Last night’s guest, Andrew Keen, is getting quite a bit of buzz in the blogosphere. Since his position is that bloggers are people who steal from artists, and who are worthless without a corporate sponsor, I’m sure he won’t be hurt at all by all of the less-than-glowing reports of his interview.
And here’s my take: I’d much rather take the opinion of a niche blogger, who gets paid no money except for some non-biased Google Adsense and Amazon product links, who produces his news with passion and with an in-depth knowledge of said subject than some corporate jerkoff who gets paid to espouse the content he creates. Passion trumps payola every time. I actually find it quite liberating to work outside of the corporate structure. I answer to no one and I do this blog simply for the love of all things Colbert, all praise and glory to his name, peace be upon him. I owe no one and I am able to create the content I feel compelled to create.
In case you’d like to tell Andrew how you felt he did on the show, here’s a link to his blog. Yes, his blog. Mr. “Web 2.0 transforms us into monkeys” has a blog. And apparently he was a little nervous about coming on the show:
Andrew Keen On Media, Culture And Technogy: the future with a twist
You said exactly what I was thinking when i watched the interview, how is someone paid and controlled by a newspaper (and as often as not by a special interest group or business) gonna be any more objective than some one with no strings. The bloggers are only bound and limited by their personal stance on an issue (which can usually be determined by reading a few of their articles) where as the “professional” has not only their bias but the corporate bias as well…. But heck I’m an unintelligent layman!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
There are so many levels of wrongness to Mr. Keen’s assertion (I’ve taken to using Mr. only for men I do not like). The definition of high art has never been clear. After all, most of the artists we know from the Renaissance were commercial artists– hired by the wealthy. That means that connections were key. Still now, you only qualify as an “artist” if the right people define you as such. Often the “right people” are those with many letters after their names from ivory towers. I respect academic, but I understand its limits.
If anything, the internet has increased the amount of content, creativity, and art available. Bloggers are out there with such amazing voices, and they are willing to share them for nothing. Just for communication.
I believe the internet is becoming a collective consciousness for this era. If there’s something more important than art, that’s it.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I hope he just wasn’t making his point very well – because if this was it, it makes no sense.
I got really lost when Stephen said that he believed there were weapons of mass destruction because he heard it from President Bush, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld. Then Keen says that that proves his point… excuse me?!?
As a lowly pig farmer, I seem to remember that it was the MSM – the professionals – the ones who work for mega-multinational corporations – who were reporting this uncritically. The only place we were hearing calls of bulls**t was the “amateur bloggers.” Now, I’d love Keen to take a few minutes to explain to me how this demonstrates his point. Or did I miss something?
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Most of the descriptive terms I’d like to use for Mr. Keen’s ideas do not fall within the parameters of the “Nice shiny site” that is NFZ, so I’ll refrain. Lots of disjointed thoughts chattering through my mind, monkey that I am. Like since when does how much money an artist makes determine the quality of the art? Interesting that Wikipedia points out that he’s a Holocaust denier. Makes the whole Nazi exchange even more interesting. And as someone who’s not only a monkey but a professional editor, I know that bad books get published for purely economic reasons (“What will sell?” is the big question for all but the most elite publishers) and well-written, even artistic, books don’t–for the same reasons. Mostly I found him so pompous and obnoxious and yes, elitist, that I wanted to see Stephen nail him to the wall. But the rest of the monkeys seem to be taking care of that. He actually made me not want to read his book, which rarely happens with guests on TDS and TCR. Interesting to compare this interview with the Markos Moulitsas one the other night.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Re Keen’s unkeen logic: I *think* he was trying to argue: (1) bloggers (including blogging journalists) cherry pick facts; (2) Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell cherry picked the evidence for WMD; therefore (3) bloggers are as bad as the Bush Administration. (4) Therefore, bloggers are destroying journalistic integrity. Unfortunately, premise (1) seems a bit question-begging.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I’m going to chime in with my iconoclastic view again…. I don’t think the interview reached its potential, which is a shame, because I think a critical discussion of these issues — the Web’s impact on our culture; the value (I would say there is one) of expert opinion; the way the Web can seem to give the uninformed and the expert equal status; the extra burden this places on Web users to be critical consumers of information [which I think is what Keen may have been trying to get at, Jennie, in his comment about Stephen's beliefs about the war, is that he needed to consider the source's credibility] — is important at this time when our culture is being changed so much by the Web.
For instance, our San Francisco Chronicle recently announced that it’s laying off a quarter of its newsroom staff (100 people) — and that’s only the latest round of layoffs, and one echoed at papers all over the country. We all know why – you can get news, or “news,” for free everywhere on the Web — including the Chronicle website itself, of course.
What is the impact of this trend? One day, will the New York Times be the only national newspaper, with all the rest reduced to happy local news that’s cheap to produce, like features on the quirky teacher down the block who takes care of 15 cats?
