Scoop's First Newsvine Book Discussion: The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen

I haven't decided whether I want to interview the author before, during or after our discussion. Or maybe I can even try to coerce him to come join us here. I figure I'd ask you guys first.

Any questions? And yes, this will count as a book for the Newsvine book challenge

One reason I picked this book for discussion was because I think sites like Newsvine disprove some of hisopinions. He reminds me a bit of Cliff Stoll in that he uses the Net to act as a contrarian but I have to wonder in both cases if they really believe that or are just taking advantage of the knowledge
that such a position will gain them publicity.

And if so I just helped them... Damn.

I just blew my mind.

Time to go back to bed.

I also seeded a more negative take on the book and, understandably, most tech sites are not happy about the book's conents.

I read the first 25 pages of Andrew Keen's book today and I'm troubled.
If he believes what he writes, and why wouldn't he, he seems to think we (people using the Internet) are pretty stupid and clueless.
I expected – and am still not totally convinced – that he may be putting on a pose of devil's advocate sort of Like Clifford Stoll did because there is publicity and money that can come from playing the role of contrarian.
Ok, let me phrase my first few thoughts as questions for you and him to answer:
1)Do you really believe this statement: "These days, kids can't tell the difference between credible news by objective professional journalists and what they read on joeshmoe.blogspot.com. For these Generation Y utopians, every posting is just another person's account of the truth; every fiction is just another person's version of the truth; every fiction is just another person's version of the facts."
2)Can't the opposite be true that kids, more than any other generation, distinguish between these things because they have more cultural literacy? If such a problem exists it comes from older generations who are too reliant on certain sites or on believing such things as "objective" reporting is possible. Isn't it better to get news from a variety of sources?
3)How much of the frustration of writers like you comes from the changing in power that comes with everyone suddenly having essentially their own printing press?
4. You seem to make a lot of leaps of logic that make me want to scream. For example you state as clear fact that the declining readership of newspapers is due to blogs and sites like Craigs List. Is not the truth more complicated than that? Don't you dilute your argument when you make straw men arguments like that?

5)I was not surprised to see you also quickly attack Wikipedia. I just recently seeded a good item about Wikipedia by the New York Times that I'd suggest you read. While I'd agree with you it's not the most reliable site are you really suggesting sites like Wikipedia and YouTube are huge wastes of time that are somehow hurting our culture?

6) Last thought for now: We had a debate in my composing class recently about the Internet and whether everyone who writes on the Internet is instantly an author and how this and self-published books are changing the norms regarding publishing. But being a contrarian at times myself I asked this question: Who is to say that what is in the bookstores or newspapers now is neccesarily less good or accurate than what is on the Internet? Just because things have long been done one way does it make it the right way. Do you agree?

Here's the latest bad review for the book.

This book is driving me batty because of all of the sloppy assumptions like the one I and Lessig noted, that every blog reader means one less newspaper reader, that every Craig's list ad means one less newspaper ad. Andrew Keen has established a very simple world in which all woes of newspapers are due to the Internet. Then he seeks all proof he can, leaving relevent facts by the wayside, to provide things. So he trots out Lonelygirl to prove that fraud occurs. Shocking! I'm sure that's unique to the internet.

Do you agree with these statement, from page 45-46
1) "For the sad fact is that while Dr. William Connelly may be able to discern the misinformed ravings of moonbats from the wisdom of experts, the average Internet user cannot.
He goes on, 2) "We assume the information we take in can be trusted." (Do we?)
He goes on to conclude that if all the writers (all, leaving out people like me who
are not amateurs) are amateurs than the information can't be trusted.
He concludes "we will have no choice but to read it with a critical eye. The free information really
isn't free - we all end up paying for it one way or the other."

Horrors - we'll have to look at the media with a critical eye? Wait, don't we do that
- at least those of us who are astute anyway - already regardless of the media?
That's a bad thing?

