Concerns about #bozexplod and its aftermath

I wrote on thurs but used a faux email addy so perhaps my comments were never seen, Michael. I appreciate your taking on this topic.

I'm not a twitter user. But I did look at the posts (tweets, whatever) on Thurs, and as my first extended exposure as a non-user, I'd like to make a lot of observations - observations that I feel are objective (objectivity being sorely lacking in a lot of this discussion).

The most basic of comments about tweets for this event: what is with all of the redundancy? Very flawed, cluttered, and annoying.

A debate about Journalism (and making it some precious and lofty concept) when talking about what was really occurring with the comments seems a waste of time. After, what?, 12 hours of reading #bozexplod, I can honestly say that I don't think I "learned" anything on twitter that wasn't available - easily - somewhere else. I, too, can turn on the radio or stream a press conference and restate what someone said. How is that useful?

This was not reporting; this was rehashing in 140 characters or less. This was commenting.

Even more than blogs, this really seems to be an explosion (no pun intended) in narcissism. I'm not even going to touch the relentless crowing about links and blogs and diggs and photo galleries.

Show me how many times John F. Burns pounds his chest about how many views his reporting for the NY Times gets and then we can talk about Journalism. Journalism isn't gloating or a popularity contest or a game of telephone.

I realize this is a very negative view. Many are glowing about their new "community" of I'm not sure what you all really are..... and there's a very quick and vested knee-jerk reaction of defensiveness about all of the Positive Things that came out of this twitter-bzn phenomenon. Consider me not persuaded : )

A quick question: Why use a fake e-mail? You can reply to me via e-mail (available on my Contact page) if you don't want to say on the comment board. I'm just curious.

Yes, it was at times narcissistic, but keep in mind one thing. A lot of the "this tag has reached such-and-such a popularity ranking" was auto-generated by 'bots that haunt Twitter. So some of those comments can be filtered out.

A note too on the repetition. That's necessary on Twitter and other social networks because everyone's friend network on those sites is different. So when I post, it is seen by about 150 people, my Twitter "followers." When someone else posts something, it is seen by his friends.

Now, when you gather people posting who are using one hashtag, you have to remember that they're not only writing for the hashtag's readers but also for their own social networks. That explains some of the repetition.

Yes, a lot of the information on Twitter that day could have been had via other sources, like the radio. A lot of it was not available anywhere else, like the (admittedly rare) tweets from people who were actually "there," the first-hand reports.

But think about this: Why was the Twitter feed any worse than the radio, which was by your own admission, reporting the same news? Why look down on Twitter, when all the radio stations were reporting (and repeating) the same information. The other media outlets in Bozeman were just as echo-chamber-like as Twitter that day; and that's the nature of breaking news.

It's not surprising that you didn't "learn" anything on Twitter that day. It was mostly second-hand information reported by (mostly) citizens without journalism training. Yes, it was hectic and chaotic and repetitive. But that's the nature of the beast. With immediacy and without editors, that's what you're going to get; and with the way that the Twitter service is structured, it's not going to get any "better."

As a side note, it's odd that you should mention John F. Burns, who works for the most Web 2.0-hip news organization in the world. While he may not consciously think about his page views when writing his stories, I guarantee you they matter. Journalism in the real world is about reporting the things people care about -- and therefore what they will pay to read. (I don't like this, but that's the way it is.)

I thank you for your view. I don't think you're being negative at all, just critical and thoughtful, and that's what this discussion is all about. However, I will disagree with you on one thing in particular: It was "reporting" by the strictest definition of the word. Absolutely.

But "reporting" isn't exactly synonymous with "journalism." Was the #bozexplod experience "journalism"? That, I think, is the question.

(not sure this went through the 1st time, so here it is again--delete if duplicated)

I should make one other very important point here, Michael...

You linked my blog using your own tag line that reads: (Social Media: Redefining Genuine) Commentary on what social media did for coverage of the Bozeman explosion.

If you actually read my post, it has very little to do with the actual coverage of the explosion... and has everything to do with this up front highlight within my post: 'Social Media is redefining the word genuine for a new generation of people.' Then I went on to say how social media is building a framework for human communication. The main theme was certainly not twitter vs. journalism... it was how 'many people being in the moment can paint a very whole and genuine interpretation of a given event.'

It seems to me though you picked out a few things relevant to yourself (i.e. journalism) and ran with it. In essence, what you did is critique/interpret my article using your own narrow skew. Then you politely suggested I'm ignorantly optimistic, which I totally welcome by the way as a means for forwarding discussion. But let's be clear... you are being a critic in your above post, and 'critic' is quite different from journalist.

