An idea
Looking for feedback.
One of the Washington Post's good on-line features are daily chats with staff. They are moderated. The questions pass through a filter before they are answered. But they are quite popular. They have huge readership so they get a lot of questions in the time allotted. Some are tough. Some are useful. Some are a waste of time. But they show that the Post isn't afraid of engaging its readers, even if it means taking some uncomfortable questions.
Neither is the Arkansas Times.
I answer the occasional questions that pop up on threads when the spirit moves and when I catch them in a time when many might see the answers. I think we're pretty accessible.
But I'm thinking of scheduling some Q&A sessions. We don't have the capability for "live" interaction. But I thought I could try this. I can open up a line for questions. I'll vow to answer them all, or at least respond to the extent I'm able. Nothing's off limits. But that doesn't mean I promise to answer every question. If I deem something too personal, I'll say so. I think it might be best to schedule a prime time to do this, where I'd promise to be by the computer for, say, a couple of hours, so I could post answers fairly quickly. What do readers think? Is a schedule time a better format? Or would an open line that I get back to to work through the questions work just as well? The Post's nearly instantaneous sessions are really great, but we just don't have the technology for that now.
Tell me what you think. My idea would be to take questions on ANYTHING. Things you'd like to know. Questions on news coverage. Personal questions. Etc.



Comments
I can't imagine y'all doing much better at answering questions than you already do, but by all means set aside some time and special threads for Q & A. I think it would be very popular.
Posted by: hugh mann
|
May 29, 2007 06:58 PM
Oh.....good.
I'm gonna start thinking up some "meaning of life" type questions fer ya Max.
Lemme know when to open fire.
Posted by: RickBaber
|
May 29, 2007 07:04 PM
I would caution that we don't get too carried away about food topics during a "live" discussion. I don't think the drooling and salivating will be good for the keyboards. Other than that, I think it would be an interesting experiment. Would it be something like a roundtable discussion?
Posted by: Jake da Snake
|
May 29, 2007 07:21 PM
Magnificent idea! I prefer an open line to which you respond as time and resources permit.
Posted by: durangokid
|
May 29, 2007 07:23 PM
I think you are an attention whore, Max.
Posted by: BlackBerry
|
May 29, 2007 08:09 PM
Max- only so many hours in the day. But if you are up for it, and the Judge will spare you, go for it
Posted by: Diogenes
|
May 29, 2007 08:16 PM
Yes, I love this idea. I think it is a nice way to further enhance what is clearly the best news blog in the state.
Max, thanks for the time you put in on this. I feel like I am back in the newsroom when I check in here throughout the day.
Posted by: Simon
|
May 29, 2007 08:26 PM
bring it on ! like it - nix that - love it!!!
Posted by: yapperjohn
|
May 29, 2007 08:43 PM
Max~~
Sounds great to me. I recall last year that you expressed the hope that readers might post photos, but that apparently didn't work out. Any thoughts?
ARK. BLOG: We don't have a way to do self-posting of photos yet. I keep hoping. But you can always e-mail them to me at max@arktimes.com and I can do it.
Posted by: Ecce! Spiro et Spero.
|
May 29, 2007 08:47 PM
An open line would work better for those of us who work crazy hours, Max.
Love the idea. I've read your stuff for a long time, going back to the Gazette, and agree with you 95% of the time.
Posted by: BlueRidge
|
May 29, 2007 08:52 PM
I think it's a grand idea, whichever way it works out. I'm more of a listener than a talker, but when something evokes (or provokes) a response or further question from me, I'm ready to go.
Posted by: widj
|
May 29, 2007 09:04 PM
A reader who can't make the post work contributes this worthy commentary:
"Every time I read the Post's reporters on blogs I, like men my age who swear at televisions ( I do that, too), say out loud.....blog the hell less and report the hell more!!!!!!!!
The public and the country is not better served by knowing what you think or why you think it. It is best served by reporters who work hard, stick to nouns and verbs and who develop a sense of judgment, an understanding of their personal insignificance and the importance of getting it right.
I like this blogging stuff. I think. But I know goddam well that I value the reporting of John Burns, Dexter Fillkins, George Packer, that intrepid NBC guy, and others, vastly more. They are smart and I want them spending their time talking to sources, not answering banal questions from folks like me.
And as for personal stuff. No. We've been friends for a long time and I certainly enjoy your Calvin Trillin-like expositions. Even photos. I'd love to have dinner and catch up. But I read the blog for your judgment and the opinion of others about matters of public policy, news of Arkansas, and the culture and general weal of a state I love.
Good reporting.
Good writing.
Sophisticated adult judgment running the blog. (That would be you.)
And, yes, I'm a cranky and unfashionable old f.....
But you knew that."
jcb
Posted by: maxb
|
May 29, 2007 09:04 PM
First question:
How is Warwick doing?
Posted by: Cato
|
May 29, 2007 09:19 PM
I think it's a great idea. I would say Max should do whatever is easiest and most efficient for him.
I wonder how he would deal with 10 or 15 questions queued up and waiting for response in an open line, especially if there were followups.
There has to be a way to easily chat. I have done "webinars" where the particpants can post questions as they listen to the speaker via telephone and watch the powerpoints, and it works well.
But however it's done, it's a great idea. And like anything else, as we go along, we'll figure out better ways to do it.
Posted by: Crazy Horse
|
May 29, 2007 09:45 PM
Shoot, man...
That's what you already do...
Just a matter of steerin' it, dude...
Posted by: rosso
|
May 29, 2007 10:43 PM
I'm all for it. What we should fear is less information, less conversation. The format doesn't make much difference to me. Don't hook yourself up too tightly to that computer with no speakers. Might be boring. My first question is about your ATM pin number.......
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
May 29, 2007 11:30 PM
Speaking of butchered reporting, you may want to re-review last week's D-G story by C.S. Murphy on the convention bureau and the Ray Winder taxes. Then read Matthew Cates' followup story the next day, which seems to refute everything Murphy reported.
Lord knows, if there's tax chicanery going on, I want somebody to get to the bottom of this, but it looks to me like Murphy has egg on her face with this one. Of course, no explanation or clarification has been forthcoming from the D-G.
Posted by: Wanda Tinasky
|
May 30, 2007 12:48 AM