Kathy Sierra, at the SXSW conference in Austin, TX this year opened her session with a provocative question.
Why is it, she asked, that those who were responsible for making products that render it unnecessary for people to be at the event, were actually in the room? There is no logical reason for them to be here, she said! She even referred to live blogging.

The topic of live blogging has come up again. I first heard it on the Hobson and Holtz Report, and the controversy was well discussed by Shel Holtz.

If you’re not familiar with it, go there first, since it would be pointless to summarize it.

With our upcoming International conference in New Orleans in June, the topic is warming up. OK, sizzling!

IABC speaker and author Wilma Matthews (who’s incidentally blogging at the conference) had been asked if she agreed to her presentation being live blogged, and said she didn’t think it was a good idea. “Bloggers should get permission from the speaker and/or the conference organizer to do this,” she maintains. Doing so without a speaker’s approval and/or without the conference organizer’s blessing has legal ramifications, she says –for the blogger, the speaker and conference organizer.

But is it? Isn’t Live Blogging just another form of reporting? It’s just happening in real time –in keeping with everything else we now do in real time. I’m just posing this question, because I see both sides to the argument. (Again, do read Shel’s and Steve Crescenzo’s opposing pov about it being nothing more than note-taking in the always-on world, versus the stop-typing-and-listening approach).

So here’s the thing about live blogging.
Could anyone prevent it –considering you or I could do it via a smart phone, today.
Could an event organizer stand to lose by people potentially staying away from a conference, because they could get the feed, so to speak?
Or is it an ethical question that could be sorted out by the presenter?

If you’re a journalist who also blogs, what would you say?

That’s just text. How about live vlogging?

There’s the proverbial can of worms, with services such as UStream, and Kyte, which potentially lets someone do a live video stream from a laptop to a social media site. Or, even a camera phone.

Is this the reality, or should there be some guidelines conference organizers should set?

A member of Yahoo’s YoungPRPros newsgroup has posed a question about including a photo in an emailed release.

Serena Ehrlich, a savvy, 13-year veteran senior account manager at Business Wire, offers pretty good advice: “Reporters are not against photos, they are against attachments in general from unknown sources. If you know the outlet, add the photo as an attachment; if you don’t, add a link directly to the photo page on your site.”

But technology reared its ugly head. Eleanor Trickett, Executive Editor of PRWeek, says:

I’ve discovered something recently with my Treo. Now that more and more reporters have Treos, if they get too many attachments by email, even if it’s from someone they know and trust, then until they can get to a desktop computer and log into their email, no matter how much you delete on the handheld, you won’t be able to send or receive any more emails.

I’ve had this happen several times on the road, and it’s a huge pain in the behind to have to do this. So, I would amend the rule to say: If you know the journo, send the news and say, “If you want a pic, let me know who to send it to.” If they’re out, they’ll more likely as not give you another editor’s name, or get it straight to the art desk.

I know this might seem overly cautious, but I speak from bitter experience here. The sad truth is that a lot of handhelds and their syncing systems are creating problems for people when attachments are involved.

Thanks to both Serena and Elly. We appreciate your perspective and good advice.