Liveblogging is for irritating snots.. real men take a Moleskine

Steve Crescenzo recently skewered Shel Israel for liveblogging Steve's presentation at the NewCom thingy in Las Vegas. Steve found Shel's tap-tap-tapping from the front row annoying, and found the resulting reportage inaccurate.

(For those of you who do not know who Steve and Shel are, you may just want to skip to the next post. I haven't sufficient time to explain to you what meat-eating, titanic, dog-stomping communication thinkers these guys are).

While Steve and I don't always agree, and while I am just now writing a positive review of Shel's Naked Conversations, I am 100% in Steve's camp on this one. Liveblogging, at least as practiced at most conferences, is arrogant, offensive, and largely useless.

Here's why:

• At best, the liveblogger is a sort of court reporter. Court reporters are automatons. They don't go for parsing out what is relevant and insightful They type. They do not think.
• Most livebloggers are doing it for points. Most would die before they would admit it, but secretly they hope they are producing the Zapruder film. Stuff does happen at conferences; news does get leaked -- livebloggers tend to be looking for a scoop.
• Livebloggers think they know more than the presenter. That's why they can confidently tap-tap-tap-tap about why the presenter sucks, even while the presenter presents. Result: they miss anything new the presenter does say.

And here is the greatest shame: livebloggers tend to be the smartest, savviest people in the room. The people best able to absorb a presentation on Day One at a conference, absorb two on Day Two, and another on Day Three and weave all of their thinking into one excellent article or blog post. But what do we get? Off the cuff blog posts and "tweets" that they, let me call it, should be ashamed of. I will not name names, but I read the liveblogging of many colleagues from conferences I cannot go to: folks, take notes instead. Reflect. Talk to the other attendees. Then write your posts. You will be doing the world and your own reputations a big favor.

If my advice about being better equipped to pass on knowledge doesn't sway you, then maybe I can reach you with thoughts about good manners:

• You may think there's no real difference between taking notes on paper and taking notes on your laptop. Boy, are you wrong. To bend over your keyboard, loudly tap tap tapping is simply rude to the presenter. It doesn't matter if you paid to be there. At least have the decency to sit in the back.
• Your tap tap tapping is rude to your neighbor. I am not impressed by your command of laptop technology, and if I am sitting up front, it is because I want to connect to the presenter. Your typing pisses me off to no end. I have, by the way, happily stepped heavily on laptops and Blackberries left in my path. What can I say, I have big feet and a short temper. If you sit in the back, though, this won't be a problem.

Liveblogging from the front row, like using mobile phones in restaurants, like using crackberries in meetings, like showing off your ample naked abdomen at Wal-Mart, like keeping yourself firmly planted in the subway seat when an elderly person enters the full car, is here to stay. But here to stay or not, I find it distressing when colleagues talk about "accepting it" instead of fighting it.

Technorati : Shel Israel, Steve Crescenzo, conference reporting, liveblogging, naked conversations

Posted by Allan Jenkins on April 14, 2007 at 01:22 AM | Permalink

Comments

Allan, if you were anywhere on my side of the Atlantic Ocean, I would track you down and I would kiss you. I'm looking at airfares to Copenhagen right now. You've been warned.

Posted by: David Murray | Apr 14, 2007 7:21:48 PM

While a thoughtful post after a presentation from notes is usually best, live blogging is better than nothing for those of us who can't be at an event.

It can also be enough to help decide if it is worth watching/listening to a webcast/podcast if one is available (it is also helpful if i speaker says they'll be posting the text of their talk and any images/slides).

There also are events that are newsworthy or at least of interest to some people whethe it be a Steve Jobs Keynote or the Libby trial ( http://www.firedoglake.com/category/libby-trial-live-blog/ ).

And some livebloggers are better than others (even in some cases better than an attempt at a thoughtful post from notes).

As for the clicking keyboard, I'm sorry but my handwriting sucks (not to mention it is worse for my tendonitis than typing). So when I take notes, it will be on my laptop.

There will be distracting noises at any event - coughing, ruffling papers, creaking seats, a digital slr taking a photograph, people typing on a laptop (or other device)...

Posted by: Steve Rhodes | Apr 15, 2007 2:30:14 AM

I blogged this back on March 22:
http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/live_blogging_a_new_fact_of_life/

The post generated 21 comments, the most pertinent of which came from Chip Griffin (whose live blogging of Steve's talk Steve actually liked):

"There are 3 reasons I live blog events, in the order I’ll share them. It helps me take better notes and as an extension better retain the content I hear. I find at conferences my mind will often wander if I am not actively taking notes (my mind is often going in multiple directions, for better or worse). Second, it serves as a resource for my colleagues back at the office who weren’t able to attend, just as it is for Joe Thornley. And finally, I do it for others who couldn’t attend, and if my traffic logs are any indication, this is a popular use.

