Minnesota Public Radio's Midmorning takes on a topic Gather members might find compelling in Good blog, bad blog:
One digital media critic claims that user-generated content from bloggers and citizen media is bad for our culture.
That critic would be Andrew Keen, author of "The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture." and willing guest for a Minnesota Public Radio online discussion here on Gather.com.
Post your questions in the comments below, and I'll share Andrew's replies. He will be available through Monday, August 6, 2007.
_______________________
Julia Schrenkler
Minnesota Public Radio Interactive Producer
More about Andrew Keen:
Andrew Keen's blog
AfterTV
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
It's far more than just blogs. Blogs are just recycled news, anyway, and don't even involve any investigative reporting - so people are just giving opinions on the news. It isn't news. But I get headlines on my home page. Some internet news makes me look forward to my PBS TV news with Jim Lehrer to see if it will talked about, there, or if it was really all that important.
Thanks to the internet I even got a review for my published novel from Bon Germany from a man who runs a Google book group (so we email chat, also). How science fiction is that? Small publishers now can reach the world! A mid-list author in Minnesota can chat with Bon!!!
And I belong to a Yahoo Joan Crawford fan club that I enjoy a lot. I know NO Joan Crawford fans in my "real world".
And no, not everything that is user-generated in blogs is "bad for our culture" just as not ALL rock and roll is bad. It might be used to define our culture in future days but I would not condemn it as a whole. I do know that thanks to some blogs, news became dispersed quicker and truth laid bare despite the major media's reluctance to do so.
We watched Andrew Keen along with Time magazine book critic Lev Grossman and Wired contributing editor Jeff Howell on bookTV yesterday. It was a great discussion and I look forward to Mr. Keen's participation here.
When I do, it's usually just the classical music station. My nerves! My nerves!
The internet has taken the control of information out of the hands of political tyrants and the "gatekeepers" of the information in the mainstream media. Some would argue that they are the same.
Taking the power out of the gatekeepers of the mainstream media is huge! No longer does the average person in the USA or the world have to consume the news that the editor of the the BBC, New York Times, CBS Evening News, or the managers at National Public Radio deem "Newsworthy".
And it's showing. Print newpapers and the evening news are almost done. It's time to stick a fork in them. Yes, the demographics are changing and the "instant news" part of news is changing also, but what is not reported, what is under reported, and what is reported with a bias or agenda is now picked up by the alternative media via the internet.
More choice, more participation from the average Joe, more diverse view points.
It's a good thing. At least for news and information.
Gather is an internet place that shatters that political isolation - and I can talk to a Texan like I would talk to a neighbor here in Minneapolis. And don't tell me this typing and reading isn't "talking" or I'll send a deaf mute out to slap your face!
I do see the point that amateur news and arts programs may not be as reliable or as brilliantly (over) produced as those we now have commercially. However I am of the opinion that flashy production events are usually more glitz than content. I'd rather have more content and less glitz, thank you.
I prefer live local music to anything that has to pass through the strangle hold of the music industry moguls. I prefer live musicians in my front room, or in the yard around the fire, to anything on TV or radio. Listening to music is good, but it does not compare to music you can participate in. Pick up a drum or a whistle and add to the celebration. There is nothing like it.
Why is it better, Mr. Keen, to have a handful of pampered expert musicians rather than live music on every street corner? People who really love music for music will become expert without needing to be pampered. I could not believe that Brittany Spears was offered up as an example of the superiority of commercial music. The only thing that turns me on about Brittany Spears is the ease with which I can turn her off....by changing stations or better, by turning off the radio. I will certainly not be unhappy to see the commercial idol business fall back into the gutter, if that is what happens.
Journalism is another question. Or is it? These days investigative journalism seems to have become nothing more than having a press pass to get into the briefing room where pre-produced news releases are handed out like spun candy at the fair. I don't need to have my information parsed and framed and fitted by a bunch of professional hacksters.
The internet has a way to go before it can replace media news, but it will grow into the role naturally, and if TV withers away, I can live with that. I do like the touch and feel of print, and I suspect it will be a long time before newspapers and books are abandoned in favor of the electronic screen. I can read a book all day if it is interesting, but a few hours in front of the electronic window is plenty. I really can't imagine any advantage today to reading a book like Jane Austin's "Pride and Prejudice" in download edition rather than on paper. Download would be good for research purposes, of course, say if you wanted to know how many times Jane used a certain word, and on what pages in what paragraphs. Or if you wanted to find a particular scene or character or quote quickly. I suspect that electronic media will never replace the convenience and pleasure to be had from a good book.
