1.Shel, I agree the main point of contention here is the inaccuracies, but as such I'm still trying to figure something out and I'm sure you'll be able to clarify! Is the distinction between blogging and reporting really that clean cut?

If someone is blogging a conference that's ultimately for the benefit of others who couldn't afford to go, or couldn't make it for whatever reason, isn't that essentially reporting? Why isn't the blogger duty bound to get things right?

If a guy is blogging a conference with a defined audience back at the office reading it, isn't that essentially reporting as well?

And even if it's not reporting, but simply the beginning of a conversation, what good is that conversation if it's simply discussing inaccuracies? Doesn't that junk the value of the conversation?

This brings back memories of the Apple iPod tradename fiasco, when bloggers were so quick to criticise Apple for trying to own the word "pod" when that's not what they were doing at all. You yourself criticised the blogosphere for acting so fast and getting it wrong and this to me is a rather big problem. People are so keen to get stuff up there that too many errors are made and a large part of this supposedly fantastic conversation is actually shown to be irrelevant, inaccurate rubbish.

Ok, so in the ensuing conversation, people point out those errors and inaccuracies and things get self-corrected, but isn't that a complete waste of time when, with a bit of pause and consideration, they could have been avoided in the first place?

Shouldn't bloggers, particularly the very popular bloggers, take a bit of responsibility and progress the medium, rather than just say, ?hey, it's ok, we can talk absolute b/s and get things really wrong and shout about it because as bloggers, we're allowed to"?

Ultimately, if Shel Israel has shown that he can't blog [or report] the facts - not saying his own opinions aren't valid but his facts are, reportedly, inaccurate - what value does this put on his own blog, or his subsequent book that he's writing if the book is based on inaccuracies? Professional reporters are duty-bound to check things, otherwise the story/article is wrong, worthless, a waste of ink or pixels. Where's the line for bloggers?

Saying all that, maybe this has got out of way out of proportion and Shel Israel had an off day. I mean, normally his writing is gold. And maybe the blogosphere being full of rubbish, inaccurate ramblings is simply reflective or real life.

As said, I?m confident you?ll be able to clarify this, Shel. ?

2.I appreciate your thoughts, Alex!

There are a lot of differences between reporting and blogging, but those differences are even greater when you're talking about live blogging. Go read Chip Griffin's live blogging of my sessons. It's not reporting. It's note-taking. Of course, someone like my friend Shel Israel will inject his own commentary into the note-taking, but reporting really is, as Steve suggests, taking notes and then doing some additional reserach, applying context, and telling the audience what happened as well as why it's important. Live blogging is just transcribing what's being said, with some very judgemental filtering thrown into the process.

All that aside, I think you'll find the proposition of convincing 60 million bloggers to adhere to some kind of standard a very difficult one to advance!

3.Thanks for the compliment, Shel. There are 3 reasons I live blog events, in the order I'll share them. It helps me take better notes and as an extension better retain the content I hear. I find at conferences my mind will often wander if I am not actively taking notes (my mind is often going in multiple directions, for better or worse). Second, it serves as a resource for my colleagues back at the office who weren't able to attend, just as it is for Joe Thornley. And finally, I do it for others who couldn't attend, and if my traffic logs are any indication, this is a popular use.

I don't see how doing a write-up after the fact would be more accurate than doing notes and such live. If you wait until you get back to your hotel room, you will necessarily forget things and remember things incorrectly.

4.Live blogging is the best thing that could ever happen to Ragan. It gets the excitement and expertise of its speakers out into the blogosphere where it can be amplified further to a PR audience.

The end result? More folks spend some time looking at the next Ragan's mailer that comes across their desk.

If Steve commented on Shel's post, I'm sure Shel could update. Retractions are simple to make online and most folks do so gladly.

And if I ever plan a similar conference, I'll let Joe Thornley in for free. His live blogging is amazing. Josh Hallet would also get waived in for gratis as long as he brought his camera.

In fact, I would have someone on staff aggregating the live blogger feeds into one master feed I could then distribute during the conference. Now I just need to wrestle the Pete Blackshaw's and P&G's of the world in town into actually wanting to hold this kind of conference (HINT).