A journalist, really looking for further insight into my post might have called me and asked me to illuminate further what I was trying to say. KTVM actually called me to do just that within an hour of my post. I spent quite a fair amount of time with them discussing some key elements of social media and it was featured during their 5PM news cast that evening. I'm not exactly an anonymous presence on the web... my e-mail address is on my blog, and I am quite easy to find. In fact, I encourage people to contact me as I truly value those personal connections. Much like social media, personal interaction is often very illuminating.

I live in Bozeman. I am on Main Street every day. I think this event is tragic and my heart goes out to all my Bozeman neighbors who are involved. I will be supporting local businesses and doing my part to pitch in and make our community stronger. As a fairly new resident of Montana (from New York City), I'd like to think I bring a unique perspective to the community... which is what my blog tries to accomplish in an irreverent and humorous way. (I'd self describe it as more whimsical than journalistic.) I'll also add that in NYC, I spent over 20 years as a media professional and have worked at most of the major networks in one form or another. Ignorant optimism? Perhaps. I'll leave that for people to decide for themselves. All I ask is that in the spirit of social media, as I throw my voice into the mix, that I have the opportunity to express myself... expression is vital to evolution.

Beyond that, really, we all should get together in downtown Bozeman over a beer,.. and find ways to support each other, and our many Montana neighbors!

I'll begin defensively and then grow up a bit: Thanks for calling my opinion a "narrow skew." It also seems odd that you're also referring in this comment to a comment I wrote on your blog that you have not opted to publish (as of this writing, 10 p.m. Saturday).

And don't confuse matters, Tranq. I don't write on this blog as a journalist. I write on this blog as a media critic talking about journalism. Don't be surprised then when I get critical. If I had any questions of you that needed answering, I would have contacted you. But this is a blog not a newspaper. I don't have to cover all sides of the story; and besides, you can provide your running comments here without me lifting a keyboard or telephone.

Okay, now for the rationality.

My links, which you point out in your comment, are generated by the bookmarking Web service Diigo. I wrote the summary quickly before reading your blog post in depth just so that I would have something to come back and read later. I agree that the description probably isn't apt, but I'm not going to change it, since it will rotate off my homepage after I bookmark a few more things.

I agree that your post was about genuineness. Absolutely. But my comment to your blog, pardon me if I can't remember it perfectly, deals with your opinion that your media experiences have been heavily filtered and edited -- and those words and their friends drip with negative connotation in your post.

It's easy to say that the mainstream media accounts we see every day are filtered and edited in sinister ways. It's so easy to say that because it's impossible to prove. There is no such thing as objective journalism or media. (The expectation of objectivity is a creation of the 20th century.) With bias everywhere and in every media, calling the modern news filtered is like calling the kettle black.

But having worked in a newsroom or two, I take offense to the negative connotation. Reporters do they best they can with what they have on very tight deadlines.

Having read through your post a second and third time (and yes, I did read it the first time), I still think it's overly optimistic and avoids all possible downsides of social media and lifestreaming. For example, you dismiss the notion of personal privacy as something that only older people cling to, when this is still a thorny, thorny issue.

We're in that optimistic period after a disaster, where it's easy to see the highlights and harder to see the cracks. I don't fault you for your optimism. I just don't think that unbridled positivity good in any situation.

I think your ideas about genuineness are interesting, but I just don't agree with everything you have to say, and I'll leave it with that.

A meet up would be a fine idea someday. Let me know what you have in mind. My contact information is on my Contact page.

I posted your comment the moment you sent it... you filed it however under the previous day's post.

Again though... you're implying that I'm saying "mainstream media accounts we see every day are filtered and edited in sinister ways." I never used the word sinister... i merely said they're filtered and edited--as opposed to the power of things streaming live. You're making a point how professional journalists are more apt to get it right, yet you're making inferences using words I didn't put in print. That's the very point I'm making.

Is my opinion airtight? Of course not. And I generally learn more when I'm wrong then when I'm right. But I do think there is a lot here to debate, with no clear cut answers. So I welcome the dialogue and exploration. And yes, I am highly optimistic and a huge proponent of social media... though with 20+ years of working at most of the major networks, I wouldn't exactly call my optimism 'ignorant.'

I plan on attending the tweet up Wednesday... you can meet me there, or anytime really. I would love to discuss this real time.

Yes, I am inferring meaning from the overall tone I read into your post. That's why I used the word "connotation" in talking about those ideas.

I won't be able to make it to the meeting Wednesday. Baby and family take precedence in the evenings. Perhaps another time.

