I always thought people did it for one of four reasons:
1. Give a greater community access to what they were seeing... 2. Provide a lasting record of the event... 3. Show up in searches as part of the "buzz" for an event... 4. They didn't think anyone else was paying as much attention as they were... 5. They wanted to add their own perspective/bias to the story.
Now 1. seems like a good idea, a fair thing... unless everyone can see it from wherever, in which case, it's a bit redundant. 2. is okay, too. 3. is either SEO savvy or attention-whorish, and 4. and 5. are pretty much annoying.
Egbert
· 1 year ago
This happens when money is involved.
As more and more bloggers focus on earning money, they try to produce content by writing about anything that might be of interest.
Blogs were once a medium for your personal voice, but more and more blogs are turning into traditional news sites not different from traditional media (which they cannot compete with).
Linda Sherman
· 1 year ago
Adam, you have a good point. However, I found that the live Twittering of the Friday night keynote at BlogHer was useful. There were 22 presenters, the MC announced who they were before they spoke. It was useful to learn during or after from Twitter who they were, if I was loving them and wanted to make a note of who they were/find their blog/twitter address while they spoke. I can listen and do that at the same time. Frankly what I can't do is "live blog" and listen, so I don't.
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
and BlogHer sounds like a much more suitable event to be liveblogging ... but the Zuck keynote is like the Super Bowl for those that cover social networking - everyone was watching.
We were lucky enough to have one person liveblogging it (Kristen) and me writing the "news" that came out of it, because I also can't really listen and liveblog at the same time. I just took notes and then weaved them into quick stories.
Mark Drapeau
· 1 year ago
Adam - I like the post but I also agree with Meg. With regard to self-promotion, #3 is a perfectly valid reason. Everyone's out for themselves, at least a little bit.
Now, #5 - I think that's perfectly reasonable; one problem I have with tv news and such is that they often have the same perspective - same helicopter view, same kinds of experts, identical looking female anchors at 11:23am on MCNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc. Live blogging certainly will offer unique and diverse opinions across the spectrum. (But how to take it all in and analyze it??)
In the mainstream media, reporters or anchors often tout that "we brought it to you first," breaking news 3 minutes for another network. I wonder if for live blogging, there is/will be a 'reward' to those who break news 3 _seconds_ before someone else??
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
that's another thing, I don't really think there is any reward (at least in terms of how we measure things ... traffic and engagement mostly) in liveblogging breaking news first. The victor is usually the first one to break the news as an actual story with a good and proper headline.
Andrew Chen
· 1 year ago
I think people want the satisfaction of saying they heard it first, and to make sure others know that they were the ones that heard it first.
Isn't this just the long tail of paparazzis? Or the web community's analog to following around Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt?
addebook
· 1 year ago
no reason. just a show~
Kii
· 1 year ago
We like to have so many different versions to get the whole info.
Meg
· 1 year ago
Totally agree, Adam... the first story isn't always the complete story. Sometimes it's completely hollow and off-base, even if it "broke" the fastest.
And Mark, I also agree that a number of perspectives is what makes the whole social media dissemination of information interesting... but I'd almost rather get a perspective that was a consideration after the fact, rather than a reaction in the moment that could change ten seconds later with the next paragraph on the speaker's notes.
Watching Twitter go bananas during the Lacy-Zuckerberg thing was a good example for me of why it's fascinating to watch, but not always really helpful to anyone. It was a ton of noise with no signal emerging for days.
Ian Evans
· 1 year ago
We've liveblogged the Oscars for about ten years, heck, even before it was called liveblogging.
It might seem crazy considering how many viewers there are, but each year we still get email from readers in countries that don't see the broadcast until the next morning. Or a film buff caught at a shift job where they don't have TV but they do have a computer.
I agree the process can be crazy at times, but not everyone is connected 24/7 and it can be valuable.
Pollarizer
· 1 year ago
This happens when money is involved.
As more and more bloggers focus on earning money, they try to produce content by writing about anything that might be of interest.
Blogs were once a medium for your personal voice, but more and more blogs are turning into traditional news sites not different from traditional media (which they cannot compete with).
a. wilson
· 1 year ago
Has it yet occurred to you that bloggers are suffering under a deep compulsion generated fromt their social selves to always be on, always witty, always the first, always quick on the draw and clever, and that this compulsion is destroying them by turning them into social drones?
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
that has occurred to me, many times, haha ;-)
Ling
· 1 year ago
Fact is that anyone with a keyboard can be a good journalist, with everything being streamed live on the net. I watched a congressional hearing and wrote about it, and before I know it, I'm being quoted by the Financial Times as someone who was there live. Being fast on the draw has its advantages. :)
miss modular
· 1 year ago
Mark, I agree. It's the #5 on Meg's list I value most. If I am following a feed on something we all have access to monitor (watch live, etc), then I want some value-added: analysis or context I can't see, or to engage in thoughtful discussion. And sometimes blurt a passionate response, which creates discussion and builds your online personality. I want analysis/perspectives. I feel the medium is perfect for what's in my head now, let's bounce it off the wall. It's what we use to *get to* that well formed opinion after the fact, rather than having to wait until we have well formed thesis.
