I don’t know why guests seem to be convinced they’re going to be bludgeoned at the hand of Stephen Colbert on TCR. First Markos Moulitsas talked about getting “[his] ass handed to [him] by the master himself.” Now Andrew Keen, Thursday night’s guest seems to be getting a little nervous as well.
From Andrew Keen’s Blog:
Speaking of being outwitted and taken to the cleaners, I’m appearing on the Colbert Report this Thursday (8/16). So those of you who want to see me get the mother of wallopings should tune in then. No doubt he’ll make me the central comedy on Comedy Central (serves me right for idealizing mainstream media).
Anyone have any advice about how to outwit the great Stephen Colbert?
My advice to him? Try not to throw water on him.
Apparently Keen’s claim to fame is analyzing the down side to the concept of Web 2.0. I found this excerpt in an article featuring an interesting discussion he had with David Weinberger, author of “Everything is Miscellaneous,” in the Wall Street Journal (courtesy of Keen’s blog):
So what, exactly, is Web 2.0? It is the radical democratization of media which is enabling anyone to publish anything on the Internet. Mainstream media’s traditional audience has become Web 2.0′s empowered author. Web 2.0 transforms all of us — from 90-year-old grandmothers to eight-year-old third graders — into digital writers, music artists, movie makers and journalists. Web 2.0 is YouTube, the blogosphere, Wikipedia, MySpace or Facebook. Web 2.0 is YOU! (Time Magazine’s Person of the Year for 2006).
Is Web 2.0 a dream or a nightmare? Is it a remix of Disney’s “Cinderella” or of Kafka’s “Metamorphosis”? Have we — as empowered conversationalists in the global citizen media community — woken up with the golden slipper of our ugly sister (aka: mainstream media) on our dainty little foot? Or have we — as authors-formerly-know-as-the-audience — woken up as giant cockroaches doomed to eternally stare at our hideous selves in the mirror of Web 2.0?
Silicon Valley, of course, interprets Web 2.0 as Disney rather than Kafka. After all, as the sales and marketing architects of this great democratization argue, what could be wrong with a radically flattened media? Isn’t it dreamy that we can all now publish ourselves, that we each possess digital versions of Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press, that we are now able to easily create, distribute and sell our content on the Internet? …
Yes, the people have finally spoken. And spoken. And spoken.
Now they won’t shut up. The problem is that YOU! have forgotten how to listen, how to read, how to watch… We’ve lost truth and interest in the objectivity of mainstream media because of our self-infatuation with the subjectivity of our own messages. It’s what, in “Cult of the Amateur,” I call digital narcissism. A flattened media is a personalized, chaotic media without that essential epistemological anchor of truth. The impartiality of the authoritative, accountable expert is replaced by murkiness of the anonymous amateur. When everyone claims to be an author, there can be no art, no reliable information, no audience.
Everything becomes miscellaneous. And miscellany is a euphemism for anarchy… It’s easy to see. Just go online and look at YouTube, the blogosphere, Wikipedia, MySpace or Facebook.
It’s an interesting concept, and one that I can understand to a rather large extent. But he’s lumping in the blogosphere (sites like this) with MySpace, which for the most part is much more narcissistic. The anarchy aspects of MySpace and YouTube are clear to some extent, as is his observation of corporate America trying their hardest to define Web 2.0. But on the other hand, he seems to be discounting sites like this, blogs with specific content other than the blogger itself, news sources about niche pockets of fandom and interest within the confines of the blogosphere.
When the focus is changed to something other than the author, does this narcissist trend reverse, or is the development of a wealth of knowledge of an obscure niche subject one of the defining tenets of this dearth of truth in this “Cult of the Amateur” he mentions?
Later in his article, Keen says:
The problem, however, with Web 2.0 is that most of the conversation seems to be taking place anonymously, conducted — in a manner of speaking — by people who are more interested in vulgar insult than respectful intellectual intercourse. The comments sections of most major website are littered with this trash. As is the blogosphere. So, yes, the Internet is great for experts to discover one another and conduct responsible conversation. It’s the monkey chorus on the democratized web that bother me.
