This Wired deconstruction of “What’s It All About” off of Girl Talk’s (nee Greg Gillis’s) Feed The Animals looks pretty and all, but I don’t find it as easy to follow as the Wikipedia entry on the same song.
Also, anyone notice how Yung Joc totally looks like Usher and Phil Collins seems to be looking disapprovingly in Faith No More’s direction?
I’ve been of two minds on this month’s Chicago New Media Summit.
Chicago could really use a place for all of its media folks – be they in content, editorial, marketing, sales or development – to come together and chat about the biz. Like most larger industry groups, we tend to congregate only with like-minded (or like-titled) people for cocktail hours or other networking events. Having everyone together in one place would be a boon, especially if there’s a way to learn from each other. The Chicago New Media Summit seems to want to lead the charge here.
But there are goals, and there is the execution of those goals. And on the latter point, CNMS leaves a lot to be desired. I realize this is the CNMS’s first year, but it seems like they’re missing some of the basics, even as they’re working to remedy their larger problems.
First – an error they realized early on – was the price. Originally $425 for a two-day summit, the CNMS quickly got re-priced to the much more reasonable $250.
Second was the plan for most of the registration spots to be “invite-only.” A cached registration page from its site shows that the original plan was for a 300-seat event.
“We are awarding some seats to the general public (60) and will have (10) scholarships. The remaining 230 seats will be invitation only to insure that the audience includes members from a large variety of industries and backgrounds represented by the Summit.”
On the first point, I don’t think even the full speaker list justified the original price, and clearly I wasn’t the only one who thought so. While there are some local luminaries involved, the omission of others is obvious. And honestly, a few of the planned speakers are people from whom the CNMS’s target audience have heard plenty from already. Finally, others on the bill have no place at a “new media” conference. I won’t name too many names here, but the email I got from them today touting “Matthew Lillard – Hollywood Celebrity” is a case in point, and if someone can tell me what a representative from the 2016 Olympic Committee can possibly teach a group of new media professionals about its industry, I will gladly pay the cost of your conference registration. (I know the 2016 group has co-opted more than a few local bloggers for its 2016 Channel, but that’s no reason or excuse.)
On the second point, it seems as if the “invite-only” plan has been abandoned, either out of necessity (not enough people were signing up/could be convinced to be “invited”) or due to some epiphany on the part of the organizers. Then again, who knows? A later version of the early registration page dropped the mention of the “invite-only” aspect, but there’s nothing on the CNMS blog that says why or whether it’s still in effect (the main page of the site doesn’t mention it at all either). Like most things with the CNMS, the true answers are shrouded in mystery, in a misguided attempt to manufacture buzz. In all fairness, a June launch event had good intentions of openness but as the Chicago Tech Report and the CNMS’s own blog points out, most people were in the dark at the time. (Note that the speaker list in the post I link to in that sentence is no longer current.)
I’m not sure how an event in its first year can justify so many invite-only spots or obscurantism, particularly since it goes against the very nature of the open Web. I’ve heard, anecdotally, that the people running the event have asked for the moon from its speakers, even those with a proven track record in new media (from permission to re-broadcast their speakers’ presentations as they see fit on down to asking them to have others provide testimonials that vouch for their bona fides, even after the CNMS invited them to speak in the first place). It’s as if they’ve assumed their event has a cachet that it doesn’t yet have.
Moreover, where’s the About Us page on the CNMS site or something similar that tells us more about who’s behind the CNMS? Why do I need to play boy detective by going to the CNMS Facebook page then seeking out the Facebook pages of the event’s officers and looking into their backgrounds to get a sense of the people running it? It should be front and center. Again: openness.
Finally, why – aside from the obvious convenience to those who are running the event – is Google Checkout the only obvious way one can pay for one’s registration for the event? I know we’re all supposed to be tech-friendly, but I deliberately chose not to store my credit card information with anyone online, particularly with Google, since the length and breadth of its data trail is long and vast. And since most of this data is used by Google to make money, I’m not interested in contributing to its bottom line at the expense of my privacy.
While Google Checkout is an attempt to safeguard its users from potentially suspicious sellers, I think the jury’s still out on whether Google can be trusted with its users’ financial data or not. While I don’t know how most of the CNMS audience feels about Google Checkout, most tech-friendly people are far more circumspect than the average person when it comes to sharing personal data. So I can’t imagine I’m the only person who has this feeling. This might be a minor point, but it’s another brick in the wall that the CNMS seems be building between itself and its potential audience.