Speaking of trust, mistakes I've spotted so far - in the first 47 pages - include
spelling Jack Shafer's name as Jack Shafter (but they may have corrected that for for the published edition. If someone can let me know that'd be great)
and inaccurately describing what Lessig, the lawyer, wants: saying he wants to appropriate things when he wants to misappropriate things, when even that is not quite accurate.

So he's doing a killer job teaching us about not trusting the media on the Internet while making me wonder if i can trust anything this author is saying

His descriptions of "citizen journalism" are so far from accurate as to be laughable. The fact he refers to Drudge as "the poster boy of the citizen journalism movement" would make most credible citizen journalism
advoctes scream, I expect

I was amused, due to my recent involvement with Newsvine, which is sort of like a smarter, kinder, version of Digg at his suggestion that the result of groups like that - or like this one here - was we all think alike. This amuses me because it's the exchanging of contrary opinions that makes people like this thrive. "They are the digital equivilent of online gated communities where all the people have identical views, and the whole conversation is mirrored in a way that is reassuringly familar. It is a dangerous form of digital narcissism; the only conversations we want to hear are those with ourselves and those like us."

Does this match your opinions? Because I thought many of us were here looking to talk to people of different experiences, different belief systems. Is he maybe on some other Web?

Ok, so I suggest a game as we read this book. Each time he says something expressing his outrage about something on the Internet see if you can name another major medium he lets escape his wrath that is guilty of the same misdeeds, i.e. tv, newspaper, radio. I'll get you started with two items. Again see if it reminds you of anything you see in other mediums

1) "Blogs on both the left and right have perfected the art of political extremism. Unlike professionally edited newspapers or magazines where the political slant of the paper is restricted to the op-ed page, the majority of blogs make radical, sweeping statements without evidence or arguments. (Sort of like this book?Oh, sorry, couldn't resist) The most popular blogs are those that offer the seductive conspiracy theories and sensationlist anti-establishment platitude that readers crave."

Or

2) "Not a day goes by without some new revelation that calls into question the reliability, accuracy, and truth of the information we get from the..." I'll make this a quiz a) Internet (obviously his answer) b) television c) maintstream news media d) newspapers e) all of the above.

Feel free to add your own questions later. I need to take a break from this book - it's making me mad. This is like watching the movie Network - I'm mad as well...

Excellent. Welcome, David. I didnt realize until today that I know you - well, know you in that I've read your writing at various sites and publications.

ok, so here's one way I can use some help.

I have, as you can tell, lots of questions and objections to Keen's book but I'm limited to 16 questions total. Originally it was 10 but I asked if I can ask 8 next week and 8 the week after.

Which of these questions or topics do you think is most important to ask him?

Bear in mind he may be reading here as I originally tried to convince him to join the discussion, figuring what better place to interview someone about the democratic nature of the Internet than one of the types of sites he demonizes.

He suggested instead a phone interview. I told him I stopped doing phone interview when I stopped being paid as a journalist and became an educator by day, citizen journalist by nite. Do you really want me to mentiont that out of 100 interviews I've done in the last two years the only one who refused to do an interview by email was a supposed expert on the Internet?

Well, the more I look online - perhaps predictably - the more I find negative things written about the book. Cohn, Robert Scoble and others were in a panel discussion with Keen. Here are links to their takes on it.

It does raise a good question about whether by talking about him and the book we are just helping him. My response is, "That's why I'm doing it as an interview instead of just a review." But still it's worth pondering.

Jeff Jarvis talked smack about the book and linked to other bad reviews

Ok, I've arranged my thoughts and questions and narrowed them down to 11.
Help me pick the best 8 and/or add some. Keep in mind I get to ask 8 more next week.

