be here now

There's been an interesting discussion taking place in the lead-up to Podcasters Across Borders, sparked by Jay Moonah on a recent episode of his podcast, Media Driving, and continued on the latest edition of the Canadian Podcast Buffet.

The discussion turns around the pros and cons of the "backchannel", or of having people connected virtually as well as being in the conference room.  There are, as Jay, Bob, and Mark discussed, many different aspects to the issue.

I know that my own views on this are highly coloured by the fact that I'm not really a techie -- I don't wander around with a laptop, I don't own a lot of the tech toys that others have that serve to keep them connected to the wired world.

What I *do* have? 

Okay, I do own a laptop, an aging and limping iBook that will not be coming to PAB, mostly because it no longer seems to hold a charge, and occasionally doesn't even want to start up, even when permanently plugged into the wall.

I have a cell phone.  It is a horrible cell phone.  But it's for emergencies, and that's pretty much all I use it for.

I actually own two iPod Nanos -- one was a birthday gift, and it's what I use for podcast/music listening.  The other is connected to a voice memo thingee that allows me to record, and so far, I've been using it to record sounds and to mumble into when I go up to the farm to work on our garden plot.

But when I go to PAB in a couple of weeks time, I won't be taking anything but myself and a notebook into the conference room, because more and more in life, I've decided that works best for me is to be in the moment.  To try to take things in, to be involved in one thing at a time, to connect with the people in the room.  I travelled all the way there, why would I plug myself into the internet to take myself out of that room?

As I've said, I'm biased.  I do believe that what I have are interesting and sometimes useful tools.  But when I have to be connected to those tools at every hour of the day, they are no longer tools, they are enslavement devices.  It's not where I want to be in my life.

You may feel differently -- you may argue that we expand the conversation beyond the conference room walls -- and you won't be wrong.  But it's not the choice I can make for myself.  If I'm not in that room, taking things in right in the moment, then, for me, I might as well have saved myself the drive to Kingston and stayed home.

Comments

[Todd Tyrtle]

Maybe I'm old school but I think that attending someone's presentation is a 2 way street. The presenter is offering a bit of information/insight, and it is implied that the audience will offer their attention in return. I find the phrase "backchannel" to be a somehow socially acceptable way of saying "passing notes in class", adds little, and shows a marked lack of respect for those presenting. If you really haven't the memory to remember what you want to talk about with your friends at the lunchtable after I have a couple of suggestions. Take notes and refer to them afterwards. Alternately, if you can't wait to talk to your friends, find another room to do it in.

But that's just me - maybe it should be up to the presenters themselves on an individual basis? If one feels comfortable, the router is plugged in, if not, the router's off. Alternately maybe someone needs to bring one off these: http://wwmgd.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-build-wifi-bluetooth-jammer.html ;-)

Sorry, call me a crotchety old man but while there were few things I would change about last year's gathering, that is one of them. I found it distracting, disrespectful, and tremendously immature.

[John Meadows]

Here, here!! (Both to K's original post, and Todd's comment).

I wish more people could look up from their macbooks and prove they have an attention span that can last more than 5 minutes and/or 140 characters!!

[k]

Hey, maybe we should make teeshirts. They can read "PAB 2008 -- Podcasters Against Backchannel".

:-)

Todd raises the most excellent point that I forgot -- that this is also about mutual respect. And really, there's a perfect way to review what was said if, like me, you have a terrible memory -- all the audio will be put on line for you to review eventually.

[Mark]

Despite the fact that I live a very Internet-connected life, or perhaps because of it, I will not be participating in the backchannel. I'm more interested in being engaged with people who also made the trip to be engaged with other people.

[k]

So does that mean you'll be wearing a tee shirt? :-)

Kidding aside, I always think it's fair to let people know that I'm a decidedly non-techie type, because that can certainly bias my perspective on things. It *could* be argued that I don't see the backchannel as the valuable tool ::cough, cough:: it's seen to be because I'm *not* wired.

[Todd Tyrtle]

Sorry, I don't really understand the valuable tool argument any more than I would see the same argument as valid with notes passed in class when we were kids.

Still, I'm very conflicted on the 'to regulate or not to regulate'. Must by my anarchist tendencies showing through. And in fact, I'm seeing more than one person saying that they're planning on *not* participating.

And so, I wonder, what would've happened in school under the following conditions:

1) Kids weren't coerced into going but were actually there because they wanted to know what was being presented (and maybe paid money)

2) Interested kids sat up front and let the kids in the back pass notes all they want, only piping up when the teacher or other students got too distracted.

I think Dave Brodbeck had some great things to say about divided attention in Bob's post last year and it's clear to me that if you want to get something for your money at PAB, then the place to be is in the front with your (paper) notebook open.