Hmmm... I'm over my initial "attacked" feelings and looking at this as an interesting discourse on the nature of social media, especially as it applies to breaking news.

Let me preface the following with this statement. We don't make a dime from running this blog. While our visitors are encouraged to click around, we don't display any advertising. It costs a significant amount to provide bandwidth for the more than 30,000 pageviews we've received.

I suppose that we're going to have to agree-to-disagree on your fourth point about our post on Digg.com. The explosion in Bozeman was serious news, one that major news outlets didn't cover for several hours after the explosion. I know that the AP didn't even pick up the story until nearly 11am that morning.

You have to understand that social bookmarking websites like Digg.com are essentially news syndication for web 2.0. In a day and age where article topics like "Nurse buys viagra for sexually frustrated teens" can bury a real news topic in a matter of minutes, our repeated requests were in hopes of keeping the news relevant and accessible.

A lot of talk has gone into how social media played "an integral role in spreading the news". But little thought has gone into how people found that information. Michael, they use search engines. If you're not found on the first page of Google, you may as well be non-existent.

A lot of talk has been made about how there is now a whole Bozeman Twitter community. How did people go from never even having heard of Twitter, to new members and even conversation contributors? It's because all of the channels (Google, Digg, Facebook, Reddit etc.) all pointed there.

By creating a Digg post and consistently requesting that people link to it and vote for it, we were able to ensure that relevant and timely news could be found by those seeking it across a multitude of channels. Again, we don't want ownership of the conversation, we want to supplement it. A lot of thought went into this conversation from our side, and there's a real reason we promoted the Twitter feed as the first words in our blog post.

I argue that every person who responded to our request for a Digg.com vote actually helps promote the conversation and to foster even more community participation. Michael, the key to social media is not to worry about who owns the #bozexplod hashtag you created - because that's not the point - the point is that the conversation belongs to everyone.

Phillip -
I think what most technologically savvy people had an issue with is that you took other people's photos/videos, slapped them on your blog, and then submitted to Digg. When you could have just as easily submitted someone else's Flickr, TwitPic, or news story on the subject. No offense here, as I have no idea what your intentions were, but since it says that you are an SEO (Search Engine Optimization) person in your bio, I would assume that you should know that linking to your own blog would cause Manifest to gain (PageRank, Promotion, Brand Awareness, etc.) from this tragic experience. Most normal everyday people probably don't know this, so it could be misconstrued by people with an affinity towards this topic that you are trying to game the system for your own personal gain. Which I believe that no matter how old or new the media is, people do not like to feel deceived in thinking an advertisement is actually a news story. Nor do they like people profiting from tragedy. What has happened here is that people are doubting your intentions, and while a majority of what you posted was awesome, their comes a time when you need to question your own intent, before others do it for you.

I disagree on two of the points you made here, Philip. They're both in one graph, but I want to talk about them separately, so I'm going to quote it twice, bear with me:

"A lot of talk has been made about how there is now a whole Bozeman Twitter community. How did people go from never even having heard of Twitter, to new members and even conversation contributors?"

I don't think most of this community just discovered Twitter - I think they just discovered each other. There's a big difference. It's like we've all been sitting next to each other with our heads down, and finally we've looked around and realized we've got something in common with people we thought were strangers. That's the genesis of a community.

"How did people go from never even having heard of Twitter, to new members and even conversation contributors? It's because all of the channels (Google, Digg, Facebook, Reddit etc.) all pointed there."

This I seriously disagree with. You're confusing the message with the messenger. And maybe the motion, too. Here's what I mean. I don't think Google, Digg, Facebook and Reddit got people to learn about (and use) Twitter and/or care about Bozeman. Their friends did. Their connections did. They may have used those network-building tools to get the message moving, but the reason they care is the socialness - not the technology.

Montanans in general are VERY critical of and sensitive to hype, and the more often you mention Digg, (and link to it) the less credible you look. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm trying to show you where you're making a mistake that's undermining your message.

subversified - completely agree on the hype sensitivity! Did you see Tranq Jones' blog post this morning? Blathering about the Bozeman explosion compared to Sept 11, etc. So over the top it's nutty. Classic new versus old Montana ethos.

Thanks for your comments Wendy,

I agree that fundamentally there is/was already a large community of Bozemanites using Twitter, and that the common hashtag #bozexplod likely allowed many to find each other and to see just how many of us there are.

However, I can also see - using hard analytics - that a significant portion of the conversation was created by new users with relatively few followers. This indicates to me that many different channels were influential in telling people that Twitter was the best source of news about the Bozeman explosion.