I think the internet is exciting and provides value unavailable from commercial media. If there is a value to commercial media which is unavailable on internet, no doubt there will be some niche for it. Meanwhile, the competition will be good for cultural values, not bad. Let broadcast news try to keep up if it can.
guardian_and_other_uk_news_sites_and_their_american_r
eaders.html
I've got to learn to do links better.
Citizen journalist like Bloggers will never be investigative journalists, though - just down home folks that lip off real good.
While there is a lot of trash on the net, there also is a lot of good stuff that we would never see if the internet did not exist. Most of the good stuff is from professionals, not journalists, but from experts in their field. I believe this is what is hurting many journalists. I did not believe the Washington Post, Tom Friedman, or David Brooks in their cheer-leading the invasion of Iraq, but I did believe Dr. Juan Cole, Professor of South Asian History, University of Michigan, when he said it would be a disaster.
Another big problem for journalists in the current environment is that they are controllable or have biases that are not apparent. Third party academics or professional diplomats will have biases, but those biases are fairly transparent, but you can still glean insights from their professional perspective.
Perhaps Mr. Keen should be promoting better training in critical thinking, similar to that I received in my public school in Minnesota forty years ago.
Keen seems to go too easy on the mainstream media. And major record labels and broadcasters like Clearchannel - awful. Sure, there's a lot of junk on the internet, but that's been true for decades. When he referenced the guy who didn't vote for Al Gore because he read on the internet that he was Jewish - he could just as easily have gotten that from AM Radio 15 or 20 years ago, or now. Mainstream media has shot itself in the foot many a time, most disastrously when it took a uniform stance for the Iraq war while giving almost no voice to the dissent that was alive and well on the internet in 2003. When the media speaks with one voice in favor of a terrible policy, is media fragmentation that much worse?
On the internet an idiot gets as much space as the wise man, but under most circumstances, in a level playing field, the audience will listen to the wise man and the fool will get banned or ignored. In one-way media, in a consolidated environment, the idiot can be in charge a long long time, and in charge for reasons to do not with talent, but who he knows. Banality is all over the place in old and new medias, but if it can be avoided, it is a small price to pay for interactivity.
What it all comes down to is media literacy, and the teaching critical thinking in schools and at home (as others have said). Keen doesn't think there's a lot of media literacy out there. He may be right. There are a lot of ill-informed people out there. And that too goes back the the self-reinforcing digital divide that was mentioned in the show, that's also linked to an educational and class divide, which we, as a nation, aren't doing much about.
Kate M. asked:
I was wondering what Mr. Keen foresees in the future for librarians and
others working in the field of information science.
Andrew Keen replies:
That's a subject worthy of a book in itself. I do know that librarians have been very interested in my arguments and seem to be collectively concerned by the threat of both Google and Wikipedia on their profession. The real threat to librarians is that they as human beings are being "disintermediated" by the artificial intelligence of search engines like Google. That really worries me. I want my kids to be helped by live people rather than robotic algorithms. They are living examples of the value of cultural "gatekeepers" in our society. We are collectively much poorer without them.
I heard the Midmorning interview with Keen this morning, and I think he
is another case of cultural conservativism. Nothing new can possibly be
good for the culture, if you demand that the culture remain unchanged.
I do see the point that amateur news and arts programs may not be as
reliable or as brilliantly (over) produced as those we now have
commercially. However I am of the opinion that flashy production events
are usually more glitz than content. I'd rather have more content and
less glitz, thank you.
I prefer live local music to anything that has to pass through the
strangle hold of the music industry moguls. I prefer live musicians in
my front room, or in the yard around the fire, to anything on TV or
radio. Listening to music is good, but it does not compare to music you
can participate in. Pick up a drum or a whistle and add to the
celebration. There is nothing like it.
Why is it better, Mr. Keen, to have a handful of pampered expert
musicians rather than live music on every street corner? People who
really love music for music will become expert without needing to be
pampered. I could not believe that Brittany Spears was offered up as an
example of the superiority of commercial music. The only thing that
turns me on about Brittany Spears is the ease with which I can turn her
off....by changing stations or better, by turning off the radio. I will
certainly not be unhappy to see the commercial idol business fall back
into the gutter, if that is what happens.
Journalism is another question. Or is it? These days investigative
journalism seems to have become nothing more than having a press pass to
get into the briefing room where pre-produced news releases are handed
out like spun candy at the fair. I don't need to have my information
parsed and framed and fitted by a bunch of professional hacksters.
