As is often the case at these events, there was a consensus that the most useful part of the WeMedia conference was the discussion outside the conference hall.
NowPublic co-founder Michael Tippett told Mark Glaser on PBS MediaShift that an "unconference" format would give more people the opportunity to speak:
"Someone should do a conference that's just eight hours of people networking in a hallway, instead of trying to fit in chaotic schmoozing between bites of salami."
WeMedia's organisers would, I'm sure, state that there was plenty of opportunity to contribute ideas and observations on the months leading up to the event, and a mobile mic and back channel available throughout. But I also found the meet-ups more useful than the us and them debates. Maybe I've been to too many conferences, but it doesn't feel like the conversation has really moved on.
Changing the vocabulary of media, but not the grammar
There was a sense that big media still wants to control the conversation, which isn't surprising given that WeMedia is a $1000-a-ticket event sponsored by major news brands. In the last session Time Inc's executive editor Sheryl Tucker bore the brunt of the criticism.
PressThink blogger Jay Rosen told Glaser that the message hadn't got through.
"They are trying to change the vocabulary without changing the grammar," he said. "They use the new vocabulary [of new media] but they are not changing their mindset, and accepting a loss of control."
That's a really good point, because in corporate media terms, Tucker made all the right new media noises. I think they all go to the same conferences.
Actually, there are plenty of old school journalists that reject participatory media outright and think all these developments are seriously wrong and I've met some of them. But let's move forward.
Big media has to talk a good game
Speaker and Global Conversations blogger Shel Israel posted this intriguing snippet after his talk. Bets on who this was? I have a pretty good idea.
"A representative of one of the most powerful media companies in the world told me, "every year, for three years, we gather together and talk such a good game about the changes we have to make. Then we go home and do almost nothing until the next WeMedia, when we gather together to talk a good game... ."
Sharing the news
Jim Kennedy, VP and director of strategy at AP, also told me that in five years' time, we will realise that we haven't talked about the right things.
"The debate is over us vs them, and that's unfortunate. The focus has been on things like how we can give them headlines in a way we can sell, but it's not about that. It's about getting information into these social networks in a way that feels comfortable to people, that doesn't intimidate them, and that allows them to share it."
Kennedy said that what we are seeing is the transformation of the news conversation to a giant social network, and that, I think, was the one unified theme (and perhaps an objective) from this event.
Is the conversation really progressing?
Full coverage of WeMedia from OrganGrinder on Thursday and Friday, and more roundups of round-ups on Technorati. But before he left JD Lasica, social media blogger and Darknet author, gave me his observations on WeMedia.
"In one sense things are moving really fast - two years ago no one knew people wanted to do video or podcasts or screencasting or digital storytelling. Everything was either in its infacy or not yet born.
"Now we know the foundations on which big media was built are trembling and there are different reactions to that. Some are barricading the doors, watching what others are doing, and some are more embracing. The fact is we don't even know what to call citizen media - there are about 20 names for it."
The last panel was interesting because it showed there is still some defensiveness on the part of big media. Lasica has asked Tucker why Time Magazine's person of the year had been "you" and not "we". He said it undermines their claim that they are citizens too because it implies a separation.
"The public at large still sees the media as something apart from themselves. That's probably the reason why the numbers are so devastating for anyone in media organisations - and not just their circulation numbers but their trust quotient too."
Citizens, not consumers
"They need to do more than just hire a couple of bloggers. They have to look at what fundamentally underpins their business and their craft, and almost start again from scratch."
Lasica said that the principles of fact checking and accuracy will remain central, but perhaps embracing advocacy would help demonstrate that the media is on the same side as the public. Readers are coequals, he said, not the recipient of a product. These changes are not about new business models and introducing "clumsy" features like MySpace-style pages.
"I find it appalling that when there's a major event or happening in San Francisco, I don't go to my local news site SFGate.com, but to upcoming.org or to bloggers.
"My local newspaper should be the first place I go to if they represent the community and the town square.
"Major media rely on mass rather than the niche, which is what new media is all about.
"The fact is that they are still in the mindset of guardians of the public trust and vetters of information, and do not trust the public to monitor or police itself. We have to examine that."
Planning the WeMedia coup?
As for WeMedia, Lasica said it was another example of an event that had the new breed "huddling in the corridors trying to figure out how to overthrow the old guard".
"It's a missed opportunity, because there is so much happening at the local level and not much happening at corporate level. We see citizen media sites pop up all over the place, and that advances every year as technology gets easier to use and is put in the hands of more people."
Still to come: More from Craig Newmark, and an interview with Reuters president Chris Ahearn.
