Not all conversations are friendly. Real life conversations can be confrontational, angry, and unpleasant. We often talk with someone who has an opinion different from ours. At the end of the conversation we may have changed each other's minds, or we may come away convinced we never want to talk to that person again.

Virtual conversations are no different, they're just a lot bigger. Anyone can read the conversation and add their own take on the topic by commenting, or they can explain their feelings in a post on their own blog. These conversations are worth having because they put ideas on the virtual table to discuss, and when ideas are being discussed, good things can happen.

An example from today: Mahalo CEO and founder Jason Calacanis wrote a post on his blog on Friday titled "How to save money running a startup (17 really good tips)." Duncan Riley posted a response on TechCrunch shortly thereafter titled "Calacanis fires people who have a life." I'm not going to go in the details of the conversation itself, you can do that by clicking on the links if you haven't already read them.

This real time "virtual conversation" between Calacanis and Riley, made up of their original blog posts, plus many comments on both writers' posts and many other blogs weighing in on the subject, wasn't possible a few years ago. The widespread development and acceptance of social media technology like blogs has created these large-scale conversations. The conversation - and conflict - between the two men was significant enough to make the top of Techmeme's headline list on Friday evening.

I believe it's a positive thing to be able to have a conversation discussing workplace expectations and environment. In the past, someone might have written an article for a magazine on the subject, then people would discuss it around the water cooler or perhaps write a letter to the editor for the next issue (do you read letters to the editor?). Now, however, we have a full-blown debate going on over the pros and cons of what Jason Calacanis believes is the ideal workplace versus what Duncan Riley thinks that workplace should be. It's a bit chaotic, but it does drive a topic to the front of our collective priority list, at least for a short time. In the end, maybe we end up changing each other's minds a little - or we may decide never to read anything either of them writes ever again.

It's an exciting time to be involved with the technologies that make this virtual conversation possible. Employees, customers and prospects are all looking for businesses and organizations that are participating in this upheaval of personal communications. It's time to ask: Am I part of the conversation?

Photo credit: Marcello eM, Poland, sxc.hu

A follow-up to yesterday's post about the deathwatch for offline media:

The (London) Sunday Times has an article today about a brewing battle between minority New York Times shareholders and the Sulzburger-Ochs family, which has controlled the paper since 1896. The dissidents want The New York Times Company to move more aggressively toward online distribution of news content, claiming that the slow pace currently being pursued by management is putting the long-term future of the paper and its other holdings at risk. In the article, reporter Dominic Rushe describes a familiar situation at North American newspapers:

"Readers are migrating online but advertising revenues are failing to keep up with the shift. Last month the company announced 100 layoffs at the 1,332-strong New York Times newsroom."

Rushe also quotes journalist and blogger Jeff Jarvis, who advocates big changes at the New York Times and even more dramatic changes at the Boston Globe, also owned the The New York Times Company. Jarvis described the changes he would recommend on his blog BuzzMachine on Saturday:

"It clearly should be more online than print — soon or immediately exclusively online. It must focus on great reporting. It should be open to all media. It should become the host of opinion and discussion about all issues — which will be tough for them. The Times will have hearty competition from both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal but it should bravely leap ahead and recognize that Dow Jones management is scared of change (thus their mewling and successful efforts to convince Rupert Murdoch not to take down the pay wall . . . for now). It will also have competition from international news brands coming to America: the Guardian, the BBC, and possibly others."

One of the biggest assets any news media organization has is its pool of journalistic talent. The reporters, researchers, photographers, producers, and editors who report the news are hard to replace, and their years of experience, resources and contacts are even more so. While online freelancers and bloggers (such as myself) can add to the virtual conversation by expressing opinions and observations, few bloggers have the access to the same resources and contacts as professional journalists, nor do we have the same experience. The New York Times Company has to decide where the winds of change are taking the paper before technology and financial constraints make the decisions for them, at the risk of losing more of their prized assets - experienced, professional journalists.

The battle for the business direction - and perhaps the soul - of the New York Times will begin next month. As Dominic Rushe says in his Sunday Times article, "It is shaping up to be a spectacular battle."