Do I agree that friends were likely the most influential part of spreading the word? ABSOLUTELY. Social networks wouldn't exist without friends; but they still require the platform that Facebook, Digg, Twitter, Reddit, Flickr, MySpace and the myriad others provide.

Wendy, you're spot on... It's always the social aspect, not the technology that compels people. Social networks do not require a computer and internet connection to exist. When we hear a bit of news and call a friend on the telephone, or sit down and have lunch with a group of people, we are participating in a social network. The internet simply fosters faster, larger, more direct communications.

The power of social media (a completely different animal than social networks) becomes apparent when a message spreads from one distinct network to another. When I hear Michelle Wolf on Moose Radio saying that she's posted photos to her Facebook page, then someone posts a link on Twitter or shares it with friends; it begins to spread virally. When photographers post images to Flickr and others comment on the image, it's digital conversation amongst friends.

The question that I feel is at the root of this is "who should say what networks a message should spread on?" I think the answer is obvious. No one should have that power.

It's the internet. The very appeal of social media is that I can choose what works for me. No one has any control of how people will respond, or if they will choose to share. Networks that try to exert too much control are quickly abandoned in favor of less restrictive websites.

However, we as content creators and media participators have a responsibility to create information that is relevant and timely. How this is done will be unique to each individual. We can then gift it to the masses and let them choose if, how and when it will spread.

If promoting, perhaps even over-promoting, just one of the tools that can help a message spread farther and wider than ever before possible is 'hype', then I stand guilty as charged.

First, thanks for engaging me in such a vibrant dialogue, Michael. It is truly welcomed and appreciated. And since you are a journalist, I'm sure you can appreciate a few clarifications...

The main focus of my post was to shed light on how the concept of 'genuine' is changing through use of new media tools. It's the title of the piece and it's referred to numerous times within the post. In no way do I think yesterday's 'reporting' of an an event was a 'revolution' in and of itself, rather, it is another small piece of a larger, ongoing, social media revolution. I'll let people determine for themselves whether the post resonates with them personally.

Regarding the 'definition of a journalist' though, I'm sure that will be debated for awhile. And I suspect it will mostly be debated by journalists... as they are most effected by these new media tools. The event certainly raises powerful questions... Are a few trained journalists better than a conglomerate of unfiltered citizen reporters? Is it always necessary to filter news through professionals? Is there a protocol or at least some semblance of order that needs to be in place for use of these tools? Is protocol even relevant or is the free flow of ideas a more powerful force for conveying information? Do we trust people's ability to interpret raw information? There is much to talk about. We're both local, I'd LOVE to meet over a beer and have a great discussion on all of it.

From my perspective though, in an event such as yesterday, non-expert eyes seem to have interpreted a large portion of the event just fine. And though it was heart-breaking and tragic, it still was an event... not watergate, not a heavily investigative story (not yet anyway!) simply an event. People utilized tools readily available to them to convey it all to the world in a very powerful, direct, way. I think it's fundamental to recognize that in many ways, 'we are all the media' now. We all have the same tools and an equal voice with the power to make that voice heard. I'd call that real democracy... millions of people, chiming in, with a true voice. (Not a voice that has been edited by a select few to determine what is or is not relevant... but many voices that allow people to sort through information and make their own decisions.)

Journalists, rather than putting themselves 'above' citizen reporters or totally discounting them as flawed... I think would be better served to educate them, work with them, and help make their collective voice more relevant. (Which to some degree is already happening... most major media outlets have been including real time content from people during events--and have been doing it for a few years now.) As you've stated, it can be a very strong partnership. In your own words... They aren't mutually exclusive, and they can work together.

I believe that quite strongly as well.

Note that I do want to commend the downtown twitters for the play-by-play and keeping us up to speed. I don't want to tarnish anyones efforts. The photos were amazing.

Here's my view boiled down to it's essence: "Too many exclamation points". I have this image of old-Bozeman (I'm 5th generation) not being so over-the-top. There was just a bit too much "me too" and people piling on that I'm not certain were actually downtown at all....

the undermining of positive response by local tweeters and bloggers, and making concerned citizens look like self-promoters is remarkable.. why not keep the positive energy flowing instead of throwing a wrench in the operation?

You comment box does not like me, methinks. Here's one last go at it:

First, I must express frustration with my current level of tech-dependence. Someone kicked my power cord and I essentially lost a massive portion of what I had been typing in response to your reply. Hopefully that gives you any idea of how much I appreciate your insight. :) I want to keep discussing.

