Turning off the Backchannel

Table of Contents:

• Part 1:  I'm headed to Silicon Valley for context.
• Part 2:  I'll mention a famous blogger unexpectedly kicking the habit.
• Part 3:  I'll to a larger point about backchanneling at conferences.  This will lead to how the choices we make really do define us, regardless of what the tools may allow us to do. 

Note:  Pt. 3 is the key part if you skip the rest.

• Part 4:  Finally, I'll go off on a personal tangent leaning towards action.

Part 1:  Silicon Valley

Some of you who peruse the Silicon Valley blog chatter may have noticed that Jason Calacanis has officially retired from blogging for personal/family reasons. 

If you know Jason, that's intriguing, impressive, or perhaps -- to some -- just an example of showmanship.  If you don't know of Jason, it may help to know that Jason co-founded Weblogs (one of the true giants in the new era of digital self-publishing world), has been on the cover of Forbes because of his social media leadership/instincts, etc..

Part 2: The Epiphany

In other words, this is a guy built on blogging...

...and yet he's quitting.

Mmm.

While the center of his current career is based at Mahalo, a human-powered search engine hoping to take a small bite out of Google's info-search business model, it is the new e-newsletter he's sending out that has most caught my attention.  Most importantly, the one that just arrived with the seemingly saccharine title, "How To Host An Amazing Conference" (subscription required).

Most of what Jason talks about is pretty solid strategic thinking from the vantage point of organizing the event for maximum impact/value. 

Part 3:  "Turn off the Backchannel"

One point -- no. 13, to be specific -- seems to transcend the conference planning landscape, suggesting something that I am becoming more and more aware of with each day I see new Tweets, UStream vids, Skype chats, etc roaming the halls of conferences. 

Jason writes:

Turn off the backchannel: its so distracting for everyone and typically devolves into making fun of the person's appearance. For those of you who don't know about the backchannel at a conference, it's typically an IRC chat room where folks hang out and respond to the speakers. It can be fun and informative when it's good: folks post links, challenge statements with data they find on the web, and riff on what they are hearing. However, chat rooms quickly become inhuman, and I've seen folks make fun of people's accents, their weight, and other such things.

When the backchannel first started, folks would put it on the projector--now most folks understand that's a bad idea because typically the speaker is the only person who doesn't see the comments. So, folks laugh at something, it throws the speaker off and they turn around and say, "What's everyone laughing at?" It was a neat idea at first, but most of the time it's a distraction. I suggest skipping it, or just don't endorse it.

Mmm:

• distracting - check
• devolves into making fun - check
• quickly become inhuman - check
• throws the speaker off - check

Can't help but think that this isn't just a conference thing (even though this is the exact time last year that I experienced the backchannel in all its edu-conference glory at Alan November's BLC, loving almost every minute of it).  That being said, time offers new insight that go beyond the echo chamber of niche conference backchannels.  Perhaps it isn't about the conference after all.  Perhaps it's more about the larger choices we make, and what they say about us.

Backchanneling may be:

1. possible
2. intriguing
3. c) easy
4. the oh-so new black...

...but it may also be: 

the least noble side of our best selves.

And I say that knowing full well 2 key things:

1. I've loved being in the legitimate and cheap seats of the backchannel at various times, both at conferences I've attended and virtually as well.
2. The edu-blogosphere is alive with happy thoughts about the power of the backchannel to further our collective goals to make kids/teachers/schools' realities better.

I'm just no longer sure that our confidence in the backchannel allows that. 

In fact, it may actually do something far worse over time.

I'll leave that to anyone who wants to chew on the conversational bone a bit. 

Otherwise, its just a thought I can't escape these days.  And its the underlying reason I've decided to officially exit the backchannel stream, both in terms of the frenzy to Twitter update and the frankly unprofessional side of conference chatter that seems to be more and more trendy in edu-circles.  While my sophomoric instincts love the game (I can't deny it), I've finally admitted to myself that 99.9% of the backchannel has nothing to do with the goal of working with/for students to better their lives. 

