Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Oral Sex, Organic Blueberries and Social Media

Members of the Social Media Club are an amazingly handsome group of people (and pretty much white). If they had an age contest, I could easily win Oldest Woman. And who said nerdy girls weren’t good looking? They are.

One thing I noticed was everyone used their skinny photo for their Twitter ID. If the camera adds 10 pounds, you guys were once super thin, and you’re not now. No, you are not.

Well trained by formative years at Disney World, everyone filled in the rows without leaving empty seats (keep moving, I don’t want to have to crawl over you), and precisely at 6:45 the program began and a sea of iPhones lit up across the room, Twitter screens at the ready.

Here’s what I learned:

Style Weekly, despite the downward trend for newspapers, is growing.

Richmond social media people turn out in bigger numbers than our D.C. counterparts.

Rachel DePompa’s Facebook page is private.

Social media, even if it’s the only communications avenue used, can draw people to an event like flies to….uh, watermelon. (This may be the true revenue stream it generates…the ability to direct attention to a product, event, person or idea.) @RVAMAG’s Ian Graham boasted of getting a massive crowd for the first Carytown New Year’s Eve at next to no expense, using social media.

Aaron Kremer filled the Andy Rooney role, despite his youthful appearance and past history writing for Brick. The Richmond Biz Sense curmudgeon does not Twitter, despite working for a completely online publication. The advantage of online-only is you can stay viable during the start-up phase without printing expenses or deadlines.

Everyone claimed they get story ideas from their Twitter and Facebook friends and followers, but then everyone conceded the same thing happened during the old email days, or even the old telephone days. Or for DePompa, the standing on the corner waiting for her live shot days.

DePompa crowed about being able to break exclusives even faster on Twitter, before the T-D got it online (muffled laughter at that), or even before her newscast aired. But then she remembered she really shouldn’t do that because Channel 6 then steals her story.

Jason Roop of Style Weekly said reporters and columnists for the Times-Dispatch should be tweeting to give the newspaper some personality. (Is that columnists with an “s,” Jason? Are you sure? I think there’s no “s” anymore.)

WWBT’s Ryan Nobles contributed the most quotable quote, that the Internet was making the world smaller, not bigger, because we were all falling into these little niche communities. (I looked around warmly at my niche community, such a handsome group of niches.)

By a slip of a pronoun, DePompa revealed that her secret City Hall source was a male. My list of suspects immediately narrowed.

How to monetize Twitter? Nobody knew.

Roop astutely noted that Richmond’s blogging community seems obsessed with food -- that any blog headlining food or a restaurant immediately rockets to the top of Most Clicked Open on RVA blogs. I might add, sexual references work, too. (Hmm, what should I call this post?)

Is journalism still ethical? (Uh, was it ever really?) With the 24-hour cable news cycle and the rise of conservative talk radio, we’ve gotten a rash (and rash is a good word) of commentary programs that put a clear political spin on everything. Ian Graham sought to warn us about the evils of Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, but was almost shouted down by audience members (alcohol blood levels rising) who said “we’re not stupid!” (Maybe not us, because we’re all so good lookin’, but Rush’s callers certainly do sound like they don’t get that he’s an entertainer playing a role.)

Nobles waxed wise again with his endorsement of Twitter as a medium that provides the most results with the least investment. How long does it take to twitter a few times a day? No time! “Those not on it don’t understand it.” So true. I get weary of hearing people who have never used Twitter dismiss it, although I feel the same way about scallops.

Nobles is wise again. Appointment journalism is out the window. Despite his need for employment, we soon won’t be gathering religiously around the TV at 4, 5, 6 and 11 because we will get news on our own time schedule.

Then Andy Rooney Kremer becomes bafflingly unwise. He opines that the only future is micropayments. We will go to a system where we pay to read the news online. I just don’t see that happening, except maybe for highly technical or political websites, or for people willing to pay a subscription to watch a video feed of Rush Limbaugh sitting at his microphone like a Buddha during his broadcast. Graham calls him out on that rather forcefully, the only even slighty uncivil thing all evening. Maybe he was still smarting from his O’Reilly/Limbaugh audience smackdown.

DePompa becomes momentarily unwise, thinking newspapers will always be there because in times of Huge News, like 9/11 or the Virginia Tech massacres, we will still turn to newspapers for information and to buy them as souvenirs of a disaster. (How macabre is that?) I disagree. Newspapers by their very production schedule end up being too far behind disasters and Huge News. We go to television for that, and for the souvenirs, a nice magazine special edition holds up so much better in the attic. (I still have my John F. Kennedy Jr. memorial Newsweek edition, waiting for the prices to improve on eBay.)

