Quite funny looking at some of the feedback from SXSW (Isaak Pinnock’s piece on lazy panels sums it up quite well) and it appears that there’s now a bit of a cry-out for more than love-ins at panels and talks in the US. Now, that won’t come as a surprise to most in Scotland or the rest of the UK where panels normally have people from all points of view going at it (though, even the social media circle here has been a bit of a love-in).

However, yet again, this is something that old media could have told the new kids a long time ago as it has been a staple of the most popular part of journalism for decades…

Rows are great. Not so much if you are in one, but they are great to watch. You see debate, passion. You get too challenge your own beliefs and come away better informed. In short – and it may go back to our brain-stem days – we still thrive on conflict. It doesn’t need to be two people duking it out, but two viewpoints, two ideologies.

And in newspapers, rows have been arownd (typo deliberate) since the early days. Someone takes Position A? Odds are there’s a Position B, perhaps even a C and D out there. Two people with the same opinion? Not interesting. Two differing viewpoints – perhaps a digital media evangelist and a digital media bastard? Now we’re talking.

That might not sound like a skill, but it is. Finding the right person for the right row can be tricky work or it can either be blown out of proportion or completely ignored (especially if you use a rent-a-quote).

But rows create drama and in this era of story-driven engagement, what can be more essential?