Website: http://kschwene.myweb.usf.edu

Specialty: Magazine Writing/News Writing/Technical Writing

Rates: 50 per article

My name is Katie Schwener and I am a student at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg. I will be graduating in December 2011 with a BA in English (Technical Writing concentration) and a minor in Mass Communications (Journalism and Media Studies concentration). As I have just begun my bachelor’s coursework, my current portfolio is limited. However, the few samples I do have, which include my resume and most recent college transcript, are accessible on the website listed above. I am looking for the opportunity to begin my freelancing career and add quality pieces to my portfolio by writing articles for your publication. Please feel free to contact me with test topics relevant to your publication so that I may submit my work for review in order to first determine my fit for you before submitting my first article. All contact information can be found on my website. Thank you for your consideration.

Specialty: press releases, critiques/reviews, NYS politics, Queens

Rates: 50 per 500 word article

Experience:
Political Reporter on NYS Politics in local Albany News Paper, education and health beat.
Public Relations and Associate Editor for High School Alumni Office.
Graduated from SUNY Purchase. Major- Creative Writing. Minor- Journalism- English and Comparative Literature.
Volunteered on Assemblyman Mark Weprin’s Campaign for City Council 2009.
Interested in Grad School soon. Focus will be on travel writing, political science, TV writing, publishing, PR, broadcast journalism.

I’d like to share some thoughts on the immediacy issue today as it might apply to journalism and get some of your own feedback. The example I’m going to give stems from a recent conversation with friend and colleague Judy Gombita of PR Conversations, and specifically deals with the issue of people live-tweeting through events like conferences and whether or not that’s more valuable than a journalist doing a later story on the same event.

The Example

Here’s the backdrop as simply as I can put it. We have Person A who was speaking at a conference. We have Person B who was a conference attendee live-tweeting through it.

Person B isn’t simply live-tweeting a “play by play” to let non-attendees know what’s going on. Instead, they’re opting to tweet their opinion about various points of the presentation, and they later tout that as being somehow legitimate coverage – even perhaps moreso than more detailed after-the-fact coverage.

OK. Here’s my problem with that – if you’re busy tweeting your opinion on the last thing the speaker said, you’re not paying attention to what the speaker is saying now. First of all, I think there’s an obvious level of disrespect in that. Perhaps more importantly though, Person B is likely taking some things out of context by not listening to the full presentation, therefore spreading misinformation to his followers (which spreads like wildfire).

At the end of the presentation, Person A asked if anyone had questions or opinions to share. No shock here, but Person B didn’t bother opening their mouth to share their thoughts in front of the audience present. Why? Who knows? But I find it strange that they’d share so openly with “followers” rather than take up their issues with the speaker and attendees, where they’d more likely have to justify those thoughts.

Long after the event had passed, Person B was still talking about it – this time in relation to a blog post or article coming after the event. They were (in a general sense) touting the immediacy of Twitter as almost a sort of replacement for real journalism based on the fact that they could live-tweet, whereas the more thorough piece came long after, with editorial standards applied.

It’s led not only to a bit of debate in the PR community, but also even calls from some saying that presenters should actually be tailoring their presentations to those who would live-tweet.

Does Immediacy Lead to Reliable Reporting?

In cases such as this, where we’re talking about a conference, I would say no. If you aren’t paying attention to what the speaker has to say, you’re not in a position to be offering commentary to others about what that person is saying.

Judy generally agreed, adding “Self publishing versus vetted / edited material. Big difference. For the most part, I still prefer door number two.”

As do I. When I want “real news” I still prefer turning to journalists (whether that be in print, online, or broadcast), where I know facts had to be checked and material was likely scrutinized by an editor.

Now don’t get me wrong. I obviously have an interest in self publishing and the immediacy of things like blogging. Hell, I make a good part of my living doing just that. But it has its place, and conferences are one example where live-tweeting / live-blogging can do more harm than good.

Where might these things work? I could see a play by play of a sporting event being a better use. Or live-tweeting about local news (such as witnessing a simple car accident to posting about a natural disaster as it’s hitting). But when your attention is more tuned to amusing your followers with your anecdotes or sharing opinions with your own little echo-chamber over being able to defend them to the speaker and attendees of an event, it’s a different game entirely.

What do You Think?

