Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Scoble Is Innocent

Evidently Robert didn't ask to have his expenses paid to come to PodCamp in New York. I could have never figured that from the statement made by the organizer on the Google Group relating to the planning process. He presents his side of the story on his blog.

Some kind of an offer was made evidently. So you can't blame a person for considering or accepting an offer of that kind.

I also want to let folks know that my personal views don't represent the views of the group that is planning the forthcoming event. I know they're concerned about the image for the event and how my ideas might be construed. The group may or may not be open to covering expenses for Robert.

One thing has become evident to me though. This ain't a world for a new media idealist to express his views. This is an echo chamber. And the same voices seem to be heard over and over again.

The future of the medium of podcasting hinges on the adoption by the everyday individual who knows nothing of the pecking order in the world of social media. These are the people we need to be catering to. These are the people who deserve an opportunity to be heard. And in order to do so I'm sure they will be paying their own way.

Recommend Podcast NYC To Your Friends

6 Comments:

Anonymous John said...

Seriously, did you learn to apologize from a drunk actor or a politician?

That's not an apology. An apology would have been titled "Scoble is innocentt, I'm an idiot", or something along those lines. I have no pony in this race, believe me.

Just say something to the effect of "Gosh, calling him "King Scoble" was insulting, I'll try not to publicly jump to conclusions next time. Sorry Robert!"

10:47 AM  
Blogger PodcastNYC.net said...

Hardly an apology. Rather, recognition that there are two sides of the story.

Either way you have a situation that I happen to have a very strong opinion on.

Dave Winer's concept of an unconference states, "The sum of the expertise of the people in the audience is greater than the sum of expertise of the people on stage." To me this means that the people who choose to attend are just as competent and just as worthy as the experts and thought leaders who are given incentives to attend.

Recognizing that value means that both groups should be treated in a similar manner when it comes to all aspects of the event.

I know as well as anyone that things are expensive in a city like New York. So I think that anyone who contributes ought to know how the money is being used to forward the conference goals.

And if there are funds available for deferring travel expenses for contributors then why not have a contest or raffle to return some dough to the people who have chosen to attend and paid their own way?

But when one person gets their travel expenses reimbursed, others might start asking the question as to why that person was chosen to receive that benefit above all others who incurred expenses to attend.

I understand that this is common practice at major conferences. Does everyone have to travel in lockstep with what has been presented as the 'standard' for conducting these types of events?

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Chris Slatt said...

It sounds to me like you didn't get the full story, jumped to conclusions and instead of expressing to the people organizing the "un-conference" you attacked Scoble for something he didn't do (demanding compensation).

Incidentally if the "New Media Idealists" or going to get anywhere, this is the kind of rash, rumor-based attack writing they need to avoid.

2:47 PM  
Anonymous Jane said...

Can you just realize that you made an 'honest' mistake and let it go without having to have the 'last word'? Wrapping yourself around the "new media idealist" cloak does not excuse your behaviour or give you the right to disparage what is apparently standard behaviour. If the same voices are heard over and over again, perhaps it is because they are relevant?

3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say,

"Dave Winer's concept of an unconference states, "The sum of the expertise of the people in the audience is greater than the sum of expertise of the people on stage.""

OK, that's clear. Then you analyze it and say,

"To me this means that the people who choose to attend are just as competent and just as worthy as the experts and thought leaders who are given incentives to attend."

Either you completely misunderstand Winer's quote or you're just really bad at math. If there are twenty presenters and 100 audience members, each presenter can be *four times more competent* than each audience member and Winer's definition still holds.

Face it, some people are smarter, more competent, better presenters, and more experienced that average. "Unconference" doesn't mean "everyone's the same", it means "everyone can contribute". There's a huge difference.

The value of an unconference is that the number and variety of opinions, perspectives, and experiences allows nearly everyone to find and/or fill a niche. Acknowledged experts or "personalities" in any industry became that way because their niche is very large...perhaps mainstream.

If you think about and plan a conference accordingly, these influencer views do not undermine individual contributions by "unknowns". On the contrary, they can massively augment -- even bring into focus -- the narrower, more specialized perspectives of the individuals, increasing their value to the rest of the room.

Don't let your strong feelings on blogging elitism cloud the reality of what makes a good conference. I mean, isn't that what's most important? Giving the attendees that are flying in and staying in NYC the best possible experience?

9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why didn't you just ask Robert Scoble about this directly before you shot your mouth off on your blog? The man has his cellphone number on his blog's front page, it's not like he's difficult to get ahold of.

12:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home