I livestreamed the dogs on the front lawn and gave a tour of the UC. I had to stop the dogs livestream fairly quickly because I was outside and noticed that the phone was using my data plan instead of wi-fi (I'm on a family data sharing plan so I didn't want to waste a lot of data), but the one I did in the UC was fairly successful at staying on the wi-fi.
For the dogs in the UC, I was showing off the dogs and actually got one of the dog handlers to talk to me in a short interview. Then I went up to the UC and gave a brief tour but I felt silly talking to myself and people kept saying hi to me. I guess I realized it's hard to be professional when people don't know you're streaming video.
I didn't really get any interactions (or any creepers) which I was kind of sad about.
I could see people using these livestreams for breaking news in-the-moment sort of events and for fun things like behind the scenes in newsrooms. I think it could work for both dramatic and mundane stories if they're interesting enough.
These tools also open up discussion for questions on ethics and the role of journalists. Although journalists can use these tools to tell a story, so can average citizens. So does that mean anybody can be a reporter now? Also will this put pressure on journalists to live stream all sorts of events as opposed to live tweeting them or live blogging them? In which case their job would just be to hold up a phone. I think it creates a lot of possibilities but also a lot of questions.