The Cult of the Elitist

[_grisha]

When I was reading the Metro on the subway in early July, I ran across a story about Andrew Keen's then-new book. A few days later, I ran into his book at the Barnes & Noble on Kenmore Square. I summarized it quickly for the couple of friends who met me there, and they responded in the same manner as I did. Amazingly enough, half a year later, I

Comments

[dda]

I haven't read the book but I do see part of the problem, namely the "insta-pundit" atmosphere that blogging has created. I've seen several people on my friends list post alarmist "The sky is falling" type posts; when I trace back to what they're referring, I end up with a website that is ranting about something totally bogus. The latest was a website saying how some piece of legislation was "The end of free speech" when, in fact, it authorised a...committee to produce...reports.

Keen seems to have a problem with the fact that the consumer of information is "now" going to be required to use his brain to figure out what to believe and what not to. This should ideally have always been the case.

I strongly disagree. Most people don't have the time or the expertise or the inclination to dig down and find out what really is the truth of some matter; they are busy living their lives. We have a lot of laws in place to protect people from bad information; everything from fraud to drug labeling, etc. Telling everyone, "Hey, go figure out

[_grisha]

I've seen several people on my friends list post alarmist "The sky is falling" type posts; when I trace back to what they're referring, I end up with a website that is ranting about something totally bogus.
I don't think this is a web issue. Hysteria existed long before the web. It occurred in the stock market throughout the 20th century, with significant consequences. It occurred when there was a mass panic because War of the Worlds was being broadcast on the radio and people thought Martians had invaded. It occurred in Salem during the witch hysteria. The web does not start or stop this.We have a lot of laws in place to protect people from bad information; everything from fraud to drug labeling, etc.
I don't think this is what Keen is complaining about. Those laws will remain regardless of the web. The era that is ending—really has ended quite a while ago—is that of the 1940s and 1950s when people would base their opinions, for example, of which president to vote for, on who the New York Times editorialist believes is the right

[dda]

I don't think this is a web issue. Hysteria existed long before the web.

Very true but the web makes it much easier for said hysteria to spread. Few have the resources to get their own chunk of radio airtime for a "War of the Worlds" but web space is pretty cheap.

The era that is ending-really has ended quite a while ago-is that of the 1940s and 1950s when people would base their opinions, for example, of which president to vote for, on who the New York Times editorialist believes is the right man for the job.

I don't think that era is as over as you'd think but with a plethora of choices, the web and the insta-pundits will definitely kill it.

This would not make the story "real"; all it would do is more damage Fox's reputation

It happened during the last election (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) and for a lot of people Fox's reputation is already in the toilet. But they also still command an audience.

Not to mention that if this were the case, I have a feeling that Keen wouldn't be complaining; his complaint is based

[_grisha]

[T]he web makes it much easier for said hysteria to spread.
Certainly. The web makes it easier for anything to spread. Its main effect is that anything and everything gets around faster and more effectively. This brings us full-circle, back to the fact that Andrew Keen warns about the ramifications of the fact that it no longer requires massive resources to be heard. I believe that people can make judgments for themselves about what to believe; I don't think he does.[Fox News making a story "real"] happened during the last election (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth).
This is an example of the media finding a story and reporting on it. Indeed, the reason the media found this story in the first place is that the swift boat veterans were able to be heard despite their relatively small resources. Whether their report was accurate or not was up to the news medium to determine.What I was trying to say is that bloggers can now make things more "real" in the eyes of those who don't dig very deep simply by all linking to each other.
It may

[golger_i]

I can't get through the link either.

My biggest problem with the current establishment is that the professionals from the media are amateurs in all the subjects that they cover. I'd rather have it the other way, which is what blogs are good for.

Plus, the truth does not actually exist. Or rather, it exists but it is infinite, and we can only wrap our brain around the slice (viewpoint) of it that we can understand/imagine. Some of the blogs show it from the viewpoint that I can understand - i.e. in those blogs I know what the words mean in relation to phenomena. On the contrary, in most of TV news programming, most of the vocabulary used refers to imaginary concepts (this is caused by my first point) that I cannot relate to. Recently "the international community" is driving me nuts %( Somehow Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" rings as true today as ever.

[_grisha]

Andrew Keen is not thrilled about "regular people" getting information from each other, and says it is much lower-quality "source." I think the instances where his point is accurate are surprisingly rare, and I think you agree. In fact, I think the internet demonstrates that the idea that "professionals" are somehow better than all "amateurs" is an elitist and baseless belief. A diploma and paycheck are not the same thing as expertise.