What's to make people actually want to go to the conference then, you ask? No live blogger, no image stream or monster RSS feed combining the two can replace being there. It's the conversations in the halls that are usually the biggest value add.

5.Here's the question I think we should ask ourselves before "live blogging."

Is the information I am receiving timely enough to justify an inevitably sloppy attempt to convey the information an instant after I receive it and an hour before I can digest it?

6.Okay, I hear you, Shel, but I still fall in with Alex and Steve on this one. I won't reiterate all the points Alex made but add one additional related thought.

There is a lot of hubbub made by bloggers about having access to news conferences and such -- to be recognized as journalists, or "citizen journalists" if that's more accurate. To my mind, you can't have it both ways, crying to be recognized as a journalist and then arguing that you don't have to be held to responsible journalistic standards because your really a blogger.

To Chip's comment:
"I don?t see how doing a write-up after the fact would be more accurate than doing notes and such live. If you wait until you get back to your hotel room, you will necessarily forget things and remember things incorrectly."

Why not take the notes just as you did, go back to the hotel room to ruminate, clean up and fact check some, before posting. What's lost? In fact, to Alex's point, so much more is gained in the credibility and value of the post.

7.Michael- Your suggestion to take notes and then revise them later would make sense if I were looking to write a well-formatted story. But honestly, I'm simply looking to share my notes, for whatever they are worth (and it may well be nothing in some cases).

As to fact-checking, unless I were to record the entire presentation and go back to pull quotes and verify accuracy (which would be incredibly time-consuming), the errors in "transcription" would still be there.

Finally, I don't pretend to be a journalist. But even if I did, it shouldn't preclude me from using alternative filing formats, including notes, if that's how I wanted to use the new medium.

The waiting period you suggest for "ruminating" may well cause some bloggers to "cool off" and change their opinion -- or at least tone it down a bit -- but then again many bloggers prize their writing for its honesty, even if it may be heated in the moment.

Finally to Kevin- I agree with your sentiment entirely. I've been reading Joe Thornley's live blogging this week and it makes me wish I was up in Canada at ICE. And Josh's photos are amazing.

8.Fair enough, Chip. And I completely understand that there are many uses for the blog as a tool, your particular use -- non-journalistic note sharing -- being one that doesn't necesarily have to hold itself up to any standard. I don't question your use of blogging. I think that's great.

I would still suggest that even a half hour's worth of review and thought would add value; with access to the internet, Googling a particular fact here or there, shouldn't be too cumbersome. Doesn't mean you have to spend hours compiling a full report; your notes from the conference back to your compatriots still comes with the same disclaimer you ascribe to your live-blogging of it. Do any of them expect and need your notes in real time? Would even a quick clean-up of raw notes and a fact check or two not add some value to the folks consuming your notes? But that's just my opinion and clearly your use doesn't need any standard to live up to -- your simply sharing notes with your colleagues.

But this discussion was generated by criticism -- fair, I think -- of Shel Israel's use which could be argued is intended to carry the weight of full reporting vs. sharing notes with workmates. He is posting for a broad audience and, as an author, clearly has a reputation that carries some weight (though I must confess I'm not all that familiar with him). I think he undermines the very value of his heated "honesty" if he is inaccurate because he didn't take an hour to digest and compose. And he undermines the claim bloggers wish to make for recognition as journalists.

So, fine, we'll allow live-blogging is here to stay, but then don't expect live-blogging to be given the respect reserved for journalists, and access granted to live-bloggers (and by extension, bloggers in general) to news conferences and the like.

Sorry, I still cry foul here. There seems to be an inherent hypocrisy.

9.I hear what you're saying, Michael. And you make good points. I guess I'm not convinced that Shel Israel would have written anything different had he waited until he got back to his hotel room. If he believed that's what he heard Steve say, he would have no reason to change it. The issue, then, it seems to me is simply that Shel Israel didn't hear or understand Steve correctly and to me that amounts to what is likely an honest mistake and not something that a different process ... other than recording and transcribing ... would have changed.

10.The New Comm Forum was my first foray into live blogging a conference, and let me tell you, it is a rigorous exercise. I don't think live blogging is going away, but I did try to add my own opinion to what was being said, rather than just reporting it straight. These are blogs - unfiltered, raw, with a dose of opinion. I love Steve, but in this case he will just have to get over it.