"I don’t see how doing a write-up after the fact would be more accurate than doing notes and such live. If you wait until you get back to your hotel room, you will necessarily forget things and remember things incorrectly."

Oh, and David Murray's a suck-up. ;-)

Posted by: Shel Holtz | Apr 15, 2007 8:37:56 PM

David Murray sucks up to Nobody.

Posted by: David Murray | Apr 15, 2007 9:42:43 PM

Steve, when I read reporting from a conference, the reflective posts are, 90% of the time, more valuable than the "Scoble just sat down... he has jeans on... and his slide says..." stuff. Yes, SOME livebloggers manage to liveblog with insight -- Joe Thornley comes to mind -- but they are the exception.

And yes, some situations are exceptions: you named two good ones that are wholly atypical. Session 403 at the IABC conference does not have the same newsworthiness.

Shel, Chip's reasons are good arguments for taking notes and sharing them later; they are not arguments for "instant" liveblogging. There's a big difference. And while I agree that fresh notes are usually more useful than those jotted later at the hotel, my point is that conversations with others during the conference help "mature" those notes.

You and I have sat side by side at presentations at IABC conferences. I suppose we both could have live-blogged... and, for the sake of argument, let's say that has some value. But won't our posts be far more valuable if, over the next day or so, we talk to each other about what we have heard, allow our minds time to pick through the presenter's logic, weigh what was said against our experience? I think they will be.

I am going to go on a limb here and predict live-blogging is a fad. It's draining to do it (yes, I have done it); it leaves little time for reflection and considered learning -- the point of conferences.

You could pay me to live-blog a conference, but it'd have to be a hefty sum. Or you could just wait for my notes a few days later -- for free.

Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Apr 16, 2007 12:30:22 AM

I suppose the commentator who turns around and faces the camera immediately following a presidential address would also produce a more thoughtful commentary if he talked about it with colleagues and let it percolate overnight. There is, however, something to be said for on-the-spot reporting.

I don't think live blogging is a fad. In fact, I think more conferences will work to accommodate it, as the Portable Media Expo did, with three rows of laptop-ready tables reserved for bloggers and conference-wide WiFi available.

I've seen people using their laptops to take notes for a decade now. They've been doing it at my workshops and keynotes, and I've never been offended or perceived them as rude. Recording those notes to a blog instead of Word is just a small, logical step from that, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Shel Holtz | Apr 16, 2007 3:42:14 PM

Allan:

I couldn't have said this better myelf . . . and damn it, I tried to. You put my thoughts into words as if you were in my head. A little scary . . . but I'm glad it happened.

Steve Crescenzo

Posted by: Steve C. | Apr 18, 2007 10:25:29 PM

@Shel: on the spot reporting is great when it's important: "the president just announced a troop withdrawal". THAT's news.

But Glenda Holmes admitting that she is, indeed, IABC chairman, and then introducing TJ Larkin... that's not news. It's court reporting if you live blog that.

Now, grace that with some opinion, spice it with insight gathered over the last three days at the IABC conference, and you start looking attractive. But, in that case, why the rush? You can afford to tidy your "notes". Who is going to beat you to the scoop?

@Steve: I was in your head, Steve, but, thanks to latex, I was not afraid.

Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Apr 19, 2007 10:36:08 PM

Great live bloggers in history:

• Paul Revere

• The Guy Who Reported the Hindenburg explosion

• Shel Israel?

Posted by: David Murray | Apr 20, 2007 2:53:40 PM

I have commented on this several times in the past two weeks...the content from my favorite bloggers is fading. I want to extend conversations and fuel content for my blog and those of students, but the reflection is not there. Disappointed.

Posted by: Lauren Vargas | Apr 23, 2007 3:33:07 PM

One of the arguments for "live blogging" is that it's "for the folks who couldn't make the conference."

That's bogus. If the information you receive at a conference is not important enough to call the home office, convene an emergency conference call, and relate what you've just heard, it's not important enough for live blogging.

If you really want to help the troops, gather the threads of a three-day conference, and trust your editorial judgment.

Here's why people don't do that. It's harder. Trust me. It's pretty easy to "court report" a session, post it, and move on. Granted, you can't do it all day -- that becomes draining. But it's a lot easier than holding a lot of threads in your head and writing a relevant summary of the conference.

Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Apr 23, 2007 7:31:12 PM

@Vargas -- I haven't seen your comments, but I admit I cannot follow all the threads that have popped up.

I'm not sure how much "reflection" is out there on this... it's a gut thing. And, as I wrote, it's here to stay no matter what I think.

Allan

Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Apr 23, 2007 7:35:56 PM

Post a comment