All this having been said, I still plan on going to the networking/social event during the conference (even if it means paying the $20 door price instead of $10 in advance). As I said at the top, I support the idea of what they’re doing, even if I think the way they’re going about it is pretty misguided. Here’s hoping they spend that socializing time listening to their audience, rather than dictating to them.
Edited to add: Just found this post with a quote from CNMS organizer John Patterson.
“‘There will be movie stars,’ Chicago New Media Summit organizer John Patterson told me this afternoon.”
Sigh. Granted, their epiphany happened after this, but I’m starting to think Patterson doesn’t really know his market, much less his audience.
Update 9/9/08: And the hits just keep on coming. I just got an e-mail this morning announcing Chicago New Media Summit’s mission. It’s the same boilerplate on their main page (with the same “member’s” typo) and includes this gem:
Q: What might happen if we took CNMS08, poured it over a Tech Cocktail, added some MGFest, a twist of HDExpo, glammed it up with the Mid West Independent Film Festival, powered it by Microsoft and promoted it through the Chicago Tribune?
What if this was just the beginning of some new and powerful alliances?
What if you were part of it?
A:The Midwest just became little more SXSW
Sigh again. Aside from the typo that confuses the issue, I don’t think the CNMS benefits from the SXSW comparisons at this point.
Update 9/16/08: I attended the CNMS social event. More on that here.
“If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks, and work to correct them. Enlist in our armed forces, become a teacher, enter the ministry, run for public office, feed a hungry child, teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted, defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.” – John McCain; September 4, 2008
You know who does all that? Who comforts the afflicted? And helps those who need it?
Community organizers.
Speaking of which, take a moment to look at the volunteer opportunities at Chicago Cares. Whether you can donate just a few hours or a few months, whether you want to help children or the elderly, whether you can help in the evenings or weekends, the people in your community could use your help. Don’t worry about the organizing: They’ve already got a handle on that part.
While the “maybe she did/maybe she didn’t” Palin family drama makes for good tabloid gossip, it’s nothing compared to the way the civil rights of Americans are being violated in the run-up to the RNC in Minneapolis.
via Whet
Edited to add: There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with Palin as McCain’s VP. But how her family has decided to deal with (a) personal family issue(s) ought be low on the list of objections. Hell, even Obama thinks so.
I just posted two current projects in the “Recent Work” column to the right. The first is a new video series we’re running on the TOC blog called “Ask Andy,” wherein our illustrious HR manager Andy Katzman answers HR-related questions from our readers via video blogs. The answers are Andy’s, the rest of the silliness is my doing. I’m still amazed at what a good sport Andy is about the whole thing, especially since the update I’m posting this Tuesday involves a pony.
The second is another video I shot and edited with the guys from Impress These Apes. ITA is a talent show, of sorts, judged by three hyper-intelligent apes from the future. You can find out more by reading the article that accompanies the video(bottom of the page), which features the apes and their host giving their opinions on what to watch for in the fall. If you’ve never seen ITA, find your way to the Lakeshore Theater in September/October; it’s easily one of the funniest shows in Chicago.
I got tired of looking at my lady’s copies of Us Weekly in the bathroom (you don’t really read Us Weekly so much as gape at it) so I put Reading the OED by Ammon Shea in there. It’s simultaneously enjoyable and infuriating. Enjoyable because I enjoy the minutiae of vocabulary and infuriating because I didn’t think of writing it first.
Each chapter is a letter in the alphabet, with 4-5 pages of reflections on the experience of reading such a massive work, and then a list of words found in the OED, accompanied by clever asides from Shea. It’s very similar to The Know-It-All, which I enjoyed for the same reasons. I need to find a similar reference book or books to dissect in such a manner and then watch the bucks roll in.
Anyway, I’m only on chapter one…er, “A” but it’s already enhanced my life with this word:
airling (n.) a person who is both young and thoughtless
I’ve been thinking that the ubiquity of “douchebag,” and all its variants, has reduced its effectiveness. So from now on, I’m going to use airling where I might otherwise use douche or douchebag, and airlingery where douchebaggery or douchery would have previously sufficed.