Prizes are awarded to those who stayed to the end. (At home later,  I review the tweets from people who were also there and discover most of them tweeted about needing to pee.)

12 comments:

Y Not Win? said...

Great job on your summary and commentary. I think you nailed it. It was a good panel which had some good points, but demonstrated the diversity of opinion as to the relevance and legitimacy of social media and journalism. Although, it was agreed that Social Media is relevant and the future, there remains a skepticism of the ethical questions and how to make some measurable ROI. As some commented many are not really looking for ROI in this medium, just a way to express their point of view. The problem with Ian in his rant against conservative shows such as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh is that he did not balance his comments to include more liberal shows such as MSNBC,Newsweek and the New York Times and its slant. This has been clearly documented in several studies. It is arrogant to suggest that only conservative listeners and viewers don't understand the difference between journalistic facts and opinions. At least Rush and O'Reilly admit that they are commentators and entertainers- providing substantive discussion of the issues in an entertaining way. They also allow and present the opposing point of view.

Again, I think you did a great job of providing both substantive and entertaining perspectives in your blog.

win14u

Kang (not the one from The Simpsons) said...

This is classic, the best you've ever written, or at least the best of yours I've ever read.

Anonymous said...

"social mediorites"

mediocrities would be better..

Alicia said...

Love your review - you said many of the things I thought about last night.

Anonymous said...

Wish I met you last night. Actually, I was looking for you, but I felt bad about looking at ladies name tags because they probably thought I was checking out their rack (ok, I sorta was). Love the blog & the spot-on summation of the panel discussion. And really, the disappearance of ShripMan? IKNOWRIGHT? Those little stuffed mushrooms were good, but didn't cut it.

Anonymous said...

Last night's program reminded me of "Isn't it Ironic?" (Alanis Morisette): a social media club has an old-style program with NO audience participation but a few Q&A's @ end;
a social media club panel--5/6 of whom were on Twitter never mentioned ENGAGING WITH or ADDRESSING the Twittersphere followers; the interest was in the NEW media but the topics were the same-old, same-old (ethics, future of newspapers, consumer ignorance)?

Nick Dawson said...

Great recap! Love that you picked up on the DePompa pronoun slip

Unknown said...

I actually got flooded with people agreeing that a large portion of media consumers either (A) don't understand the difference between commentary and journalism or (B) understand it, and prefer biased sources (I do, too). The "smackdown" from a chamber of commerce cracker wasn't really a smackdown, as much as it was belligerent yelling. A bunch of people tried to shut him up- I would've rather played it out!

Jason G. said...

I've been wondering who would point out the narrow demographic representation. I've been sitting on this line all day: SMC = Serendipitously Monochromatic Cross-section. In a city that's about 70% black, the fact that the online "community" is so unrepresentative deserves comment. But, I'm always "that guy," so I'll leave it to someone else for now.

Would have liked to have met you.

Unknown said...

"It is arrogant to suggest that only conservative listeners and viewers don't understand the difference between journalistic facts and opinions."

I never made this suggestion, only cited an example that irked your personal taste. It is arrogant to assume that I suggested only conservative listeners and viewers do not understand the difference, simply because that was the example given. At no point before or after you started shouting did I claim that liberal viewers are smarter, wiser, or more aware of the bias of their sources.

"At least Rush and O'Reilly admit that they are commentators and entertainers- providing substantive discussion of the issues in an entertaining way. They also allow and present the opposing point of view."

This is blatantly false. O'Reilly is listed as an "Award-Winning Broadcast Journalist" by his own network & constantly touts his masters degree in Journalism. He constantly cuts people off and digresses to petty personal insults. Using your own example of MSNBC- Maddow is listed by her network as a "Noted Liberal Commentator." How much more honest could you possibly ask them to be, and how more deceptive could O'Reilly be? By your own admission, he is an entertainer, and he & the network tout him as an objective journalist. Why is it so arrogant for me to assume that his viewers believe what Fox tells them about his show?

I'm sorry that I offended your personal political tastes, and I fully admit that my political opinions are probably quite different from youts- however your assumption that I was engaging in the kind of partisan hackery that all networks engage in is wholly wrong.

Anonymous said...

The Times-Dispatch under its current leadership would never let individuals tweet. Someone might slip and say something candid, and that would undermine Proctor and Silvestri's death grip on information leaving the building. They've been busy removing any personality from the paper for the past four years and succeeding beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

@laptopmnky said...

I make such good impressions!