Unfortunately, interviewer Sarah Lacy has become the focus of the discussion (as CNet put it, Journalist becomes the story at Mark Zuckerberg SXSWi keynote), with Wired observing: "They came expecting a civilized, one-on-one discussion, but they got what some attendees described as 'a train wreck'."
I blame Twitter. You can often sit quietly through something dire (I wasn't there) not knowing how the rest of the audience feels. But the twitterati were exchanging views during the event, leading to what sounds like a revolt. As Valleywag noted: "The dozens and dozens of negative tweets started coming in shortly after the keynote started, and have only gotten harsher since then." It says:
Lacy herself responded on Twitter, saying "seriously screw all you guys. I did my best to ask a range of things."
Sure, but as journalism professor/BuzzMachine blogger/Guardian columnist Jeff Jarvis points out in Zuckerberg interview: What went wrong, you weren't asking what the audience wanted to know. He adds:
When it became obvious that the audience was hostile to her -- cheering Zuckergerg when he told her to ask a question -- she acted hurt, as if this hour was about her. Worse, she told us how tough her job was. It wasn't tough. It was a privilege and she was blowing it. And at the end, when she said that people should send her an email telling her what went wrong, she was so 1994; she didn't understand that the people in the crowd were already coalescing in Twitter and blogs into an instant consensus. Oh, if only there'd been a back-channel chat projected on the screen beside her. Then, she could have seen.
Web application development by Burgess Powers