It may be a leap to conclusions to call it a headache for the cons at all. Did you ask the chairs about it? Well in the case of Furlandia's first year you might be talking to a troll, but I highly doubt AnthroNW is comparable, in fact they might be polar opposites.
Also, you mention complaints as coming from consumers but there's good reason to believe that the majority of the harsh online stuff came from people who didn't attend. Sure you can dig for some saying something but it still remains to be seen how the show is and how the con's ongoing operation will bear out their feeling about it.
People are paranoid, and it's steadily eroding with more and more good news despite themselves. Being paranoid is now a backwards looking stance that just involves due diligence about who is involved. Did the con do that this time, we'll see. But meanwhile, it's not media access that I write about (who cares, their goal isn't my goal) so much as furries shooting themselves in the footpaw about suppressing their own stories and really important issues that come with them.
So, a con may be opaque as a small entity, but it's different when a whole community refuses to allow looking at the human story of a web of relationships that ended in three murders. It's crazy how much resistance there was to even admitting that is a furry story, to the detriment of everyone who may be involved next time it happens.
Back on topic, there's that whole thing about "objectivity" everyone is so keen on (not to mention NDA's). The media is not the fandom, symbiotic may be the opposite of the best way to relate. Symbiotic and non-objective could be valid criticism of the IARP and anthrocon (not that advocacy bias is bad.)
A third option is Be The Media, and make them come to us. :)
It may be a leap to conclusions to call it a headache for the cons at all. Did you ask the chairs about it? Well in the case of Furlandia's first year you might be talking to a troll, but I highly doubt AnthroNW is comparable, in fact they might be polar opposites.
Also, you mention complaints as coming from consumers but there's good reason to believe that the majority of the harsh online stuff came from people who didn't attend. Sure you can dig for some saying something but it still remains to be seen how the show is and how the con's ongoing operation will bear out their feeling about it.
People are paranoid, and it's steadily eroding with more and more good news despite themselves. Being paranoid is now a backwards looking stance that just involves due diligence about who is involved. Did the con do that this time, we'll see. But meanwhile, it's not media access that I write about (who cares, their goal isn't my goal) so much as furries shooting themselves in the footpaw about suppressing their own stories and really important issues that come with them.
So, a con may be opaque as a small entity, but it's different when a whole community refuses to allow looking at the human story of a web of relationships that ended in three murders. It's crazy how much resistance there was to even admitting that is a furry story, to the detriment of everyone who may be involved next time it happens.
Back on topic, there's that whole thing about "objectivity" everyone is so keen on (not to mention NDA's). The media is not the fandom, symbiotic may be the opposite of the best way to relate. Symbiotic and non-objective could be valid criticism of the IARP and anthrocon (not that advocacy bias is bad.)
A third option is Be The Media, and make them come to us. :)