#bbcsms: The debate continues on the blogs

Responses to last week's BBC Social Media Summit have been appearing on blogs since the end of the conference on Friday.

The influential New York academic and blogger Jeff Jarvis followed up his tweets from the first day of the event; then he complained about the Chatham House Rule of that day's discussion. Now he reiterates his points in a post which takes in not just the BBC conference but big media's attitude to social media, the new role of journalism and even super-injunctions.

But here's what got him started - the reporting restrictions at the BBC conference:

"It's most shocking that the BBC would impose this rule on a meeting that is not only about *social media* - I thought all Brits bragged about having a sense of irony Americans lack; apparently not - but worse, one that carried the haughty ambition to formulate 'a universally accepted set of verification guidelines for social media material' and 'an accepted ethical framework for using sensitive material from social networks'. Don't they see that one can no longer set true standards for the rest of the world in closed rooms with invite-only guests who are gagged or anonymous and prevented from interacting with that world? Then the outcome becomes a standard only for that small subset of people, which negates its authority as a standard. At best, it's another club rule."

Adam Tinworth, who works for a business information company and blogs prolifically, also writes about the Chatham House Rule in a post that's broadly sympathetic to the BBC organisers of the conference:

"The mistake, if anything, was in being CHR rather than closed. The partial tweeting of the event just makes it clearer that people are being excluded. And people are sensitive souls, sometimes. The restricted information flow creates an unintentional air of 'nah, nah, we're here and you aren't' that is probably more at the heart of some of the criticism that people are making than they would admit, even to themselves."

The blog attracted comments including a substantial response from Claire Wardle whose idea the conference was. Adam also writes accounts of the various sessions and final discussion from the second day of the conference: editorial issues session; technology session; cultural change; final session and Alan Rusbridger remarks.

Under the headline "What I learned about ego, opinion, art and commerce", Mary Hamilton, analyses the assumptions behind the conference - complaining about the concept of "mainstream media" that was implicit behind the discussion:

"'Mainstream' isn't a clearly defined term. It's slippery. 'Mainstream media' is hurled at news outlets by some bloggers as a pejorative term; it's often linked to circulation and ownership rather than content; it's defined without a clear opposition. And the BBC Social Media Summit had its own definition, which became clearer as the day progressed:

• National or international (not local or hyperlocal)
• General news (not specialist or single-subject)
• Primarily print or broadcast (not web-only)
• Broadsheet (not tabloid or sensationalist)
• Corporate (not individual).

That's fine, of course, though perhaps a more honest hashtag would be #bbcmsmsms."

Martin Belam picks up the question of mainstream media in his account of Christian Payne's contribution to the discussion on audience expectations. Christian (ID card for the conference from website above) had said that...

"...one problem with the relationship between 'the mainstream media' and 'social media' is that our approach on impartiality requires journalists to remove their own emotions from a story. It is [Chris argued] the emotion that builds the rapport with the people you are reporting on."

Martin concludes:

"I think Chris reminded us that there is still a large number of amateur or semi-professional people who have access to the 'new tools' but don't always have the training or the access to learning about the 'old skills' which have served journalism for hundreds of years."

The interaction between smaller, independent media specialists and bigger organisations was highlighted in the Technology and Innovation session. But Joseph Stashko argues against a false choice implied by the question posed: "Can start-ups compete with mainstream media?"

"They shouldn't be looking to compete with each other, because it takes us back to a bloggers versus journalists-style debate again - the two should look to complement each other rather than compete.

It's a mindset which seemed to be uncomfortably pervasive throughout the day. As someone remarked to me afterwards: 'I thought we were over that sort of debate... apparently not.'"

Paul Martin had made his point vividly from the floor of the conference by announcing he had already filmed part of the session and put the video online. In his blog, he is sceptical about traditional media organisations' ability to keep up with technological change:

"Traditional news outlets, the broadcasters, TV and radio, along with the newspapers, are no longer in control of the story. Before a journalist with the specialisation can get the facts together, the story has been tweeted, blogged, photographed, filmed and shared around the world by those online, regardless of whether accuracy has been checked. The story is out. It's gone, been consumed, swapped, embellished and shared by many thousands of people. I found the underlying discussion today at the Summit was 'What the hell do we do with it then?'

...Journalists can scream all they like about proper journalism, trained people who can muster the facts, talk to the right people, check the legality and the meaning behind the online content. But, let's face facts, their story can only be told hours, even a day, later."

Philip Trippenbach is the Editor in Chief of Citizenside.com, whose goal is to create the largest online community of amateur and independent reporters where everyone can share their vision of the news by uploading photos and videos. Reflecting on discussions at the conference, he draws a distinction between stories which work well for what he calls "distributed newsgathering" and those which don't:

"In cases of elite, contained stories, where access to power or expert information is crucial... pro teams have an edge. For instance, the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case is a model of one where distributed reporting can't add much. There are a few characters, mostly senior political, law-enforcement and legal figures. There are limited plot points; a few courtroom appearances, and discussions behind closed doors. This is the classic sort of 'big politics' story for which the old-school media-as-gatekeeper model is still valid."

Behind much of the conference discussion was the idea that journalism in organisations like the BBC which want to preserve their role as trusted brands is becoming a question of verifying social media content (a process that BBC journalist Alex Murray describes here).

But Matthew Ingram argues that news no longer needs to be seen like that: "There is also the need to start looking at news as a process and not as a pristine, finished product." He argues that today journalists should be ready to "post a report and say that it is unverified, and see if anyone can help you verify it"; a process not unlike that of the news wires.

In his account of the conference, Dave Wyllie, who describes himself as a 24-year-old broadcast, new media and print journalist, reflects on the cultural and business shifts that social media seems to require, echoing others who felt that changing the habits and attitudes of journalists is only half the battle:

"How do you motivate a journalist to think seriously about online? More people will read your content. More people will engage with you; you will be able to build a larger contact network if that's what you want.

We talked of doing all this but maybe there is an elephant in the room. And the elephant in the room is that certain organisations are haemorrhaging money...

Are we in a good place? Some of us, yes. Most of us, no. But I'm more worried about the people who are convinced they're winning when really they're just chugging along on the backs of users who visit only because you're the media brand that their parents bought into for 40 years."

The harsh realities of media business today were discussed at the conference by Raju Narisetti, managing editor of the Washington Post, who pointed out, unsentimentally, that journalists need to understand that they live or die by metrics.

His approach was questioned in the Media Blog, citing the success, and the editorial cost, of Mail Online:

"In search of pure online numbers the Mail has traded in any values its masthead still stands for in the minds of those people who buy the newspaper in the quiet villages of conservative Britain." 

Finally, conference organiser Claire Wardle has written her final thoughts about what came out of the conference and what she hopes will happen as a result.

Please let me know @BBCCollege or in comments below about other blogs on the conference I've missed.