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
one thing we've done with some of our live blogs is have a chat room side-by-side with it ... that definitely adds some value I think
Robert Andrews
· 1 year ago
Hallelujah! Finally, someone has cottoned on to the fact that 99 percent of people reading the post will be doing so *after* the event (ever tried to muster a *live* audience?). Liveblogs are cluttered, confusing and inaccessible to the majority of readers who just want to know what happened.
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
glad you agree Robert :-)
Scott Germaise
· 1 year ago
"why did we all (including us) feel so compelled to “live blog†the event, given it was being broadcast live on video – quite publicly - via Facebook’s own web site? In retrospect, it seems rather ridiculous."
It may in fact be ridiculous. Here's some potential reasons...
* Not everyone can view video behind some corporate firewall, but would still be interested.
* Maybe there's something I'm interested and I want to know about it as it's unfolding. BUT, I'm busy and don't have time to watch a video. Since I - probably like most people - can read/scan a lot faster then I can wait for real time, chances are even with the lag time for a blogger to post, I'm caught up in seconds without having spent minutes.
All Comments
1. Give a greater community access to what they were seeing...
2. Provide a lasting record of the event...
3. Show up in searches as part of the "buzz" for an event...
4. They didn't think anyone else was paying as much attention as they were...
5. They wanted to add their own perspective/bias to the story.
Now 1. seems like a good idea, a fair thing... unless everyone can see it from wherever, in which case, it's a bit redundant. 2. is okay, too. 3. is either SEO savvy or attention-whorish, and 4. and 5. are pretty much annoying.
As more and more bloggers focus on earning money, they try to produce content by writing about anything that might be of interest.
Blogs were once a medium for your personal voice, but more and more blogs are turning into traditional news sites not different from traditional media (which they cannot compete with).
However, I found that the live Twittering of the Friday night keynote at BlogHer was useful. There were 22 presenters, the MC announced who they were before they spoke. It was useful to learn during or after from Twitter who they were, if I was loving them and wanted to make a note of who they were/find their blog/twitter address while they spoke.
I can listen and do that at the same time. Frankly what I can't do is "live blog" and listen, so I don't.
We were lucky enough to have one person liveblogging it (Kristen) and me writing the "news" that came out of it, because I also can't really listen and liveblog at the same time. I just took notes and then weaved them into quick stories.
Now, #5 - I think that's perfectly reasonable; one problem I have with tv news and such is that they often have the same perspective - same helicopter view, same kinds of experts, identical looking female anchors at 11:23am on MCNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc. Live blogging certainly will offer unique and diverse opinions across the spectrum. (But how to take it all in and analyze it??)
In the mainstream media, reporters or anchors often tout that "we brought it to you first," breaking news 3 minutes for another network. I wonder if for live blogging, there is/will be a 'reward' to those who break news 3 _seconds_ before someone else??
Isn't this just the long tail of paparazzis? Or the web community's analog to following around Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt?
And Mark, I also agree that a number of perspectives is what makes the whole social media dissemination of information interesting... but I'd almost rather get a perspective that was a consideration after the fact, rather than a reaction in the moment that could change ten seconds later with the next paragraph on the speaker's notes.
Watching Twitter go bananas during the Lacy-Zuckerberg thing was a good example for me of why it's fascinating to watch, but not always really helpful to anyone. It was a ton of noise with no signal emerging for days.
It might seem crazy considering how many viewers there are, but each year we still get email from readers in countries that don't see the broadcast until the next morning. Or a film buff caught at a shift job where they don't have TV but they do have a computer.
I agree the process can be crazy at times, but not everyone is connected 24/7 and it can be valuable.
As more and more bloggers focus on earning money, they try to produce content by writing about anything that might be of interest.
Blogs were once a medium for your personal voice, but more and more blogs are turning into traditional news sites not different from traditional media (which they cannot compete with).
If I am following a feed on something we all have access to monitor (watch live, etc), then I want some value-added: analysis or context I can't see, or to engage in thoughtful discussion. And sometimes blurt a passionate response, which creates discussion and builds your online personality.
I want analysis/perspectives.
I feel the medium is perfect for what's in my head now, let's bounce it off the wall. It's what we use to *get to* that well formed opinion after the fact, rather than having to wait until we have well formed thesis.
It may in fact be ridiculous. Here's some potential reasons...
* Not everyone can view video behind some corporate firewall, but would still be interested.
* Maybe there's something I'm interested and I want to know about it as it's unfolding. BUT, I'm busy and don't have time to watch a video. Since I - probably like most people - can read/scan a lot faster then I can wait for real time, chances are even with the lag time for a blogger to post, I'm caught up in seconds without having spent minutes.