The internet has a way to go before it can replace media news, but it
will grow into the role naturally, and if TV withers away, I can live
with that. I do like the touch and feel of print, and I suspect it will
be a long time before newspapers and books are abandoned in favor of the
electronic screen. I can read a book all day if it is interesting, but a
few hours in front of the electronic window is plenty. I really can't
imagine any advantage today to reading a book like Jane Austin's "Pride
and Prejudice" in download edition rather than on paper. Download would
be good for research purposes, of course, say if you wanted to know how
many times Jane used a certain word, and on what pages in what
paragraphs. Or if you wanted to find a particular scene or character or
quote quickly. I suspect that electronic media will never replace the
convenience and pleasure to be had from a good book.
I think the internet is exciting and provides value unavailable from
commercial media. If there is a value to commercial media which is
unavailable on internet, no doubt there will be some niche for it.
Meanwhile, the competition will be good for cultural values, not bad.
Let broadcast news try to keep up if it can.
Andrew Keen reacts:
This is a verbose and poorly expressed comment. It contains no concrete examples of how we can successfully monetize non mainstream media and hasn't been logically thought out. Just writing off investigative journalism is childish and irresponsible. What about Dana Priest and Anne Hull's brilliant Washington Post exposure of the Army Walter Reed Medical Center scandal. The equivalent on the Internet seems to be Loose Change, the popular movie that suggests George Bush and Dick Cheney planned 9/11
I've been busy in the woods so haven't been back for a few days....pity. However, I see you have posted a reply in which "Andrew Keen reacts".
Reacts is the correct word.
Frankly I don't see the advantage of seeing "how we can successfully monetize non mainstream media." From my point of view, the value of small local venue journalism is not so much in how it can be "monetized," (is that even a word?) as it is in how much useful (or at least entertaining) information it provides to me, the reader.
I don't write off investigative journalism at all. I just wish there was more of it. I didn't read the expose on the Walter Reed Medical Center "scandal." My impression of that bit of news (or entertainment?) was that of a media flurry, not culturally significant phenomena. It was only a few years ago that an attempt was made to replace Walter Reed Medical Center, which was said at that time to be in poor condition, out-moded and insufficient to the demand. The proposal to replace was dropped due to lack of congressional interest. Now the same people who refused to replace WRMC (that would be the U.S. Congress) are "scandalized" by the discovery that WRMC is in poor condition, out-moded and insufficient. What sense is there in that? It only seems to make sense if you are a scandal mongering member of congress or a "journalist" who wants another inflammatory story.
Andrew childishly insults my comments, and then ends by insulting the internet. If that's the best he can offer, I'll be perfectly happy to ignore his self-aggrandizing tantrums in future.
Did George Bush and Dick Cheney plan the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York? I don't know. The scandal is that such scenarios are plausible, or even thinkable. It is evident that they took advantage of that attack to make political and economic power grabs.
When Nixon was impeached Cheney and Rumsfeld, who were at that time young conservative political operatives, were shielded from justice by the resignation and subsequent pardon of a criminal president. If the impeachment had gone forward, no doubt many lower level operatives would have received punishment and disgrace. Instead, they were allowed to continue their underhanded work in the shadows, to re-emerge as neo-cons in the last days of the twentieth century. The result of their lying, cheating, dishonest and probably criminal schemes was seen in the passed six years as an immense transfer of wealth from honest working people to monstrous, bloated corporations and their executive officers, under the guise of a war against "terror."
I was writing, speaking, and demonstrating publicly against this unjust war in Iraq before it officially got started. Most people now realize what a mistake this war was, but we who stood against received precious little support at the time. There was no commercial media support for us then, just as there is now no commercial media support for prosecuting the gang of criminals who have misled us into this disastrous episode of military adventurism now.
I'm sorry, truly sorry, but we were right to object to this war. Now that everybody seems to agree about that, how about listening more carefully to us now? We knew we shouldn't get involved in a Mideast war. Now we know we should clean out this ugly wound in the executive office before it is bandaged over and allowed to fester again.
I think we should cut this infection to the bone, right now. The damage is immediate and evident. Can we really survive another eighteen months of this corrupt and secretive presidency? Billions of dollars and uncountable numbers of lives have already been lost to the madness that struck the U.S. after the September Eleventh attacks. Enough! Stop the torture, stop the war, stop the bleeding wound Now. Put this cadre of executive criminals in prison where they belong. No more pardons. It is time for them to pay for what they have done. It is time for them to pay back what they have stolen.