Might we agree that anything web-oriented is relatively new? Perhaps in the context of our generation, it seems like blogging is old hat, but there's no way we can say it compares to the history and tradition of, say, newspapers. Or even television. Though I will admit, once my parents start using something it does make it feel a bit old. Like the LOLcats sent to my inbox by my dad. And he does have a Twitter account. Hmm. Once he brings up Rickrolling, I'll know that's tired as well.

Then again, it doesn't hurt as much as, say, “I've fallen and I can't get up.” Or is that so retro it's re-funny? Or are we supposed to use it ironically? Newness/popularity/pop culture/etc. are becoming so strangely segmented...and frenetic. Afroninja is so two years ago. Rhianna/Chris Brown is so two weeks ago. Obama's grey hair is totally yesterday.

I feel as though we're only just beginning to really understand and evaluate the potential of the web, social-networking sites, blogs, and all these Twitter-like mini-feeds. It's tough to keep up with, it feels like they change constantly, even with the emergence of the web 2.0 mentality.

How has immediacy worked its way into the journalism debate? There's certainly the problem of old and new, experienced authority and amateurs that you mention. But there's also a conflict between immediacy and accuracy. Part of the beauty of what happened yesterday was the fact that it was nearly instantaneous. But that's also part of the problem. Conjecture worked its way in, along with several other undesirable factors. Despite that, it was certainly valuable.

My impression from my journalism classes in college was that journalists were defined by a set of ethical standards. Unfortunately for the tech-dependent, these standards take more than 10 minutes to apply. We want our information and we want it yesterday. Or last week, if possible.

Now that a barrage of “news” updates can literally be streamed to our phones and wireless enabled laptops no matter where we are, there is tremendous pressure for journalists to deliver information immediately. I think this is one of the major causes of watered down journalism.

I'm not really sure what journalists should do to remedy any of this. I feel it's more likely that the news will continue to be watered down. Perhaps we're going to rely more on opinion leaders – those people you turn to for information. They do the filtering for you. They are the ones that post a blog with links to multiple, relevant stories (ahem). They aren't CNN or the New York Times. They are people you identify with on some level, people you trust, who do all of this information finding for you. That's what most of the major blogs do now anyway. Some of them are definitely journalists. I think. Maybe.

It does seem like, at the very least, amateurs and professionals should do more to differentiate themselves from one another. Then again, if we get into this discussion much further, you'll notice that I'm almost always a big fan of categories and labels.

Hmm...All this typing makes me wonder more about what actually defines a journalist. Is it the person at CNN that grabs something off of the newswire and types it into the newsticker? It rarely seems to be the tv personalities – other people often do their research for them. Do you have to be there, witnessing an event and have an extensive background in investigative journalism to earn the title? Must I spend a month researching a story? Is it just a set of standards and experience? Tricky.

P.S. Are you moderating comments, or am I just having trouble with the comment box?

Whether your comments are displayed immediately or not, I think, depends on how you are logged in to the comment box. I think if you try logging in with different methods, FacebookID, Disqus, else, it might hold them for moderation.

I'm moderating as quickly as I can, but then again, I'm not sitting on my mod page waiting for hits either. Sorry if there's a delay :)

Thanks :-D

Bravo. I couldn't agree more. It was a stressful event and some of the most active Twitters work downtown.. twitter probably helped all of them mentally cope with what happened.. but yes it's getting Orgasmic and silly. You bet your ass the PR types are using this to bootstrap themselves.

If it gets picked up by major media, there will probably be some kind of 'look at these hicks discover fire' kind of aspect to it.

First, I must express frustration with my current level of tech-dependence. Someone kicked my power cord and I essentially lost a massive portion of what I had been typing in response to your reply. Hopefully that gives you any idea of how much I appreciate your insight. :)

Might we agree that anything web-oriented is relatively new? Perhaps in the context of our generation, it seems like blogging is old hat, but there's no way we can say it compares to the history and tradition of, say, newspapers. Or even television. Though I will admit, once my parents start using something it does make it feel a bit old. Like the LOLcats sent to my inbox by my dad. And he does have a Twitter account. Hmm. Once he brings up Rickrolling, I'll know that's tired as well.

Then again, it doesn't hurt as much as, say, “I've fallen and I can't get up.” Or is that so retro it's re-funny? Or are we supposed to use it ironically? Newness/popularity/pop culture/etc. are becoming so strangely segmented...and frenetic. Afroninja is so two years ago. Rhianna/Chris Brown is so two weeks ago. Obama's grey hair is totally yesterday.

I feel as though we're only just beginning to really understand and evaluate the potential of the web, social-networking sites, blogs, and all these Twitter-like mini-feeds. It's tough to keep up with, it feels like they change constantly, even with the emergence of the web 2.0 mentality.