The rest too often appears to be misplaced ego or long-hidden middle school drama thrilled to finally have a platform to shout from.  At least as far as I'm concerned, this has become the prevailing norm.

Part 4:  My Own Tangent

Since way early on in this blogging adventure of mine, I've had one favorite customized post category.  In my blog editor, it simply reads: 

"Doing Good".

Mmm.

Not the least bit sexy or provocative, right?. 

Hardly del.icio.us geeky, either. 

Oh, and certainly other categories would be more org chart friendly or have a chance of paying the bills (i.e. tied back to my previous consulting life). 

Best of all -- if you like irony -- I long ago turned off the visible category links on the public end of any blog post in a past spring cleaning effort to rid the site of any extra clutter.  After all, many of my posts offer enough of that noise on their own. 

(wink) 

And even though nobody can see actually see the category link, I still pick a category when I publish a new post.  Kind of a private organizational pact with myself, I suppose.

And when I pick "Doing Good", I'm reminding myself that this little something that just caught my eye is inherently more important than all the rest of the topics I may eventually blog about.  In other words, every time I choose to blog about something under the "Doing Good" category, I'm really nudging myself in the backside to focus only on topics that transcend short-term trends and divisive commentary.

The Choice:

So, in the spirit of what Jason has opted to do (for reals or for show), I'm taking my own step out on that gangplank.

From this point on, I either select topics that nestle in real good-n-tight in the "Doing Good" column, or I don't post.  At all.  Period.  Nada. 

Salient on a higher level.  Or Silence.  For reals.

And perhaps silence (with a heavy dose of listening) is really the best thing we can do for each other. 

And for our students.

Comments

[JenniferW]

Christian

I am a new follower to you, to your blog, and also to your twitter account....and in just the few weeks of following you, I am both appreciative for your thoughts and also am learning a great deal.

I need to tell you that I ADMIRE you for sharing on something that might become a controversial subject -- as people will feel a need to defend the backchannel......however, I need to tell you, I will have your back.

I agree with what you have to say on so many levels -- and also agree with you when you say "While my sophomoric instincts love the game (I can't deny it), I've finally admitted to myself that 99.9% of the backchannel has nothing to do with the goal of working with/for students to better their lives. " -- WE CAN ALL LINE UP WITH YOU ON THAT ONE!!

I blogged about how much I appreciated when you recently were in Chicago and you kept the conversation at Borders (Barnes and Noble?) just at that location. It was a fantastic idea.....and it kept the conversation in the present, with those involved, and I am sure it was enlightening for many (I am sure, hard for some as well!)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Jennifer

[diane]

This was my take on backchanneling (written in February, but my opinion is unchanged)
http://tinyurl.com/3arujz

As far as Twitter goes, I'll miss you there, but will continue to read your blogs. We each choose our own tools to fill personal needs, and Twitter still works for me.

Wonder what choices will be available when Beckett becomes an interactive presence online!

[Jason Priem]

Awesome post. Like Jennifer, I've just started subscribing to your blog, and I've been nothing by impressed by what I've seen.

Your point about the backchannel is a well-made, and, I think, accurate one. Backchannelling seems to me to appeal to that unfortunate lust for in-groupishness which we all seem to possess to one degree or another. It's a great illustration of how a focus on technology can lead to a sort of coolhunting mentality where folks build both social capital and self-images around being early adopters; at its worst, I see it being a sort of cool-kids lunch table, with looks and sport skill replaced by laptop ownership and IRC skills.

The bigger point of the post, though, is what I really liked: "I either select topics that nestle in real good-n-tight in the "Doing Good" column, or I don't post." This is a powerful idea that needn't stop with blogging. What if I had to categorize all my action, like I would a blog post. How much would be in the "doing good" column? You've given me a lot to think about.

[A. Mercer]

So funny, I'm watching this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12807) about how if you're really cool (or at the top of the pack) you don't need to email, or have a blackberry.

My only concern with turning off the back-channel is this: Having been at NECC, there were lots of people at the conference who could not get into sessions, and outside the conference that wanted to hear what was going on. Live blogging, twittering, and back channeling was a way to include those folks in a session limited to 80 participants.

