Earthling

And that gulf in understanding seems to have left at least some people feeling condescended to.

I think it was the use of words like "irresponsible," "unprofessional" and the assumption that we lacked "journalistic standards" that left some of us feeling condescended to. I hold a journalism degree and have worked for an MSM newspaper. Grayson had 10 years experience behind a camera for ABC News.

Frankly, they came off as major league a-holes.

I felt just as much condescension from some of the participants as from the panelists. The podcast is far more condescending and patronizing than anything that came up during the panel.

Tracy,
I guess you managed to avoid being called "irresponsible" and "unprofessional" by someone who has never read/listened to your work.

It's a fair criticism that our podcast doesn't do anything to elevate the conversation. It probably doesn't. It was motivated by catharsis, not by a desire to engage in further dialogue at that time.

But I'm curious what you heard last night during the session that you felt was equally as condescending as what I've pointed out from the panelists. Examples?

In addition to Riley looking me in the eye and telling me I'm "unprofessional," I felt extremely condescended to when he had the nerve to start off a sentence with, "What you're doing is..." - even though he clearly has no idea what I'm doing. He's never read my blog. He's never listened to Rusty's and my podcast. Where the &^*$ does he get off telling ME what I'M doing? (By the way, what I'm doing is, apparently, "artistic." *guffaw*!)

I made a statement that I still believe to be quite reasonable -- that Americans as a whole do not think critically. I know that I had no critical thinking skills whatsoever until attending a very good liberal-arts university. I frequently see examples of people who do not analyze any of the information that they see. They simply accept what is in front of them or draw faulty conclusions based on poor information. And I have numerous friends and colleagues who work in public libraries, teach in public schools and universities, and otherwise work with "the general public" every day, and the consensus from all of these peers is clear. A tremendous number of people either do not know how to think critically or do not take the time to do it.

I did not mean this an insult or as some kind of indication of personal fault. The failure to think critically is a mistake I've made myself at least twice in very recent memory, when I've read something from a source I trusted and believed it, then learned later that it was completely erroneous. After learning that the information was false, I realized that I ought to have picked up on its inaccuracies on my own, but didn't, either because I was rushed or because I placed innate trust in my source rather than thinking for myself.

It's also a fair statement, I think, to say that a lot of people don't evaluate the quality of their sources. Plenty of people believe what they read in e-mail forwards. Plenty of people believe what they read on Wikipedia, without verifying the information through a second source.

My question was meant to spark a discussion of these two factors and the roles they play in both "new" and "old" media. Who is responsible for teaching critical thinking skills? How should that happen? And when? What would it take to develop a culture in which critical thinking is highly valued and widely practiced?

Instead, I got the most unkind, upsetting response I have ever received in any kind of public discussion. In spite of not knowing my name, my background, my history, or my education, Amber completely dismissed my question and insulted me personally in a tone that was belligerent and belittling. The same insults are now on the Web in podcast form.

So, no, no one called my work immature or unprofessional. But the last time someone did, which was at a seminar on writing that my employer at the time had paid for, I reacted with civility and had a reasonable discussion rather than humiliating another person in front of a room full her peers.

The whole experience really just sucked. If I was Mel Gibson doo-doo faced, I'd say even more bad words about it. But I'd rather get back to ... blogging.

Perhaps, just perhaps an analogy might help in this situation.

Think of traditional media (no one or no thing like to be called old) as parental units and new media as offspring (no one or no thing like to be called a child.) To teach your parents requires a certain amount of respect, subtleness, and them coming to a conclusion themselves. It also comes from a certain amount of proven expertise and maturity by the offspring.

Atlanta new media folks seem to be behaving adolescently and traditional media as their parents. When everybody grows up a bit things will be fine.

Behaving adolescently. Okay. Because that's not at all condescending.

*stares in disbelief*

Adoleslescent is defined as developing childhood to maturity. And that is what social media is doing as an entity, not you as a person.

I was not meaning to be condenscending in any manner what so ever. I was and am using an analogy to point out observed behavior.