How has immediacy worked its way into the journalism debate? There's certainly the problem of old and new, experienced authority and amateurs that you mention. But there's also a conflict between immediacy and accuracy. Part of the beauty of what happened yesterday was the fact that it was nearly instantaneous. But that's also part of the problem. Conjecture worked its way in, along with several other undesirable factors. Despite that, it was certainly valuable.

My impression from my journalism classes in college was that journalists were defined by a set of ethical standards. Unfortunately for the tech-dependent, these standards take more than 10 minutes to apply. We want our information and we want it yesterday. Or last week, if possible.

Now that a barrage of “news” updates can literally be streamed to our phones and wireless enabled laptops no matter where we are, there is tremendous pressure for journalists to deliver information immediately. I think this is one of the major causes of watered down journalism.

I'm not really sure what journalists should do to remedy any of this. I feel it's more likely that the news will continue to be watered down. Perhaps we're going to rely more on opinion leaders – those people you turn to for information. They do the filtering for you. They are the ones that post a blog with links to multiple, relevant stories (ahem). They aren't CNN or the New York Times. They are people you identify with on some level, people you trust, who do all of this information finding for you. That's what most of the major blogs do now anyway. Some of them are definitely journalists. I think. Maybe.

It does seem like, at the very least, amateurs and professionals should do more to differentiate themselves from one another. Then again, if we get into this discussion much further, you'll notice that I'm almost always a big fan of categories and labels.

Hmm...All this typing makes me wonder more about what actually defines a journalist. Is it the person at CNN that grabs something off of the newswire and types it into the newsticker? It rarely seems to be the tv personalities – other people often do their research for them. Do you have to be there, witnessing an event and have an extensive background in investigative journalism to earn the title? Tricky.

I'm a firm believer than not all reporters are journalists, and not all journalists are reporters. Reporters are those people you're talking about who merely retype facts -- "report" them, duh -- without needing or seeking to analyze. Journalist, in my view, are the ones who use their experience to analyze the importance of some story and relay that importance to the reader. Sometimes, that comes across like bias or opinion; sometimes it just comes across as brilliance.

But both reporters and journalists are part of the larger picture of "journalism." So good reporting is good journalism. Good analysis is good journalism. And so on.

Now, Twitter on March 5 was definitely a stream of "reporting," and perhaps I've been a bit lazy in referring to it as "journalism" here. What I'm primarily concerned about -- though not as concerned right now as I was on the day I wrote the above post -- is what effect such immediate reporting has on journalism. Was it good "journalism"?

Maybe. But the definition of good journalism is changing every day, especially since so many in the news industry are struggling to come up with a better way -- or at least a profitable way.

In an age when most journalism is moving toward being online in some form or another, an age in which "link journalism" exists and thrives (and is awesome in its own way), perhaps some of the pleading for Diggs and constant linking to oneself is going to be the way of journalism's future. I don't know yet. I don't think anyone does.

What has become apparent to me is that, even though the information was valuable, I became much too obsessed with keeping up on the latest news. I found it very difficult to break away from twIRC.

I felt much the same way about sending out the information. It became almost compulsive after a while. I'm glad it's all over for that reason -- and others.

Hi Michael,

I think that you raise some very valid concerns here, and I thank you for providing us an opportunity to respond.

The public relations firm that you refer to in the post above is our business Manifest Creative, a web development studio in Bozeman, MT. While we actively engage in social media, and encourage each of our clients to do so as well, we don't provide traditional public relations services.

We're not journalists like you are, we admit that. We're an internet marketing firm that just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Our hearts continue to go out to the family of the missing woman. Our coverage on Twitter was as factual and complete as we could make it. I think that all of the comments we've left on various blogs have been in good taste and we've done our best not to sensationalize the news.

Here's how we see things:
1) We contributed heavily to the conversation on Twitter.
2) Our blog provided a hub for locals and out-of-towners to get early information on the Bozeman explosion.
3) We created a Google map to allow business owners (and others) to collaborate, identifying alternate travel routes and locating their businesses.
4) We've provided a one-stop source of information that's different than any of the major news outlets.
5) Throughout the process, we've done our best to avoid 'ownership' of any kind and encouraged collaboration by the online Bozeman community.

Though we've worked in publishing for years we never professed to be reporters - nor do we wish to be. Our continued promotional efforts are not a solicitation to be quoted in national magazines (highly unlikely), and I've actually declined links from sources that I didn't approve of. I've followed the likes of @guykawasaki and @scobleizer for quite some time now. It's actually quite an honor to be mentioned by either of these prominent Tweeters.