Mr. Keen has shown himself to be an apologist for this presidency, and a reactionary element working toward enabling the next generation of cover-up. Far from disparaging the populist journalism of the internet, I embrace it as the next best hope for freedom and democracy.
During the discussion, Keen freely admitted that his book is too easy on mainstream media, as well as acknowledged that it is possible to find quality content on the internet. He also pointed out several times that he wasn't arguing to dismantle the internet, but that we become more responsible users.
It seems to me that the subtitle of his book is putting too much focus on one medium verses another, when we should be more concerned about quality of content, regardless of the method of delivery.
Personally, I think the problem with mainstream media is that it's too rigid. Only a few people decide what is worth distributing, and these people are often are more concerned with marketing than quality. However, the internet offers so much content, that it becomes almost impossible to find the best information. In either case, if we want the best for our society, we must consume responsibly.
I believe there will always be a demand for quality content. It's my hope that there will always be a demand for professionals that dedicate their lives to finding it.
The question that concerns me most is how we can transition those professional gatekeepers to the internet, where their skills can continue to be utilized.
Not wanting to take anyone else's word for what he thinks, however, I went to his primary site: a blog (pause for ironic effect) riddled with the same dren he accuses everyone else of posting. Oh look, he calls a new computer 'sexy' and compares it to his grandma - yes, in the same article. How cutting edge and professional. I have to wonder if his vaunted gatekeepers would approve.
To be honest, I have not read his book nor, unless someone sends me a free copy before my hand is out of the splint, am I likely to. I did read reviews, however, as well as some of his blog postings and a smattering of other articles on Keen and his writing. (Hey, it's early and I am sitting here with my first cup of tea.) I note again that almost everything, including Mr Keen's writing on Britannica.com is posted on a blog. You know, that evil web 2.0 thing that is destroying our culture.
In one of them, he says: "...it's obvious that Web 2.0 is a cultural and intellectual catastrophe that will provoke mass media illiteracy in America."
I ask: Obvious to whom? Where is this mass media literacy that must currently exist if the illiteracy is yet to be provoked? I certainly see little evidence of it.
In other articles, Keen complains that the great unwashed masses (my term, based on his attitude) are being allowed to speak! Heavens no! His statement that not everyone has something valuable to say proposes an alarmingly narrow view of the world, one in which only those who pay their dues to a corporate gatekeeper are deemed worthy of even momentary attention.
Sure, everyone could use an editor (myself and Keen included) but that's a far cry from deciding wholesale that most people just aren't worth the time. In our increasingly connected and globalized world, we need more understanding of the human condition as it applies to the greater community, not less.
As a personal aside on the value of gatekeepers and professionals, I want to relate an experience I have had on occasion with technical errors in a piece of my writing. When it is in a book, it is not corrected until the book is reprinted - and only if the mistake is caught. In one case a HUGE publisher decided to reorder chapters in a large book, turning chapter 21 into chapter 19. Then they did a search and replace on every instance of '21' in the chapter and replaced it with '19' (the tech writers in the audience are cringing, I can tell). This seemingly simple act also replaced technical information such as port numbers with the new digits. The first time I noticed the error, it took about 15 seconds to figure out what had gone wrong...and the rest of that same breath to know how they should have fixed it. Has the book been reprinted? Yes. Did it ever get fixed? I don't think so. On another book, with a different publisher, someone decided they didn't like the use of "not" in a section heading, so they simply removed it. (because that won't change the meaning or anything)
On the other hand, consider one of my several blogs. I see an error, I click edit, I fix it, I click publish. Done. If I want to, I can even send email to the people who have posted comments and give them a heads-up that they should read the corrected information.
Yeah, I can see how the Internet must lead to bad data getting published and left there.
But let me get to the question that has been bothering me all along: whose culture does he think will be killed? Certainly not mine, and I am about the same age as Mr Keen so we must share a few things in common culturally. Apparently not even Mr Keen's culture since, as far as I can tell, he would be an utter unknown were it not for all the evil Web 2.0 lurking in an alley ready to mug "his culture"
In reading a bit about the guy, however, another question keeps coming to mind: Are we sure he isn't a UK Stephen Colbert, who is presenting himself as a walking, talking...err, sitting and typing parody of someone...just doing it with a very straight face.
~km
ps - note to Andrew Keen: get your own darned Gather account if you want to talk with us. I really dislike your use of Julie as your 'gatekeeper' here.