" For every evil under the sun there is a remedy ...
December 13 2007 04:29 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
Looking back at 2007, here's a book that responds to the pained confusion and grasping for the familiar on the cusp of massive technological and social change. Remember all the alarmists warning about the end of the world prior to 2000 and prophesizing about the coming millennium. They capitalized on fear of change. In 2007, Andrew Keen's book "The Cult of the Amateur," charges that Web 2.0, i.e. Citizen Journalism and participatory online media such as WikiPedia, StumbleUpon, and DiggIt, are destroying American culture.
He asserts that in our haste to hold the gatekeepers of information accountable, we are fast replacing them with a medium that has no gatekeepers, hence, no accountability whatsoever. Thus, he suggests, we are far worse off than we were to begin with.
First off, while making his case against Web 2.0, he oversimplifies many issues and so merely succeeds at the very thing he accuses amateurs of: shallow judgment. But then, we have to remember, he’s selling a product and like most online advertisers, he has maybe a couple seconds to make the sale so the title is really the clincher. And it works. No doubt, there’s a huge market for reinforcement of the status quo and the silencing of the rabble of commonfolk. The choir he preaches to is most likely, anyone inconvenienced by change, unable or unwilling to adapt to change, and well, let’s face it, anyone who likes to read books about how America is destroying itself. I’m sure this one’s a best-seller over in India and China (where a sizable chunk of our American dollars and jobs are going).
Keen shames Americans for being cheapskates and squeezing the internet for all its worth, for frittering away hours with idle chatter or worse, earnest, dilettantish dialogue, and for putting the "free" back in free time. Nevermind that the Internet is hardly free or that much of the time is spent on successful websites owned by media conglomerates making money off ad revenue. He scolds us for our impertinence in thinking it’s our place to hold our betters' feet to the fire.
Supposedly, our lapse of attention is pointedly a campaign to hold the gatekeepers of information accountable. Yet realistically, if that were the case, what simpler and more democratic means would we have at our disposal than to ignore them?
If, say, a particular publisher has managed to disenchant its former patrons, the responsibility rests with the publication to rise to the challenge and demonstrate its worth anew. It's not our responsibility in a "free" market to be loyal patrons of any media publication that has failed to fulfill its intended purpose, sustain our interest, or at the very least, suspend disbelief. Since when has American culture rewarded the loser of the contest with first-prize? The innovators are finding new ways to engage our attention and so they have won our attention. And although it may not be profitable for some, it may be the best thing for many, many others. As a result of participatory media, we interact more, collaborate more, write more, and compose our thoughts more carefully (well, we all do what we can). Even if nobody reads our personal blogs, op-eds, or articles, or comments, it’s something we each accomplished and something we might not otherwise have thought to attempt if it wasn’t all the rage where everyone was doing it. Is this effort less valuable than to simply drive to the store and purchase something someone else accomplished? Frankly, I don’t see how any of this expansion of knowledge or the extension of our circle of acquaintances beyond our immediate vicinity can be a bad thing for humankind or specifically, American culture. America is best known as a melting pot for many cultures and the Internet is a vehicle for voluntary integration and collaboration. No one is forcing anyone to visit websites that have participatory media. There are plenty of read-only sites on the Internet. If that's not enough, I suppose there will probably always be a fringe of separatists calling for a return to the old ways and better control over the masses, resulting in a limit to our access to information and to each other. Perhaps they’ll succeed in having their way but I for one sincerely hope the Internet users, the Internet community, and Internet mediums continue to evolve freely and democratically and hope that Tennessee Folk will someday soon (once finished) play a valuable, if only a minor part.
The free dissemination of information is not all bad news for traditional media and institutions of higher learning. The more intelligently-run organizations are adapting, as must we all. Those that are not, well, you know how that goes. It’s sink or swim. But of course, there are some that are still floundering to find their way (on those the jury is still out). Will they learn to adapt? Stay tuned! Buy their product out of loyalty--so Keen seems to imply--or if for no other reason, out of morbid curiosity to see if it still sucks. Just keep those pro-culture dollars coming.
Why do we need gate-keepers? I translate that as just keepers. We need a keeper supposedly, because we need others to do all the mental heavy lifting. Because we are seen as a nation of mental children. But then, doesn't it follow that exercising our brains through experimental discourse will grow a stronger and more capable, adult mind? Doesn't it also follow that widespread collaboration will lead to sustainable peace and productivity? It simply takes time.