What are some situations where live-tweeting or blogging are the most appropriate publishing mediums, and in what situations do you still prefer news to come from more traditional outlets, passing by the eyes of an editor? And as a writer do you think that immediacy could potentially hurt your own credibility if not handled responsibly? How?

Wow. As if we don’t have enough issues in the blogosphere already, now bloggers aren’t just allowing themselves to be “bought,” but they’ve blatantly got the “gimmies.” Yuck.

Now I know we have a good selection of folks here who are both regular blog readers and bloggers themselves, so I’d like your thoughts on this.

1. Should bloggers really feel “entitled” to the same perks as traditional media outlets?

2. Do you have any problem, as a blogger, with the idea of joining a network for the sole purpose of getting free stuff / review copies? Is there a better way to go about it?

3. As a blog reader, would seeing your favorite bloggers actively mooching in this way affect what you think of them in any way (or perhaps how you look at their future reviews)?

Here are some of my own thoughts on those issues:

1. In most cases, absolutely not. Remember, there’s a reason tradional media outlets and journalists are approached with things like review copies. In fact, there are several reasons. They offer a large audience with an interest in what the company’s offering, and they’ve generally been around long enough to build trust with that audience.

Can your blog offer that? More than likely, no. Certainly some blogs are exceptions, but those are also the bloggers companies do approach with review copies already. If you want people to respect you and your opinion on your blog, build it up. Promote it. Build an engaged community of readers. Frankly, as a blogger, that’s your “job.” When you do your job, and do it well, you’ll see the perks.

2. Personally, I find it disgusting that any blogger would publicly exercise a “give me stuff” approach to blogging. Again, there are exceptions. For example, if you write a blog exclusively or primarily focused on book reviews, naturally you’d include your address and submission details somewhere on your blog. But you shouldn’t expect to get submissions until you’ve done what I already mentioned – build the audience and build the trust.

Until you get to that point, it’s your responsibility to secure review material – and yes, that often means paying for it in the early phases. The fact that you can instantly publish something doesn’t entitle you to anything. Anyone can publish a blog these days. You’re probably not as “special” as you think. There’s definitely a better way to go about it, and that’s something I’ve already talked about here.

3. From the reader perspective I find the concept of Serendipstick even worse. If I, for a moment, got the vibe that a blogger I read was “in it for the perks” enough to be blatantly asking for access to free stuff, their credibility would be shot with me. I’d know they were reviewing what they could get for free rather than reviewing what might be beneficial to their readers (including myself). I don’t have enough time in the day to read bloggers with that kind of motivation.

That said, I have absolutely no problem with bloggers actually receiving review copies if it’s for a legitimate reason. What do I mean?

Let’ pick on Heather since it was her comment bringing light to the new site.

Heather blogs about PR and related issues. Heather blogged critically about a certain blogger relations event in the past. Now, if that company were to make changes in their next event, and invite Heather along with the open desire to have her review the event itself as it applies to larger blogger relations issues, that would be effective targeting and relevant to her audience given the past targeting snafus and conversation in her space. As a reader of her blog, I would have absolutely no problem knowing she was invited to a free-access event.

On the other hand, if Heather were to sign up for Serendipstick saying that she wants access to these kinds of events, it would be a different story entirely. Why? Because if you’re flat-out asking for it, the company giving it to you is satisfying your desire. They’re giving you what you want (and asked for), and with that comes a certain implication that you’re not going to say anything “bad” about them – at least not much.

In contrast, if you’re putting your focus on your readers and building your blog, and someone happens to approach you, you’re the attractive party with something to offer and not vice versa. By maintaining that position, you have a better chance of maintaining credibility in what you ultimately publish.

Look, there are certainly perks to blogging, especially after you’re established. But if those perks are the real reason you’re in it, do your readers a favor and just quit. Blogging entitles people to absolutely nothing. Sure, you may feel otherwise, thinking “I don’t get paid for this, so I may as well get something.” But if you really insist on getting something out of your blogging, understand you’ll work your ass off to get to that point. Asking for hand-outs in this way is just sad. If you’re not getting enough from your blogging to justify the time you’re spending, find another way to spend your time.

If you’d like to read more on the issue of whether or not bloggers should be treated as journalists, I have a post at NakedPR detailing a chat with ProBlogger Darren Rowse on the subject: Bloggers vs Journalists.