Traditional media is scared because it is finding that children (and I am not inferring that anyone personally is childish) can think and act on thier own. When children stop rebelling and start engaging with thier parents as adults of equal status wonderful things happen.

For the record and to take the analogy further, I think that the AJC is literally written for children (my first grader reads it) and that is what the education level they are used to dealing with. And the only folks that are watching WSB local content are in a nursing home. There are other news organizations in town that seem to take a more progressive view toward social media.

I was put off as well by their lack of understanding of the implications of new media upon their own professions. I've run into this so many times where traditional media avoids embracing new technology and hence will suffer in the long run, as they are now. Yet, STILL they refuse to see how new media/social media is changing their own landscape. They really need to wake up to the fact that bloggers, etc. ARE the new breed of journalists.

If the AJC is for first graders, then local broadcasting (I'm loath to call it "news") is for Mother's Morning out level.

Tracy's original question, which doesn't seem to ever have been answered, was that in a social environment where reputed media outlets, traditional or new, REGULARLY REPORT FALSEHOODS, is it responsible to allow everyone a voice? The answer to that question may be "yes," but the question itself is certainly not "Bulls*@T" as some have stated. Perhaps free press and access is important, and every voice should have an outlet; however, *i* personally feel that far too many people are unable to distinguish fact from editorial. What is a media source's responsibility to its audience to provide accurate, validated, verified information? Or is the responsibilty solely on the shoulders of the listener?

I believe there needs to be working definitions for the terms being used. Does a "journalist" report facts without bias? If so, is a "blogger" a journalist then? Or does training and formal education in the area of "journalism" constitute who can be called a journalist? It seems from my perspective that many of you are approaching these terms without first agreeing on the definitions.

All fair questions, Mandy. This is the kind of thing it would be worthwhile to have an interactive discussion about. (And in fact it's a common theme at events such as SoCon and PodCamp.)

I feel it does bear repeating what I said at the SMC event... every time I have been quoted in MSM, the media outlet in question has gotten something wrong. And unlike in the new media space, there is no way for me to interact and provide correction or clarification. As far as they're concerned, once a story is written, it's a done deal, never to be revisited.

Amber, I have not found your statement that "as far as they're concerned, once a story is written, it's a done deal, never to be revisited" to be true. Mainstream media outlets print corrections and amendments to stories in their print versions and online. Use "correction" as a search term at the New York Times and the Washington Post online and see what you find.

There's an easy way to interact with a mainstream media outlet if they get something wrong. Contact the writer or publisher, and ask for a correction. Refusal to correct factual inaccuracies is an indication of the quality of the specific publication in question, not of mainstream media as a whole.

Also, I would like to clarify that my dissatisfaction w/ what happened Wednesday night is in no way a reflection on Social Media Club or the organizers of the event. This is the first SMC club I've been to and I understand that most others are more discussion-based. Please understand that my comments are not intended to imply that I think otherwise about SMC as a whole. I think SMC is providing an immensely valuable service for the new media community and larger community alike. The organizers of the Atlanta chapter are nothing but awesome so please don't confuse my disdain as being to do w/ them.

There's been some additional conversation via email and clearly there's a lot to discuss here once you roll up sleeves and get into the details. I'd like to get as many of the participants and commenters as are interested together for a 'part 2' in person as the next SMC gathering. I'll take the lead on proposing a possible date or two next week via email. If you haven't commented here and are new to SMC but would like to be on that distribution, feel free to send me an email or add a simple comment. Feel free to continue the discussion via comments as well if you like; just wanted to think about setting up another face-to-face while it's fresh in everyone's minds and before the weekend.

Sure Dave. Last one was so tasty, I gotta go back for more! We should hold this one in Neal Boortz's studio though... while he's on the air. During commerical breaks, he can lash us with bull whips. "Ow! Ouch! Yikes! Oh please sir, may I have another. Yow!"

I'm a tough old bird. Count me in.

Email announcement to come shortly -- we're looking at June 27 at EarthLink HQ. That sound ok? Any later and we start to get into July 4th issues.