We agree on the first point: library leaders don’t have a seat at the table. I see two reasons why:
1) They aren’t showing up. A bunch of players in the knowledge/information sector (publishers, newspapers, broadcasters and others) are disrupted and working through this transition period. They are carefully trying new things and interacting as frienemies, sometimes collaborators and sometimes competitors, to suss out their strengths and weaknesses and scope out their place in the emerging landscape. And where are library leaders and practitioners – ensconced within library walls howling “You guys aren’t playing fair. You SHOULD be doing everything the way you did it before things changed. You SHOULD be promoting our services. You should LOVE libraries!” If library leaders want to be heard, they need to encourage their community to stop the howling and then they need to go out and join the conversation. I know of only one librarian who does this today. Rick Anderson is a regular contributor at The Scholarly Kitchen, a prominent, high-quality blog in the scholarly publishing space. He’s a respected voice among some real heavyweights and represents the profession & library interests very well. We need lots more people like him.
2) They can’t say what they’re good at and what value they add. Libraries say they do everything and are good at everything … and that just isn’t credible. To remain viable, any organization needs to be the top provider in one thing and runner up in one or two others. Libraries are no exception.

I think you make a great second point, Spencer. My hunch was going to be that libraries are really slow followers. They produce copies and knock-offs of things after the real moment has passed. This is true of videos in the Old Spice vein and send ups of social media icons. It’s also true of management techniques like mission/vision, BHAGs, etc. Libraries can be slow and steady in many things, and I’d argue that refining their service offering and positioning themselves as oases in disruptive times is a winning strategy. Library leadership, however, needs to be smart & confident & creative & quick … and I’m seeing just the opposite.

Second is that librarians are more worried about increasing their budgets than improving anything.

Third, because of the first two, libraries as institutions are anything BUT proactive. We are the most “reactionary” (by that I mean that our policies and proceedures are made in reaction to a problem, instead of not letting the forseen problem arise) professions in the world. “Reactionary” institutions, at their core, always end up missing the boat.

My two cents.

Jean

I think you already know the real answers to those questions! ;)

1) Why did these leading information organizations reach across mediums and geographies to collaborate with one another, and not consider libraries as collaborators (particularly given that libraries believe they’re so strong in the area in question)?

2) What got in the way of libraries participating and responding to the Internet blackout in a positive and creative way (again, given that these particular circumstances seemed to be ‘in the library wheelhouse’ so to speak)?

Jean

The written pieces from NPR and Washington Post seemed supportive of libraries and perhaps will have more shelf life than the audio. We can hope :)

Maybe we need to start a #askalibrarian hashtag to create a globally distributed Ref Desk 2.0 in the Twittersphere. Of course, we’d have to come up with some sort of algorithm to scan for avatars containing cats or tweed to make sure genuine librarians are answering the questions.