1)Do you really believe this statement: "These days, kids can't tell the difference between credible news by objective professional journalists and what they read on joeshmoe.blogspot.com. For these Generation Y utopians, every posting is just another person's account of the truth; every fiction is just another person's version of the truth; every fiction is just another person's version of the facts." If so do you have any proof to back that assertion up? The closest thing I saw to proof was a study cited regarding Google ads which is a much different issue.
Same question for this assertion: "For the sad fact is that while Dr. William Connelly may be able to discern the misinformed ravings of moonbats from the wisdom of experts, the average Internet user cannot"

2) Do you really believe everything you wrote? Bloggers on panels with you have said you have likened the book to a grenade intended to annoy as many people as possible. Is that an accurate assessment of your goal with this book? Is there anything you wish you had done different with the book?

3) You make a bunch of what I'd call leaps of logic. For example, you attribute the problems of newspapers (lay-offs, ad revenues cut) directly to the popularity of the Web. Isn't that a bit simplistic? You dismiss blogs as being too partisan and quoting too many extremists while seemingly ignoring that television stations do that all the time?

4) You spend a lot of time pointing out problems – or what you perceive as problems – on the Internet yet you have a blog to promote the book, you blog on Amazon (which you also criticize in the book) and we have exchanged numerous emails. How is that not hypocrisy? What are the three best things about the Internet, in your opinion?

5) Some of the debate over your book concerns your definition of amateur. Would you explain what you mean by amateur and the title of the book?

6) I read a great question to which I'd like to hear your response. This is from Steve Boriss

"Most who write for Old Media are professional journalists, but amateurs in the topics they write abut. By contrast, most of the leading, elite bloggers are experts in their specialized topic areas, but amateurs in journalism. Is the public really better off reading amateur-grade information from journalists rather than professional-grade information from non-journalists? More to the point, will they prefer it?"

How do you respond to his question?

7) Some, perhaps most famously Jeff Jarvis, have hesitated to do interviews or panel discussions with you because they think you are just taking a position in order to irk people and sell books. How do you respond to that assertion? What do you think of them referring to you variously as a troll, a talk show prostitute and a curmudgeon?

8) Are you as critical of newspapers, books, and television as you are the Internet? Did you let those mediums off scott free because you did not want to clutter your premise? Because I read, for example, "Not a day goes by without some new revelation that calls into question the reliability, accuracy, and truth of the information we get from the Internet" and I'm thinking the same statement could be said about the "mainstream media." Are you playing with the facts some to make your points?

9) Did you do fact checking for this book? Because at least one panelist with you, according to this blog, says you admitted you did not and that would explain some of your errors about, for example, Lessig's work. And Jeff Jarvis, for example points out you said the book was inspired by T. H. Huxley for the so-called infinite monkey theorem, the one where if you give enough monkeys enough typewriters they will eventually write Shakespeare. But Huxley didn't say that, which is a fact you got wrong and Wikipedia, whose vetting process you repeatedly criticize and inaccurately describe, got it right. Did you do fact checking or just miss things like that?

10) I am doing this interview for Newsvine and Blogcritic. Now you refer to sites like these on the Internet this way:

"They are the digital equivalent of online gated communities where all the people have identical views, and the whole conversation is mirrored in a way that is reassuringly familiar. It is a dangerous form of digital narcissism; the only conversations we want to hear are those with ourselves and those like us."

I'm sure the readers of these sites, who are of all political, racial, ideological stripes, who often find the most popular debates are over controversial and contentious issues, would like to know what makes you sure your description of them is better than mine. Did you actually visit some of these sites and participate in them before dismissing them?

11) You call wikipedia "a more trusted source for news than the CNN or BBC websites" but give no proof or citation. Are you not doing what you accuse bloggers of doing – passing off opinions and generalizations as facts?

Of the questions I posed - and I really would love feedback on which ones you think I
should send - the most I'm most inclined to remove is whether he really believes
in what he's saying. Because what's he going to say? No, I'm just out to make money?

Ha. I'm not sure I'd be as quick with a reponse as ol' Dano there.

Well, I sent him these questions:
1) What was your goal with this book? Bloggers on panels with you have said you have likened the book to a grenade intended to annoy as many people as possible. Is that an accurate assessment of your goal with this book? Is there anything you wish you had done different with the book?