Some will say good riddance to newspapers; I think, given the magnitude of official corruption and malfeasance today, our country needs more, not fewer, investigative journalists who are given the time and the resources to develop a complicated story over weeks or months. That’s not a function, I’d argue, that can be handled at the same level by many or any bloggers. They don’t have the time or the resources.
This is just one tiny facet of one tiny aspect of the huge array of issues that Keen rightly raises about the Web’s impact on our culture. Unfortunately, in his interview he seemed to affect a belligerent, combative, “I’m going to conquer you” tone that brought out a similar tone in Stephen, whose character is already oriented that way. Whenever someone starts comparing something to the Nazis, reasoned discussion goes out the window (see PapaBear: “DailyKos is just like the Nazi Party”). Keen should have rejected that comparison as the hyperbole that it almost always is.
“Stephen” is almost always going to put things in the simplest possible terms, as black-or-white issues, phrased in the most provocative way possible — just like his model O’Reilly. So whether an interview rises above that level may be largely up to the guest — if they respond on the same level (making grand pronouncements about the Web destroying our culture, for instance, or making it all about I’m-right-you’re-wrong), then you’ll never have a reasoned debate, you’ll just have shouting.
In my opinion.
(How come we don’t have a Preview feature here in WordPress so I can see how long this is going to be? Oh well.)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Re the line in a comment: “Interesting that Wikipedia points out that [Keen's] a Holocaust denier.”
Ouch! Whatever one’s view of Keen, this was clearly B.S. added by a cranky Web user (and, accordingly, has since been taken down, as per Wikipedia’s internal policing system). A Google search reveals no other references to such an idea.
This underscores the point that gleaning “information” from the Web requires a much higher level of critical assessment/knowledge from the reader: in this case, knowing that anyone can add a “fact” to an article in Wikipedia, and that a lot of people are hating on him right now.
Personally, I wouldn’t trust anything in Keen’s Wikipedia entry at present.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
@WWG, your comments are never too long because they’re always interesting. You’re right that the discussion needs to take place, but I think Keen is a poor spokesman. I loved the linked article from the WSJ (and I do want to read Weinberg’s book). Keen’s failures of logic and deliberate insults were more annoying than provocative. He didn’t impress me as the sort of professional he imagines himself to be, published or not (I loved Stephen’s intro: “My guest tonight has written a book.”) It addresses your point about it being in the hands of the guest to elevate the discussion. This is what Markos did with the Daily Kos piece. I’m also thinking of the Salman Rushdie bit back in May, with the discussion of book critics vs. Amazon reviewers. Similar topics with much different outcomes. I think it was another interview limited by Stephen’s need to stay in character but not getting the right lines from his guest. The stealing vs. artists getting paid for their work was a lot less interesting than addressing Stephen’s inherent distrust of books and facts. Or his own provocative remarks about the trash on the internets. But Keen was too full of himself to enter into a genuine discussion. It could have been so much more, and I think that’s my disappointment with it.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Ooops. Mea Culpa. Comment editing would be gratefully accepted and I’ll be more careful in the future! Clearly something in this interview really annoyed me.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
@Diane:
“But Keen was too full of himself to enter into a genuine discussion. It could have been so much more, and I think that’s my disappointment with it.”
I agree with you there! Well said — and so succinct!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
RE: the link to the Wall Street Journal “debate”. – favorite line from Weinberger in response to Keen’s arguments:
“Andrew, the mud you throw obscures the issues you raise. Porn sites, silly posts, monkeys, cockroaches, toilet seats. This rhetoric isn’t helpful. In fact, in your attempt to be controversial, you’re playing into the hands of political and economic forces that would like the Internet to be nothing more than an extension of the mass media… It’s a shame because we need to be taking seriously the issues you raise. But to talk about them, we need to get past the notion that the Web is all dreck all the time and that it is nothing but a great “seducer” of taste…”
Why can’t they get Weinberger on The Report? Sounds like a much more interesting guest on the topic.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Amen, everyone.
I’m conflicted about this Keen guy.
I’d like to see him discuss this in a format in which he’s not worried about being right or seeming intelligent. Maybe the Colbert character exacerbated his weaknesses. Maybe he was caught up in trying to give good TV.
Anyone else trying to picture what Keen is like in his natural habitat? Let’s say he’s a Cocker Spaniel. (I have and love a Spaniel, so don’t think I’m picking on that breed.) Here’s my impression: needs frequent praise from owners (i.e. “You’re such a smart puppy, yes you are!”); aloof and unwilling to act happy to see caretakers when they return home from work; unwilling to engage with other dogs in meaningful play at the park; only sniffs the butts of select dogs, but will allow a majority of interested dogs to sniff his butt for a brief time.
In short, I guess I’m agreeing that he came off as elitist. And scared.
@Jennie: Yeah, Weinberger seems to have his thoughts on a firmer, less alarmist, more constructive footing than does Keen. My approval is tempered with some suspicion, however, upon seeing that “He worked as a marketing consultant and executive at several tech companies.” Marketing people are so dang good at making their ideas sound right!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0