We received 192 responses to the Whole Conference evaluation (on paper and on-line).
See below for a sample of the feedback that we received together with responses from Peace News (the core organiser for the RMC) to some of the questions raised.
1. Rating the Conference and Venues
We asked people to rate the following aspects of the Rebellious Media Conference (1 meaning terrible; 10 meaning perfect; n/a means not applicable – if you didn’t go to that venue):
Overall content: average score 8.54 (only 6.2% gave a rating of 6 or lower)
How the Conference was run: average score 8.51 (only 5.7% gave a rating of 6 or lower)
Location (Institute of Education): average of 8.71
Location (Friends House): average of 8.55
2. What you liked
“The most friendly conference I have ever been to. Everyone prepared to share their experiences/news.” (This person rated the organisation and content of conference 9 out of 10)
“Obviously, the presence of [Noam] Chomsky and the addition of Michael Albert made the conference outstanding.” (Rated organisation 8 out of 10; content 7 out of 10)
“It was fantastic in scope and quality. Hospitality as well as programme.” (Content and organisation 10 out of 10)
“Intelligent. Good atmosphere – no nasties.” (Organisation 9; content 8 )
“Best conference I’ve ever been to.” (Organisation and content: 10)
“Brilliant – thanks for making life worth living.” (Organisation and content: 10)
“For the first time in my life I have tasted the nectar of TRUE democracy.” (Organisation and content: 10)
“All in all, I had a really good time. Specially given that different perspectives were outlined and debate was respectful eg no swearing. I liked the price breakdown [｣15-｣75] to allow people of all spectrum of life to participate eg student, unemployed etc, those who can’t pay more. Plenty of stewards and bookstalls.” (Organisation 8; content 10)
“Liked the fact that you printed the budget for all to see.” (Organisation 6; content 9) [The budget is on the RMC website – PN]
“What I liked was the cantankerousness of the speakers.” (Organisation and content: 8 )
“I liked Veggies vegan co-op catering. Fantastic and very much in alignment with the ethic of the conference.” (Organisation 9; content 10)
“Great!! Unique opportunity, we need more of these. Awesome (good) mood from the organisers – super-well-organised.” (Organisation 7; content 9)
“Massive range of content and ideas, good opportunity to learn about things I would have never encountered, including people and organisations in my own city.” (Organisation 10; content 9)
“I liked: the volume of people, the speakers and the overall gentleness at the treatment of others. A fantastic way to spend a weekend.” (Content 9; no rating for organisation)
“Very inclusive: you don’t have to have too much prior knowledge to be able to get involved.” (Organisation and content: 9)
“In the end, I liked the participatory element. I didn’t think I would.” (Organisation 8; content 9)
“Lovely people, especially the organisers. HUGE range of topics – too many in a sense. Constrained by my inability to be in more than one place at the same time. I learned loads. Made new contacts/friends. Opportunity to volunteer – thanks.” (Organisation and content: 10)
“Like scale, like choices, like the energy. I like that the choices offered a possibility to smaller sessions. When they are too big much is lost. So in a way you have both goods, the large halls and small rooms.” (Content: 8; Organisation: 10)
3. What could be improved
“One glaring omission, come to think was any sign or mention of the faith community to which most activists are blind or hostile. This will have to change.” (Organisation and content: 9)
“I’d have liked less American dominance at plenaries. People central to stories take centre stage. Venues should be council estates community centres. Make it radical and rebellious, not simply middle class alternative.” (Organisation 4; content 6)
“The venues were a bit confusing and there could have been better signs.” (Organisation 9; content 10)
“Clearer website more women presenting/speaking” (Organisation: 9; Content: 8 ) [From the outset of the programming process a substantial effort was made to achieve gender balance across the Conference as a whole. We never made it – the final tally of speakers and facilitators was 43% women and 57% men – but we did try! - PN]
“Some technical stuff with microphones sound quality etc (inthe big hall at institute of education). And where were Indymedia?” (Organisation: 9; Content: 8 )
“Maybe it was deliberate to virtually ignore fighting against mainstream media, but I feel it was a mistake to not have some emphasis on, for example, making sure the Murdoch Empire really is destroyed. Why were other existing media campaigns not active organisers of the conference?” (Organisation 9; content 6) [We did invite Media Lens to become part of the organising at a very early stage, but they were unable to make the dates. The other group you mention, the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, would have been a great group to involve – but this conference was not centrally about those issues, but about celebrating innovative radical media projects, deepening people’s critique of the mainstream media, and sharing media skills. – PN]
“I couldn’t get my head round the interactive website. I felt that its poor architecture made it difficult to engage with. In the end I chose not to spend any time trying to figure out how I could learn from it and how I could contribute” (Organisation: 8; content: 8 )
“Provide translators for foreign language speakers if possible – Taesun Kwon [executive editor of South Korea’s progressive daily national newspaper] was difficult to understand.” (Organisation 9; content 10) [PN was in charge of inviting the international speakers and we decided to avoid having translators if at all possible, as this creates a barrier between the speaker and the audience. Something to think about.... – PN]
“If you’re all about cutting costs why are you getting catering companies in to do the tea?” (Organisation 8; content 9) [The two venues only allow tea, coffee and biscuits to be provided by their own catering services – at their usual prices. The organisers felt having refreshments on-site was vital to the event. One reason being that people would just wander off-site to find a cuppa, drifting in late to the sessions that followed. – PN]
