« We Have Experts, but Do They Share? | Main | Welcome »
May 18, 2005
Mixed Ruminations on the debate regarding NCMR '05
I'm not sure I agree with Paul's post, but I'm not sure I disagree with it either.
On the one hand, Paul and BHT do have a point that the conference, at least to me and with those with whom I spoke about the conference, seemed to have an inordinate amount of preaching from on high and vague generalities that frankly don't seem all that helpful. I imagine that for the overwhelming majority of people attending the conference, they already know that the media sucks and that we don't need to hear it, or hear it over and over. What we need to do is to discuss strategies and tactics on what we have to do to improve things. And to have a structure that helps facilitate that.
On the other hand, other conferences which are far more radical and participatory in their orientation -- like the Chicago Social Forum and the Allied Media Conference, operate along the same lines. You have one or more people serve as hosts of "received wisdom" who pontificate to attendees, and whose participation solely consists of questions. Speech, then Q & A. I suspect even the Z Media Institute which I'll attend next month will be similar to this, though I'll reserve judgment on this count until the conference ends.
Then again, it's not to say that is necessarily bad. On occasion, you want someone with more experience or knowledge of the topic to speechify to people who don't have that knowledge and who are willing to listen and learn. But then again there are times when those in the room who have serious levels of knowledge about a topic don't get to share what they know, and everyone else in the session loses out as a result. Heck, I received three compliments over the course of the weekend for questions I asked during sessions I attended.
I'm wondering also if it's a matter of size. In some of the sessions, you have upwards of a thousand people attending a plenary session. This doesn't lend to very much outside of lengthy speeches, and no way for everyone involved to be able to participate in Q & A.
What I'd also like to know is: What was the criteria by which Free Press chose the people to speak on a given topic. Now, there are instances in which the decision is easy (e.g., George Lakoff on framing). But there are others in which the choice is a shot-in-the-dark at best, someone badly discredited (e.g., the Chicago Media Watch fiasco) at worst.
I have an idea. The workshops on Sunday were probably the most useful part of the conference; the conference should have more of those throughout the conference. Plus, for sessions themed to a given topic (e.g., copyright reform, radio) the structure should be far more loose. Instead of speechifying and Q & A, conference organizers might want to have a modified caucus, where people can openly and freely discuss with others on the same topic, instead of the sermonizing model commonly used.
Posted by Mitchell at May 18, 2005 05:10 PM