2) You spend a lot of time in the book pointing out problems – or what you perceive as problems – on the Internet yet you have a blog to promote the book, you blog on Amazon (which you also criticize in the book) and we have exchanged numerous emails. How is that not hypocrisy? What are the three best things about the Internet, in your opinion?

3) You make a bunch of what I'd call leaps of logic. For example, you attribute the problems of newspapers (lay-offs, ad revenues cut) directly to the popularity of the Web. Isn't that a bit simplistic? You dismiss blogs as being too partisan and quoting too many extremists while seemingly ignoring that television stations do that all the time?

4) On what are you basing these two assertions?

a)These days, kids can't tell the difference between credible news by objective professional journalists and what they read on joeshmoe.blogspot.com . For these Generation Y utopians, every posting is just another person's account of the truth; every fiction is just another person's version of the truth; every fiction is just another person's version of the facts." If so do you have any proof to back that assertion up? The closest thing I saw to proof was a study cited regarding Google ads which is a much different issue. b) Same question for this assertion: "For the sad fact is that while Dr. William Connelly may be able to discern the misinformed ravings of moonbats from the wisdom of experts, the average Internet user cannot" '

5) I read a great question to which I'd like to hear your response. This is from Steve Boriss

"Most who write for Old Media are professional journalists, but amateurs in the topics they write abut. By contrast, most of the leading, elite bloggers are experts in their specialized topic areas, but amateurs in journalism. Is the public really better off reading amateur-grade information from journalists rather than professional-grade information from non-journalists? More to the point, will they prefer it?"

How do you respond to his question?

6) Some, perhaps most famously Jeff Jarvis, have hesitated to do interviews or panel discussions with you because they think you are just taking a position in order to irk people and sell books. How do you respond to that assertion? What do you think of them referring to you variously as a troll, a talk show prostitute and a curmudgeon?

7) Are you as critical of newspapers, books, and television as you are the Internet? Did you let those mediums off scott free because you did not want to clutter your premise? Because I read, for example, "Not a day goes by without some new revelation that calls into question the reliability, accuracy, and truth of the information we get from the Internet" and I'm thinking the same statement could be said about the "mainstream media." Are you playing with the facts some to make your points?

8) I am doing this interview for Newsvine and Blogcritic. Now you refer to sites like these on the Internet this way:

"They are the digital equivalent of online gated communities where all the people have identical views, and the whole conversation is mirrored in a way that is reassuringly familiar. It is a dangerous form of digital narcissism; the only conversations we want to hear are those with ourselves and those like us."

I'm sure the readers of these sites, who are of all political, racial, ideological stripes, who often find the most popular debates are over controversial and contentious issues, would like to know what makes you sure your description of them is better than mine. Did you actually visit some of these sites and participate in them before dismissing them?

So I emailed him those questions, partially out of concern he'd cancel his agreement to do the interview. And I don't know if this is a copout or not but he wrote back:

"good questions, But since our last conversation, I've been commissioned to do a long white paper on media which will take almost all my writing time over the next couple of months. So I 'm sorry, I really don't have time to do written responses. Happy to do audio for you, if you want to transcribe"

At first I thought he meant phone interview and I really hate transcribing phone interviews.

Then I had a thought... if he could send an audio and I can listen to it and transcribe it right on the computer...?

Is there an even easier way I don't know of?

Anyway I wrote back: "How would that work? Since you already know my questions could you just state your answers onto a tape or, better yet a computer sound file, and then send it to me?

I'm glad you like the questions."

Ha. OK.

Keen reminds me a bit of Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock in being deliberately provocative and simplifying things too much.

For example today I was reading the chapter where he essentially blames the collapse of Tower Records and the music industry's problems all on the Internet.

Surely it's not that simple. And yet there he goes saying there will never again be a rock supergroup because of sites like MySpace.