the blogosphere’s true gentleman. We also think Chip Griffin did a great job live blogging at the conference. That doesn’t mean Chip and I have to agree on everything.
I also disagree with Shel Holtz on bloggers as journalists. I think we are different than traditional journalism. In my conference blogs, I try to report what the speaker said, tell my readers how the audience reacted and let them know what I thought of it all. If accuracy were the key criteria as Shel Holtz argued, then Jason Blair would not have lasted for more than a year inventing stories that the New York Times with all its checks and balances printed as news.
Shel: I pass no judgement about any of the accounts, and hopefully you’ll agree that I worded my summary in a neutral way. I wasn’t there and am not equipped to comment at all.
I’m *only* interested in the liveblogging issue, and I think there is one. I wouldn’t write about a falling out between people for its own sake – especially people I don’t even know personally.
I’m anxious that reporting + comment is too much for most people – probably anyone – to be able to do all that the same time, in real time.
Excellent point about Jason Blair, though – and I don’t think this is necessarily a journalism vs. blogger issue at all.
Ian,
i think your issue was really clear and balanced, Ian. I did not interpret it otherwise. Pardon my taking it off topic a bit, but I have some strong feelings on the incident and what was subsequently said about it.
Shel,
I liked your response! Although I didn’t have the opportunity of being there, between your blog and Steve’s description of his experience, I agree it sounds like it was a pretty bad meeting.
For Steve, your blog took an angle that he wish it hadn’t. In the end, you were validating his experience he expressed in his rant. Good report!
See, Ian, it’s not the medium.
Ian, you end your post with “Still not quite certain what I think as a result.” But I read a clear position: you’re all for live blogging as long as it’s done accurately. As you say, “bear that responsibility for what we attach our names to”.
Someone who is live blogging may occasionally have to admit to missing something that just happened. Which to me is fine; it’s an inherent limitation of live blogging. What would not be fine with me is a guess presented as fact, on the grounds that the live blog “must” be a complete representation of the event. I fear that some overzealous bloggers are more interested in the medium than in what it carries.
The message should be:
Live blogging, like anything else, can be done well or can be done poorly.
If you’re going to do it, try to do it well.
Stephen,
Touché!