I chaired the penultimate session at #bbcsms hoping it would pull together different themes from the conference.
I feel very strongly that we're past the 'ooh, isn't it new and different' stage with social media (indeed, I agree the phrase itself now appears outdated), and I didn't want people to leave with a feeling of 'so what?'.
Conferences have real strengths in simply connecting people - and I saw a lot of that over the two days - but what about concrete outcomes?
Well, the 30-minute session covered the following:
Verification
Considering the criticisms of Andy Carvin's approach to making the process of verification transparent, I was interested to hear whether there was a consensus on how to deal with the inevitable issues around verifying real-time information from social media channels.
There had been a tweet during the conference floating the idea of people to use 'UT' at the front of tweets to signify an 'unverified tweet'. There didn't seem much enthusiasm for that in the room. Another person argued that there was a need for more audience research to understand whether people wanted to hear information that was still unconfirmed.
Alex Murray of BBC News' UGC Hub argued forcefully from the floor that there is no need for specific tools or Twitter conventions because the same journalistic processes will always be needed for verification. Alex has written about BBC News' verification processes.
I also discussed the significant role that technology could play in verification, with platforms like SwiftRiver leading the charge. Other technological possibilities such as Trust Indices also seem to be something newsrooms want to see more of.
Ethics
I posed the question of whether there's a need for some ethical 'guidelines', prompted by the increasing number of incidents involving dubious practices by journalists using Facebook in particular in order to tell stories.
Someone raised the issue of the difficult ethics involved with contributors who may be risking their life to get pictures for newsrooms. It was agreed that this was difficult to prevent since people are often desperate to get information out via traditional news outlets.
Someone else raised the question of whether news organisations should be paying for contributions. Someone from the floor argued against, because "leading the news with that piece of video is paying them back - because that's why they have filmed it."
But Alex Murray replied that "we need to respect the people supplying material, regardless of where it's coming from; just as we would with our colleagues." There were many nods in the room.
Ann Luce of the University of Portsmouth raised the issue of ethics closer to home, citing her PhD research around the Bridgend suicides and the troubling use of Facebook by news organisations to tell those stories.
In an odd coincidence, an old article about the ethical implications of academics using material from social networks appeared in my Twitter feed this morning - with lots of relevance to this conversation.
Disaster coverage
Ping Lo from the ABC talked about the broadcaster's work using Ushahidi during the Brisbane floods. Ping wrote a blog post on Thursday about her experiences and the questions for state broadcasters.
I asked how collaboration might work in the event of a major disaster in the UK. In Japan during the earthquake, it was Google and its People Finder, and the crisis mappers with their Ushahidi maps, which were so powerful. The national broadcaster didn't play a role. Is that how it should be? If something major happened in London, would the BBC, Guardian and Channel 4 News all create different, competing platforms for sharing information?
Further research
I raised the need for rigorous research on a number of topics related to social media and journalism. Paul Bradshaw of City University talked about data collection, saying that journalists keep their notes for five years but how can we ensure the same applies for tweets? He argued that this type of archiving is necessary to understand this important transitional period for journalism.
Paul suggested that, while there were services by sites like BackupMyTweets.com, they couldn't be relied upon completely and news organisations should be backing up their journalists' information.
Emily Bell, Director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School, made an impassioned plea for the BBC to open up its data. She described the unique nature of the BBC in terms of the amount of content and data; particularly audience data that is not being shared. If it was, academics and start-ups would be able to do so much with it.
A BBC World Service producer argued that "we won't get all the answers today" and suggested a joint masters programme between CoJo and universities combining practice and theory. To that, I answered "I love you", which raised a few laughs in the room. But I believe this kind of structural relationship is the only way real change is going to happen.
In the meantime, a Google Document has been set up for people to add their research questions. We've also set up a Facebook page where people can make suggestions, add research questions etc. Please add your information there - whether you're an academic with a burning desire to research a certain topic, or a journalist, programme-maker, start-up, editor, educator, student, charity or government worker etc who wants a research question answered, or could potentially offer data, access or even labour.
The conference allowed different types of people to make connections. It fired a desire in some to attempt some concrete change. And I hope it raised some of the more difficult questions we face, rather than simply applauding the best bits of social media.
Catch up on all the sessions of Friday's conference on video, and read accounts of what was said and other opinions from those taking part, here.