I can also recall being at some restaurant tables where folks were reflexively checking their smart phones, so I hear what you are saying about being present.

I don't know how we're going to resolve this . Frankly, I could be an awful note passer in staff meetings/mandatory PD before I got a laptop, so I could leave my laptop/smart phone, but I think I'd still find my own back channel, if the BS level was too high. I guess the only advantage is it's not up on the Internet forever.

[amy vejraska]

Christian,
Seems like you are not the only one re-evaluating these things, and I can't say I disagree totally. I guess I just wonder how far back the connections will ravel...when a new face pops into twitter, or a backchannel, who will be there to guide that conversation? I liken it to negative chatter in the faculty room at school. I could just walk away, but would that help the community? I am not saying that you, or I, or anyone should feel obligated to enforce some list of unwritten rules. I just hate to see voices that I appreciate taking themselves out of the conversation on some levels. Tansmom...will miss..Beckettsdad :)

[Laura Deisley]

Standing ovation on this one CL. As I reflected on BLC while running this morning, it became quite clear to me that the "social" and "connective" benefits of the twittering and back-channeling also had the effect of distracting me from digging deeply in my OWN experience of each presentation. As someone who can be drawn "wide" easily, but who relishes those moments when I can dig deeply, I recognized that I need to change my approach. I need time to be present, and then I need time to reflect and to write.

Doing good is a good mantra. Kudos for you for recognizing what was happening to you, and for taking a stand on a different way to "be." I'm apt to follow your lead here. I won't ditch Twitter or backchannels entirely, but I will self-regulate to make sure I am focused on the right end game.

Thanks,

[Karen Richardson]

I did a presentation yesterday with a group of educators and there was no backchannel. As we began, it occurred to me that we might have set up a ustream or some such thing, but we didn't. There were a few folks with laptops but I don't think anyone was liveblogging or twittering...we just spent three hours together talking about education in the 21st century and how it influenced what they were doing in their classrooms. We were present to each other and not worried about bringing in the outside world. It allowed us to focus on their specific concerns and ideas and we had a great day.

[Christian Long]

Jennifer: Been enjoying your blog, Jen...and there's no doubt that you're pushing on key topics in terms of how all of this impacts what matters most: our teaching.

Diane: I can't even imagine what will be available to Beckett in the coming years, but I hope regardless of the tools and hype that he'll be "present" in others' conversations rather than just surfing the outer edges of yet another backchannel link.

Jason: Much thanks...truly. And I can't disagree with any of your what-if's and comparisons. The "coolhunting" point definitely catches my attention, too! Hope to cross paths with you one day soon so thanks for leaving a quick word here.

A. Mercer: Definitely agree that there is value in back-channeling, but I have zero guilt about letting go of the majority of what is distracting or merely self-serving. And to be honest, not needing the backchannel isn't such a bad thing either. After all, my own colleagues -- far, far away from the digital-razzi -- have a great deal to share, too...and not one of them tends to care about/pay attention to the blogosphere. Just something I'm spending more time contemplating going into a new school year...FWIW.

Amy: The most vital part of the "conversation" for me is the continual arrival of fresh voices, rather than hearing the same ol' gang say the same ol' stuff. Plus, we'd all be better served if those of us who have been fortunate to have a few followers would listen more, speak less, when in these networked moments. Me, I'm just sitting back and enjoying letting others be the key voices.

Laura: I'll be the first to admit to being distracted, both when at the conference and when trying to keep track while 'watching' from afar. As for the "doing good" motif, it's a horizon line to keep in my sight...but I hardly claim to have any sort of patent on it. BTW, key point about "self-regulat[ion]" vs. tossing all of it away.

Karen: Intriguing point re: "present to each other". It's not so much a matter of framing the tools (such as UStream, etc) as being good or bad, but about our being intentional about what any tool serves beyond the heart of the primary conversation we're supposed to be "present" for. Too often we leap at the opportunity to broadcast without doing a plus/minus column as to what is really gained or lost in the process, especially given the lack of editing, the dead time, and the potentially self-serving elements (that few are talking about...sadly).