Our, and your own, use of Twitter and other social media has not been 'revolutionary', epic or even a 'serious tool for citizen journalism'. It's been Twittering - nothing more and nothing less. It's simply given Tweeters something new to talk about, and as you've noticed, that will begin to die down over time.

I'm sorry that I feel a bit attacked, but here's the bottom line. We're an internet company. We want to show other businesses how to spread their message virally. How can we do that if we don't "practice what we preach"?

Phil,

I think you probably are right to feel attacked a bit. My post isn't exactly flattering. But I'll say this:

First of all, thanks for responding. I really mean that. Part of the beauty of Web 2.0 and new media is that people can respond when they need to or want to. You've done that beautifully.

Second: I apologize for mis-characterizing the nature of your company. I took the "PR" firm stuff from an all-too-quick look at your site. Had I read more in-depth, I probably would have gotten it right. That said, I purposefully didn't write its name because I wanted to use the situation as a learning experience more than an attack on anyone in particular.

Third: You're news contributions were exemplary. You say you're not reporters, but you demonstrated your abilities as reporters yesterday. Good job there, and I mean that to everything that you made and contributed to the Web.

Fourth: I'm still in my opinion that asking for Diggs and constantly linking your blog felt, at times, like link spam. I'm not alone in that opinion either, judging by the comments here. I think it was a bit over-the-top and not as subtle as, perhaps, I was looking for that day. That doesn't make it wrong, mind you. Nothing can be wrong in a world where there aren't yet established rules and codes of conduct. But it did make it, to me, a little distasteful and overbearing.

I understand that you had nothing but the best intentions at heart. I applaud you and every other Twitter user who joined the conversation yesterday. You dedicated your time and callused your keyboarding fingers for a good cause: informing the public. But I think I am right and justified in looking critically at what happened yesterday, providing feedback via this blog and seeing if, gods forbid, we can do it better the next time something big breaks in Bozeman or the surrounding area.

Hmmm... I'm over my initial "attacked" feelings and looking at this as an interesting discourse on the nature of social media, especially as it applies to breaking news.

Let me preface the following with this statement. We don't make a dime from running this blog. While our visitors are encouraged to click around, we don't display any advertising. It costs a significant amount to provide bandwidth for the more than 30,000 pageviews we've received.

I suppose that we're going to have to agree-to-disagree on your fourth point about our post on Digg.com. The explosion in Bozeman was serious news, one that major news outlets didn't cover for several hours after the explosion. I know that the AP didn't even pick up the story until nearly 11am that morning.

You have to understand that social bookmarking websites like Digg.com are essentially news syndication for web 2.0. In a day and age where article topics like "Nurse buys viagra for sexually frustrated teens" can bury a real news topic in a matter of minutes, our repeated requests were in hopes of keeping the news relevant and accessible.

A lot of talk has gone into how social media played "an integral role in spreading the news". But little thought has gone into how people found that information. Michael, they use search engines. If you're not found on the first page of Google, you may as well be non-existent.

A lot of talk has been made about how there is now a whole Bozeman Twitter community. How did people go from never even having heard of Twitter, to new members and even conversation contributors? It's because all of the channels (Google, Digg, Facebook, Reddit etc.) all pointed there.

By creating a Digg post and consistently requesting that people link to it and vote for it, we were able to ensure that relevant and timely news could be found by those seeking it across a multitude of channels. Again, we don't want ownership of the conversation, we want to supplement it. A lot of thought went into this conversation from our side, and there's a real reason we promoted the Twitter feed as the first words in our blog post.

I argue that every person who responded to our request for a Digg.com vote actually helps promote the conversation and to foster even more community participation. Michael, the key to social media is not to worry about who owns the #bozexplod hashtag you created - because that's not the point - the point is that the conversation belongs to everyone.

the word "iterative" sums it up best - a feedback mechanism starts, for example when people (myself included) would ReTweet something with the tag, or even worse when current trending statistics regarding the tag were ReTweeted. it brings up the question: how much of its popularity was fluff?

Nice piece. An important reminder to keep things in perspective. Having been in the throws of #bozexplod at moments and watching from the sidelines during other moments, I feel in my heart that the "PR Guys" you refer to likely had good intentions, at least that's what I believe. For the most part, we're all playing in this "new media" space without a "rule book" and we'll need to help eachother along. For example, someone wrote the name of the missing woman on my Facebook page last night. Until I read her post on my wall, I had no idea who it was. I paniced and immediately erased my friend's wall comment. I guess all I can say is that with New Media comes New Responsibilities. We're living and learning with each tweet.

