I've been following all this conversation around MPI WEC and the socia media gurus with interest, dismay, delight, dread, and confusion. I guess I never really saw the need to have SMGs to begin with:

• If the point was promotion: MPI staff should put whatever it is they want to promote out there and people will RT if it's interesting. If it isn't, it'll fall on deaf ears no matter who puts it out there, IMHO.

• If the point was to get non-social mediaites (is that the right term, John?) to get a taste of Twittery fun, having a few volunteers stationed in the Hub with a big screen of the latest mentions on LinkedIn, FB, Twitter, blogs, etc., and a computer to show people how to get started would probably have been more useful. (Maybe this was at MPI and I just never found it?)

• If the point was to engage and excite SM-active members, I think a simple invitation to join in the discussion and what hashtag to use would have sufficed. Everyone who wanted to join in did anyway, from what I saw. Including speakers, which was so cool.

Anyway, that's not what I wanted to talk about. From the conversation here and elsewhere, it appears that people have an expectation that journalists are trying to be "fair and unbiased" when they use social media.

Oops, I never got that memo.

If you want fair and unbiased information from me, read  articles I write for publication on our Web site or in our magazines. If you want to know what I think about just about anything, let's tweet or comment on blog posts or otherwise meet in the social sphere. Heck, I don't even talk about work topics on Facebook, yet that's where I'm "friends" with a bunch of work connections. I see it as a way to get to know each other, with all our warty opinions, random thoughts, and strange obsessions, not a place for "fair and unbiased" reporting. That's what I like the most about SM, in fact. Journos can be people, too.

That said, journalists or not, everyone should disclose freebies (yes, I was comped at  MPI, just as press is at pretty much all industry shows), especially if we think it might cause us to get all giddy about something (puppies! But I would have loved them regardless of comp status) or overly critical (um, can't think of anything to whine about at WEC yet, but I'm sure it'll come, regardless of comp status). 

I haven't been as explicit about this as I probably should be (and will go back and add disclosures to recent posts--I always assumed people knew press got comped but maybe not?). But really, whether or not I had to pay for something doesn't factor into my opinion of it, or my willingness to spout said opinion. All they're "buying" is my access to their thing. After that, what I (or you, or anyone) think of the thing is purely up to us, and I can't imagine not being honest about what I think. I might not mention the thing at all if it ends up not being interesting. I might just talk about their competition. My call, not theirs.

Think about it: If you give a glowing review to some lousy thing just because you got it for free, or pan something because they made you pay for it, well, that shows what your opinion is worth. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know anyone who'd throw their personal integrity and industry rep away for a comp registration or a free iPad. Even if they did, no one will listen to that person more than once. SM can be brutal--in a good way--when it comes to things like this. Which is another thing I really like about it.

That's what I think, and why, after thinking about it for a minute, I didn't use the #wec10 reporter hashtag at WEC. My opinion via social media can, should, and I wager is regarded the same as everyone else's.

My two cents. Anyone want to raise me a dime?