Let’s face it, douchebaggery is a young person’s game. Old douchebags are best referred to as jackasses because at that point in your life, you’re aware of your douchery and to continue to act like a douche despite that knowledge makes you a jackass.
I’ve been meaning to write about this post from Merlin at 43 Folders for a couple weeks now. In part, because I think it’s a great outline for how to find a voice and throughline for your own blog, but also because it helped crystallize a few things about what I’m trying to do here.
Despite what the timestamps on this blog say, I started OMIC in 2005. And then promptly abandoned it until 2007. At that time, I felt I needed an outlet for topics I wanted to address that weren’t appropriate for the TOC blog, though the line between the two is often blurred. (This week is a good example of that blurriness as my obsession with ChuffPo has led to posts here and at the TOC blog, including this week’s screed on one of the worst posts I’ve ever read anywhere).
I’ve had some fits and starts with projects here. The Living in Oblivion series (which started as a form of writing discipline and quickly became more a burden than I intended) and the 25 in 12 posts (which I abandoned because I couldn’t quite figure out what I wanted to say in them) to name two. Both failed because I didn’t allow them to be fluid, they were too tied into expectations (my own) and a sense of what they were Supposed To Be.
And that’s something that’s been holding me back here: a notion of what this blog is Supposed To Be, rather than just Letting It Be. It’s why this was a dead blog for two years. It was as if I was staring at 1000 puzzle pieces and trying to figure out what picture they formed, instead of just picking up a couple of those pieces and seeing how they fit together.
All this is a long-winded way of saying I think I’ve finally been able to figure out how to properly curate this thing. These are ideas that have been bubbling around in my head for a little while and Merlin’s post – not all of it, but some – helped crystallize that for me.
You may have noticed that I’ve been writing a lot about social media and the Web. It’s a passion for me right now, and there’s lots to talk about as there are lots of people doing it right and lots of people doing it wrong (ahem, AMC). That will continue here. But I’ve also got more to say about my non-work-related interests like books and music.
Rather than restricting myself or creating a structure, I’m just going to start with a few pieces at a time, and see how they fit together. So forgive me if this post seems to be telling only half the story about what’s next. But think of it like “Something’s Coming” from West Side Story in that it’s pretty much what you’ve come to expect prior, but still signals some interesting developments in the next act.
From the Cincinnati Enquirer:
Nick Clooney is as restless as a college freshman leaving home for the first time. “I’m nervous about this. I’m very nervous,” says Clooney, 74, about starting a new career, teaching journalism at American University in Washington, D.C.
[snip]
…Becoming a college professor has finally forced him to buy a personal computer. Until a few weeks ago, he had never sent an e-mail, watched YouTube or looked up something on Wikipedia.
You know, I’d probably be nervous too if I was teaching a subject and wasn’t up-to-date with advancements in the field.
This isn’t to say that Cloooney doesn’t have any journalistic bona fides – he’s been a television anchor and newspaper columnist, after all. Since the tenets of journalism haven’t changed much since Clooney’s heyday, he might have plenty to teach the young turks about responsibility, conscience, and ethics. And since, according to the above article, Clooney’s only teaching opinion writing and a course based on his 2002 book, Movies That Changed Us, he probably won’t do too much damage.
But the way we report and deliver the news has radically changed, even in just the last ten years. So having a journo professor who doesn’t regularly use a computer is like hiring an economics professor whose never studied the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Recently, a group of journalism professors came to Time Out Chicago‘s offices and spoke with our publisher, editor-in-chief, managing editor and myself about the business of putting out a magazine. Everyone had recommendations, and we told them what we look for in prospective writers. One of the things I told them was to make sure that they make the use of the Internet and its tools a component of the curriculum. While the jury’s still out on a complete set of best practices when it comes to how newspapers’ and magazines’ Web sites can benefit from the use of blogs, Twitter, online video, and social networking tools, it’s obvious that they’re already a part of the reporting process, and anyone who comes out of academia with a working knowledge of them will be a better candidate for any journalism job than someone who doesn’t.
Think about it: Clooney is teaching a class on opinion writing, and, based on the above, it’s safe to assume he probably doesn’t read blogs. Not that blogs should be the model for journalistic opinion – in most cases, they shouldn’t be. But that’s all the more reason for Clooney to be familiar with them, so he can compare and contrast the form with journalism and – imagine! – instruct his students on how blogs can be used to further journalistic pursuits.