I have no doubt that the guys from Manifest (named because they've identified themselves here) had nothing but the best in mind too, but it just felt to me like things and people were getting lost in the moment.

Great quote: "with New Media comes New Responsibilities." I think we should have T-shirts made.

I'll take one!

For the most part I agree with you. The coverage of this event through Twitter in an of itself was not at all revolutionary (or even that new of an idea), but what's exciting to me is what this concept means to our concept of news. Crowdsourcing is not a new idea, but this was the first time I've seen it put to such a positive use.

I share your concerns about taking ownership of a topic. I've seen this happen with other, less relevant, topics and it begs the question: who does this information belong to?

I think the danger with this sort of "reporting" is, and I admittedly fell into this trap as well, that people often get blinded by the lure of getting more traffic to their sites and the actual news story loses its importance within the grand scheme of things. I think this will be the greatest obstacle for Twitter and the like to overcome in order to be seen as a credible news outlet.

I'm with you. Getting annoyed by the constant urging to digg one particular image gallery. It may not be intentional, but it could be taken as them exploiting the disaster for personal gain. Ugh. Not a good image for them. There's a fine line between getting your message out there and being a spammer.

The only revolution I think is going on is that there's a solidifying local twitter community I don't think we had before (or at least I wasn't aware of it - or even interested in it). So if anything, it's a local revolution, but not a media revolution. IMHO.

Another thing I'm concerned about: What sort of Pandora's box have we opened for the media outlets in Bozeman. Will Twitter be inundated with quick updates from the Chronicle, KBZK, New West and the likes whenever something happens?

Will even the mundane be sensationalized by constant iterative updates?

There are so many things to comment on here, but I'll stick with this one for the sake of actually getting work done today. I follow each news outlet I find on Twitter for exactly that purpose - I want to be inundated with quick updates when something happens. Isn't that what we've been pushing for? If the larger, more traditional media sources are edging into Web 2.0., there will be a period of trial and error. But, I think we'll all have better access to information in the end.

Agreed. I just worry about, like I said, smaller stories being sensationalized by their being cut into "breaking news" style chunks.

I couldn't have said it better.

I couldn't have said it better. Your thoughts echo mine perfectly. Self-promotion should have no place in a tragedy like this.

The constant self-congratulation also weighed on my mind, as I am a friend of the victim's family. It became about Twitter and social networking instead of the tragedy itself. I am certain that more than a few people broke their arms patting themselves on the back - that, I could have also done without.

Overall, I am grateful for #bozexplod - and I thank you for creating it.

Serious tool? Not on a regular basis. Fantastic resource if used properly with a breaking news event? Yes. Absolutely.

Yesterday was fantastic, and I've heard of similar occurrences with Twitter before. I'll agree with you that the constant stream of barely-veiled self-promotion was irritating, but I still appreciate the efforts to spread information. And we're allowed to bask in the glow of optimism from time to time. There aren't too many opportunities to do so.

Twittering and blogging are both very new mediums. Posting on them does not make you a journalist...however, it doesn't mean that there aren't a few bloggers/tweeters who do deserve the title. There's a debate going on now (not in the feed, but in general) about what exactly defines a journalist. I can't say I believe it's just the people with press passes, but I will never say that the person that blogs about what they ate today counts either.

I'll debate that blogging is a "very new medium," and Twitter really isn't that new either. But with the decline in the journalism industry, tools like Twitter and alternatives like (so-far) flawed citizen journalism will be getting more and more attention in the months to come.

And as far as being a serious tool, Twitter already serves that role for many journalists, including myself. Not necessarily for posting information, but for finding people to talk to. As a dynamic Rolodex or instant poll, Twitter can't be beat.

But it is just one tool in the Web 2.0 arsenal, and it goes right next to the AP Stylebook, telephone, e-mail and physical "going places" in a reporter's toolbox.

I agree with you on another front too. Not everyone who blogs is a journalist. And not all journalists blog. But a lot of the debate you mention, between the pros and ams, is about authority and experience. Does an enthusiastic amateur produce better journalism that a seasoned veteran reporter? Hard to say. Does that amateur produce different journalism? Certainly.

The question really is defining that difference, between the journalism produced by professionals and amateurs, and determining what room in our 'economy of attention' that we'll make for both of them. They aren't mutually exclusive, and they can work together. I believe that.

Fully agree. A fascinating experience, to be sure, but let's re-focus all that spontaneous energy into creative, real-world solutions for our community.

I appreciate the hard work that everyone did yesterday and the information was invaluable. That said, the constant referrals to blogs concerned me as well. I thought I was just imagining the worst...that profit would come of it in some way.