For those of you who didn't follow the happenings of SXSW, you may have missed out on what happened with the Mark Zuckerberg (the 23-year old billionaire owner of Facebook) keynote interview. Basically, Sarah Lacy from BusinessWeek interviewed him and the crowd was so disappointed they started Twittering live about how horrible the interview was.
This is the magic and wonder of Twitter, and really all social media. It allows for instant connection among the masses by filling the antiquated one-way media channel with noise. This is a good thing.
But not according to ZDNet O'Hear reporter who says:
"I think another factor in the keynote’s downfall was the use of Twitter as a so-called ‘back channel’. With keynote attendees able to share live commentary instantly, a negative response can spread like wildfire in a profound way that is very different to what’s possible without such connectivity."
Why, Mr. O'Hear, is this a downfall? Shall we revert to our naive trust in the mainstream media for all that is fair and good and not question? I think not. If anything Twitter added to the coverage by pointing out the interviews downfalls.
And btw, I would have posted this comment on ZDNet as well but their registration process is invasive--in addition to my name and email address, which I have no problem providing, it required that I provide my company's name and street address. Get with it ZDNet.