But hey, take heart Washington University journalism students: You’re being taught by George Clooney’s dad! And he was the Old Spice man! That has to count for something.
Speaking of Everyblock, I saw this in the feed today:
* 670 W. Diversey Pkwy. Permit issued for easy permit process
Permit issued on July 29, 2008.
How easy can the process be if you still have to get a permit to take part in the easy permit process?
Yeah, yeah, yeah: I know what it is. Still.
When I started at TOC, one of the first things I did was allow the blog to accept comments. They hadn’t yet done this because it was a can of worms no one wanted to open, I suppose.
In an ideal world, we’d have a system that requires someone to create a profile before they comment on our site. The reasons why we don’t do this involve a lot of issues that aren’t germane to this post, but suffice it to say, this is how I’d do it if we had unlimited resources.
In fact, I think most sites should operate this way. If you want to comment, you create a profile. Even people with assumed names tend to take responsibility for the persona they’re creating. It doesn’t mean you won’t have any assholes, just fewer. It’s not just personal opinion either, as other sites find this helps make their content better, and foster community.
But since we don’t have profiles, I moderate every comment that gets posted on the site. I’m pretty lenient with what gets posted, but anything that comes across as a personal attack on the writer or another commenter won’t go up. And anything that I deem to be (as our comment policy states) “just plain nasty” doesn’t go up. Is it subjective? Yes. But I’m generally pro-comments and wouldn’t ever think of not posting something just because it was critical of the content of a post, even if it was my own. (For proof, check out the comments on this Liz Phair review I wrote back in June.)
In a side note on yesterday’s post, I mentioned how Marilyn Ferdinand of Ferdy on Films said some of her less-than-positive-but-still-constructive comments weren’t posted. The Beachwood Reporter also printed letters from those who dared to fact-check the mighty John Cusack (ahem) and found their comments similarly blocked. Now, granted, these are all comments from the readers of one site, so there may be a bit of an echo chamber at work here. (That’s no slam on the usually-fine work of the Beachwood or its readers – of which I am one – just an acknowledgment of a small sample size). Even so, Kevin Allman looked at ChuffPo’s commenting policy and found that – to put it mildly – it seems to be rather broadly enforced. Especially since an off-topic comment on HuffPo is as easy to find as a drunk at quarter draft night.
Now, the funny thing is, ChuffPo has a profile system. So you’d think it would let those who are big on the pointless negativity bury themselves. But it seems the site is more interested in keeping it positive, to the detriment of an interesting dialogue. I know from experience that moderating comments is an inexact art (there’s nothing scientific about it). But it should be done in a way that errs on the side of openness. If you’re wrong, take your lumps. Even if you’re John Cusack.
As for the rest of ChuffPo, another day hasn’t found me more impressed. I know Rachel Maddow replacing Dan Abrams on MSNBC is a big deal to a small group of people – most of whom probably include HuffPo on their list of daily reads – but I’d hardly call it a lead national news story. And while I was born a south suburban kid who had a huge crush on Jami Gertz, even I can’t see the reason for publishing her mash note to…Glenview. (Seriously, Glenview?)
Part of me thinks I’m being too critical. Then again, if Lee Abrams likes what they’re doing maybe I’m right on this after all.
“I think they do a great job for day one. Personally, the story selection, the categories, the scannability [sic] are all great. Check their Crime page.”
Incidentally, the “Crime page” that Abrams refers to is nothing more than a link and pretty picture to SpotCrime.com, which has nothing on the ease of use of EveryBlock, which gives you the same information, and much more. (Don’t let SpotCrime fool you: It doesn’t have much data for the current day, unless you believe that no crimes occurred in the city…)
Finally, I’m still wondering about this whole “HuffPo not paying bloggers is wrong” meme. The only argument seems to be “Arianna Huffington has a lot of money and ought to spread it around.” In that case, shouldn’t the same people who are taking HuffPo to task for its use of free labor also direct their ire at other well-heeled members of the publishing and media industries who use free labor (a.k.a. interns) all the time? Seriously, convince me. Or do you not think doing your interview transcriptions and running across town to pick up product from a vendor is also something of value? Even though the only reason you have time to write is because your interns are doing all the shit jobs you don’t want to do?