“Some of the sessions were over-popular: too many people turned up to fit in the room.” (Content 9; no rating for organisation)
“Have a suggestions/feedback board/wall.” (no ratings)
“Childcare could be improved.” (Organisation 10; content 8 ) [We polled 750 ticket-holders before the conference and only one person needed childcare (for one child) and we therefore didn’t have a creche – PN]
“More time for Q&A with main speakers.” (Organisation 7; content 8 )
“Incorporate music and more film.” (Organisation 10; content 8 )
“Make people ask questions rather than allowing them to make speeches in the Q&As.” (Organisation and content: 9)
“Fewer set-piece presentations by known figures, or at least less time dedicated to them. More practical, project-building activities, engaging all participants. The ingredients were there – I think what might have brought them all together would have been if to set out to people the organisers’ hoped-for goals and objectives for the conference at the very beginning. That was the one time when the bulk participants were all together and would have lodged those goals in people’s minds.” (Organisation: 8; content: 8 )
“I would have liked to have seen more of an effort to demonstrate how a person might go about rationally detecting and explaining propaganda within its often quite well hidden context to others. I think it may have been useful to have shown clips from television news and for the panel to have analysed them, with contributions from the audience.” (Organisation: 9; Content: 8 ) [Something like this was attempted in at least one of the sessions (“Applying the Chomsky-Herman Propaganda Model”), but there certainly could have been more of this. Unfortunately, an early idea to involve Bruno Baillargeon (author of “A Short Course in Intellectual Self-defense: Find Your Inner Chomsky”) or someone similar, fell by the way side. - PN]
“Instead of opening the conference with a keynote speech from a big name like Chomsky, why not instead open it with a plenary discussion/roundtable with representatives from different radical media. Focusing on current state of affairs, challenges and opportunities for the future etc. Something like this would give the conference more of an activist and participatory flavour.” (Organisation: 7; content: 7)
“I was astonished to hear the chair’s comments during Chomsky’s keynote: ‘I will now have questions from a woman, then a man, etc.’ This binary does not help anyone but the heteronormative status quo.” (Organisation 7; content 9) [On the basis of our experience, the organisers believed that if we did not impose a gender rota, there would be domination of the Q&A by men, and we felt very strongly that we should prevent this from happening. – PN]
“A pity it happened on the same weekend and as the important 10 years event [about the war in Afghanistan] organised by Stop the War coalition in Trafalgar Square.” [The date (booked in summer 2010, a year before the Stop the War and the UKUncut Block the Bridge events were announced) was defined solely by when both Friends House and Noam Chomsky were available – PN]
“It would be good to have some materials at workshops handed out. Such as prints out, 6 slides to a page? I know this is another added cost, or atleast ask presenters/speakers to provide slideshows and presentation materials and reading materials even, before hand. These can then be uploaded onto your website, so people can themselves print out their own material and bring to the conference.” (Organisation: 10; content: 10)
Q4. Ideas for the future
“Have another conference next year.” [Great idea, but... don’t hold your breath. The people who did the most work on the RMC are swearing they will never ever organise a conference ever again. Ever. – PN]
“Journalism course. On-line courses.”
“Please do this again.”
“Why not OUTSIDE LONDON? It is NOT fair that everything happens there. Maybe cheaper outside London!” [The organisers really tried on this. We had a really hard time finding a venue anywhere that seated 800 people, which was our planned number of participants. We did look outside London, but we couldn’t find anything that met our needs – PN]
“You could have had regional groupings of people so activists from the same area can meet each other.” [Brilliant suggestion – like the ones that follow. - PN]
“Use of voice recognition software to automatically have a transcript of the speakers’ words up on a screen. Quakers used this system at their 2011 YMG [yearly meeting gathering] and it helped a lot.”
“Maybe smaller workshops/talks around the country, really feel like something like this could work in Bristol but maybe on a smaller scale, as it’s such a good opportunity to meet like-minded people.”
“Workshop on political cartooning.”
“Programme / workshops for young people Or about how young people are changing the role of media in our daily lives through growing up with access to publishing means.”
“More science.”
“More international speakers (Middle East, Asia).” [We did try very hard on this, too, in relation to Latin America and elsewhere. Having said that, we did also have a self-imposed restriction on flying only six speakers to the conference, which left only one more “flown-in” slot. We could have and should have included more people by Skype. – PN]
“Airmiles for speakers should be offset, either via a proven scheme (eg World Land Trust) or – at least – by speakers undertaking to reduce their footprint in other ways, such as a vegan diet to compensate.”
“More socials between conferences.”
“Link us up somehow to occupy the Guardian to force them to have a section on peace, written and organised by CND and Peace News and alternative media and activists.”
Q5. Other comments
“The New Standard session inspired me to start my own local community paper.”
“Volunteers were all brilliant!”
“I was disappointed that some presenters, especially in the feminist workshop, seemed to equate ‘radical’ with digital and ‘mainstream’ with print. There were times I felt like an alien.”
“I am coming away from this conference inspired and ready to fight for social change! Before this conference I was feeling somewhat lost and unsure of where to put my focus. I now have clarity and tools to start working effectively for change.”
“Encore.”