I think Americans are losing their childlike trust of gatekeepers in general. We're growing up. It's inevitable. But what does this mean for the experts and the elite? Well, what should happen?
If someone hadn’t decided Americans were better off not knowing the full story about the evidence used as justification for attacking Iraq after 9/11, why we might not have killed so many people and spent so much money in the process. Thousands of lives and billions upon billions of dollars later…who’s ruining culture? Good looking out, experts and gatekeepers of information. We can tell you’ve really got humanity’s best interest at heart.
Speaking of which, does it strike you that some publishers have lost confidence in their ability to excel at their job and be rewarded for their excellence? Take the American news services, for instance. Challenged by wider public access to free information, rather than step up the investigative reporting (what we expect to find prioritized in a news medium), some have responded by doing the opposite: cutting corners by paying less or retaining fewer full-time reporters on staff. I may not be qualified to judge the ins and outs of the industry but from a layman's perspective, I have to ask, will this improve or devalue the product? You know my vote. Are you, like I am, dismayed to see some celebrity’s embarrassing scandal plastering the major news media for weeks or months on end? I mean, maybe once or twice for the novelty but surely they must realize the novelty quickly wears off and leads to boredom. And does this inspire you to return to that source for serious news content? It doesn’t inspire my confidence. News publications should realize that since they are no longer monopolizing our full attention, there’s no need to attempt to be everything-to-everybody. Rather than whine about change and competition, we all should endeavor to excel at something and be of service. Be useful. My advice as a customer (and remember, the customer is ALWAYS right) is that news media should prioritize important NEWS (not attention-whoring scandal) and then prove to be a valuable, credible, and unbiased resource for the most current information. Even my local newspapers figured that one out. Kudos to them.
Did I emphasize enough how sick I am of celebrity dirt? I’m very sick of celebrity dirt. Isn’t everyone? Evidently not. Perhaps some do come to CNN to see Britney Spear’s bald head. But then some people only log online to look at porn. If you spread out a smörgåsbord so everyone will find a little something, soon we’ll be finding porn on CNN. It would be nice if we had the option to filter out the garbage from the legit news. Oh, yeah. We can just skip CNN and go to BBC News and run across Britney’s bald head less often. Oh, but wait, that would be destroying American Culture.
Lastly, in The Cult of the Amateur, Keen’s barbs are not solely reserved for the tools of Web 2.0, he packs a few for their alleged accomplices, such as Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig and skirts libel (if Lessig demonstrated Keen’s dearth of humor about the matter, he might be faced with a lawsuit):
“ In a twisted kind of Alice in Wonderland, down-the-rabbit-hole logic, Silicon Valley visionaries such as Stanford law professor and Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig and cyberpunk William Gibson laud the appropriation of intellectual property. ” (p24)
Enjoy a cheerful rebuttal by Lawrence Lessig>>
I LOVE the way Lessig then proceeds to set up a Wiki>> so readers may collaborate on Lessig's critique of the fallacies contained in Keen’s book! Keen should have seen that coming. Or perhaps he hoped for as much. All this attention adds up to increased sales, I imagine. How clever of Keen. Or as Lessig says, BRILLIANT! Lessig's response is, of course, followed by many comments (ala web 2.0) that I personally found insightful and well worth the read. One in particular managed to sum up the message in Keen's book with one sentence, "Only Professionals Should Be Trusted".
Well put, Fellow Amateur. Blog on!
Look what Keen has to say about search engines:
"Take Google, for example, the economic paragon of a truly successful Web 2.0 media company. With a market cap of approximately $150 billion, the Silicon Valley company took in $6.139 billion in revenue and $1.465 billion in profits in 2005. Telling is the fact that unlike companies such as Time Warner or Disney that create and produce movies, music, magazines, and television, Google is a parasite; it creates no content of its own. (p135) In terms of value creation, there is nothing there apart from its links." (p135)
To Keen, my advice is: Best to leave the hubris, spin, and bias to the amateurs. After all, everyone has an opinion and they're giving it away for free whereas your book will set a reader back $20. But then, what does that matter so long as you’re selling and we’re buying. That’s what American Culture is all about?
BLOG-1,642