Even in an interest as restricted as the Colbert Nation fandom, the “monkey chorus of the democratized” is clearly heard on multiple sites. I have a bit of control with this site as the comments are moderated, but on other site’s comments and on message boards, the many different intelligent Colbert fans are often overshadowed by the monkeys, as it were. But just because a person of worth is surrounded by those who choose to dwell on the lowest common denominator does not mean that said person loses this worth due to his surroundings.
I think the trick behind finding worth within the new subtext of Web 2.0 is simply to find sources which you find relevant and helpful (such as, say, this site), and filter out the flotsam of people and environments which facilitate the monkeys. Or, at least learn how to mentally filter them out. It’s a possible task, most definitely. It’s not necessarily easy to, say, filter over the Kristi’s to get to the meatier posts on the Colboard, but it can be done. Sometimes people write off entire communities due to a handful of degenerates, but the trick is not to let the losers ruin your fandom. If you know that there are good people with good things to say within a community, fight for it. And learn to see the good within the junk.
I think this is a fascinating topic for discussion, so I’ll attempt to further it. I’ve been curious about this book since I heard of it, especially since I’m now a participant in Web 2.0 via both this blog and Colbert University.
I’m glad to hear that Keen does say, “So, yes, the Internet is great for experts to discover one another and conduct responsible conversation” – that he does acknowledge that there is at least *some* quality stuff on “the Internets.” (I’d interpret that to refer to No Fact Zone specifically, DB. )
But I think there’s always room for a critique of something society seems swept along in/by, which is certainly true of Web 2.0. One good aspect about Web 2.0, that Keen alludes to here, is that anyone can publish – and that’s also a bad part. It makes for a lot of dreck out there.
As an editor by profession, I can see that while many people who put their writing on the Web (notice how I’m trying to avoid honoring them with the term “writers”) are understandably happy to be free of any constraints or filters such as editors or bosses, the result is often that they are embarrassing themselves by producing crap that would have been fixed or nixed by an editor or boss. And that may live on forever, thanks to the magical properties of the Internets.
(I must add that I’m being deliberately provocative and using words like “crap” and “dreck” in order to help provoke a discussion – which touches on another critique Keen makes, I think, of the frequent incivility of the Web and the paucity of reasoned and respectful discussion vs. random ranting and dissing to provoke a reaction or just express one’s frustration.)
I think what you say at the end is right about what we have to do to find the worth in Web 2.0: Rather than declare it all crap, we have to look hard for the wheat among the chaff. But a point that brings up is that this new reality puts much more responsibility on the viewer/reader to critically evaluate the information they’re being presented with, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, than the “old media world,” which just consisted of well-edited media like books and newspapers (by which I mean the New York Times, not USA Today).
And are people being taught those skills that they need to navigate Web 2.0? Or are they mindlessly accepting everything as equal in value/truth, not even aware that there are differences? I think that’s the fear that critics have – that the average person, who is a high school graduate or less, may not have the skills to distinguish between what is a reliable, responsible source and what is nonsense. It puts a large burden on the viewer/reader to in fact be the editor of the information, to determine what is worthy and what is not – a function that used to be performed by actual editors.
Of course, a point I raise over on Keen’s blog is, Is this any different than what has sprung up since the debut of cable news and the like? The shows that the Report parodies feature much the same incivility and disregard for truth that Keen accuses Web 2.0 of (see: ‘The O’Reilly Factor’ comparing DailyKos to the Nazi Party).
I’ll step aside now. (Longest. Post. Ever?)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
1. My advice to Keen – be passionate about your subject and do what Stephen asks every guest to do – disabuse him of his ignorance.
2. Maybe the gift bags should include the Colbert equivalent of a purple heart – like a Silver Nail – that guests can wear proudly to show they’ve been in battle with Stephen.
3. As for “Web 2.0. Dream or Nightmere?”… Wow – I’ll come back if I can get my thoughts condensed to something as short as WordsWithGrace! lol.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
@Jennie:
A Silver Nail, that’s a great idea!!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I found Andrew Keen to be pretty insulting. And I like the fact that I didn’t need a bachelors degree,
or have to kiss some corporate ass to write this. Isn’t the internets cool!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0