Think you can pay attention to someone while sending? Answer honestly, how many of you have been typing a message while your spouse was trying to tell you something? And how well did you comprehend what was being said? I thought so.

[k]

"Valuable tool" was used in slight irony here, but I take your point(s).

I think it's the whole regulating thing that bothers me, too. We *should* know the appropriate behaviour in such situations, and sometimes it troubles me that we seem to have a lot of people who *haven't* been taught that. That would take care of the whole problem of external regulation.

The other side of it is the whole feeling that we can multi-task. It's just not possible. Something suffers along the way. Shoot, I can't even listen to music and read messages, I can't concentrate on both at the same time.

I do think, though, that the more people who say they're not interested in participating in the backchannel, and who are vocal about that non-participation, might be just as influential as regulating it.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[John Meadows]

I hereby pledge not to backchannel @PAB 2008 either. Maybe the T-Shirt could say, "I'm here for the front channel" :-)

[k]

Yes, I think the concensus seems to be that it's best to think positively and to lead by example.

This is obviously an issue that gets people thinking though -- I think this is the most comments I've ever had on a post!

[k]

Or "PAB: Be Up Front!"

[Todd Tyrtle]

"It's what's up front that counts!" OK, maybe nobody will recognize that slogan (and I only know it from an old George Carlin routine, not the original cigarette commercial).

Here's a philosophical question: Are we (on a grander scale) using email, twitter, television, podcasts, radio, and so forth as life's "backchannel"? I'm curious enough to want to check it out. I think when I'm back in Toronto again I'll be unplugging for a bit to see what happens (except for work-related email and perhaps a weekly personal email check). Not sure how far I'll take it - maybe give up the cell phone too (again except for work)

Oh no! It's a whole movement - a branch off from the slow movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_movement)

[Rob (latterly The Other)]

Todd, I *do* remember the cigarette commercial you refer to, as well as the George Carlin routine -- from when that was new, not old. Sigh.

The thing about technology and connectivity is learning to give it the appropriate emphasis in your life, for your particular circumstances (which may vary, daily, weekly, even hourly...) and not let the technology dictate your use of it -- as the lottery commercials say "Know your limit - play within it" ;-)

[zydeco fish]

I have to agree. Whenever I am in a presentation/lecture, etc where I have a web connection, I get easily distracted. Many instructors are really irritated with wireless in classrooms for these reasons. I have even heard of some students challenging something the prof said after taking ten seconds to look it up in class. I think that must be a bad trend.

[Todd Tyrtle]

Wow! I hadn't even thought of that - second guessing the prof! That's got to be irritating.

This was cool - we all got to vent a bit, nothing changed, and yet it seems we all feel better on the other side. It's like group therapy ;-)

[k]

I wouldn't say nothing changed -- I do think there's a subtle shift happening. Now not only are people *planning* to avoid the back channel, they're looking at it in a postive way ("It's what's up front that counts".) And they're seeing it as a viable alternative.

No, it's not a huge change, but it really does feel like a slight positive shift in perspective.

So, we've had the group therapy -- now all we need is the group hug. And we know that'll happen at PAB...

:-)

[k]

Challenging the prof using that exquisitely reliable source, wikipedia?

:-)

[zydeco fish]

Yes, probably Wikipedia, but you never know.

[Keith Burtis]

My good friend Len Edgerly was in a session at Podcamp Boston last year and the session was poorly attended at first. Len proceeded to tweet the gist of the session as it had started along with an alert that people should come. The room filled up fast. Acceptable?

Keith Burtis

[k]

Hey, Keith!

I *do* think there are moments when the tools/the backchannel can be useful, and you've just highlighted one.

I think, from what I'm reading here in the comments (and in the comments to Jay's blog and at the CPB blog) that the problems arise when folks use the backchannel in ways that actually take them out of the experience in the room, that separate them from what's going on.

Dave Brodbeck talks about problems of attention -- and for myself, I can't do two things at once. One always suffers, and I'd rather not miss out because I'm trying to multi-task.

I think, sometimes, that what you get out of an experience depends on what you put into it, too. For me, I'd rather put all my attention on the presenter, make a few notes, and catch up on anything later.

[Todd Tyrtle]

I'm waffling as to whether I see any value at all to a backchannel or not. The Boston story is good but at the same time I think I'd prefer an audience of 5 engaged folks than 45 people, 10 of which were only giving me half attention.

As an aside, I think multitasking doesn't really exist, actually - it just is a matter of shifting attention from one thing to another. This is why we ban things like talking on the cell phone while driving, for example.

In fact, on that note, I would say that backchannel is a misnomer. It doesn't exist. You have channel A and channel B. Like with the TV, you can channel surf or you can watch one or the other. Both channels may have value but the value of each is diluted by spreading one's attention out.