In keeping with Colin’s post about some of his favorite books I thought I would add my comments about a recent book I finished. Every now and then I like to read something that is completely misaligned with my opinions. No, I’m not a sadist, but I like to challenge to my opinions every now and then. (Seriously?) Yes, seriously.
The Cult of the Amateur is one of the most pop-culture challenging books I’ve ever read. Within this inflammatory text, printed in 2007 (notably pre-twitter), Andrew Keen offers up both opinion and fact about how the internet is slowly eroding our culture. He provides examples from within many sectors of the economy with emphasis on the music and publication industries. It’s nothing new to blame the internet for the decline of the music industry or the closings of many publications, but Keen’s framing is downright apocalyptic. It honestly made me question whether or not I should be blogging. Than I came to my senses and realized that I’m not exactly an amateur, which is the basis for his entire argument.
Keen continually argues that amateurs are supplanting paid, experienced professionals with content publication (either written, musical or videographical, etc.). The reality is that he’s right. There is only so much time in the day and the more we spend watching YouTube the less we spend watching the news; the more we spend reading blogs the less we spend reading newspapers; the more we spend playing Guitar Hero the less we listen to music. However, the fact that you’re reading this very post is evidence that there is some good to be found within “amateur” internet publication. The fact that we all have a voice is important, but it is only useful if we use our voice for promoting content for which we have true authority. If you’re spewing rhetoric about something that you don’t really understand then you’re on the negative side.
So how do you tell what is great content vs. amateurish? Well, that’s the crux of Keen’s argument: you have no way of telling. I’ll agree with him there – you pretty much have to sift through it and do your own due diligence. Sorry. I will tell you that the bloggers here at aWiderNet.com are all true authorities within their area of expertise. We wouldn’t be blogging if we didn’t believe what we post and then stand behind it when challenged (and believe me, our peers challenge us all the time).
So back to Cult of the Amateur. Read it. If you’re involved in social media, professionally or as a true amateur, it is worth considering what the detriments are to your participation – or lack of it. We need more experts and less noise, so speak up if you’re an expert! We want to know… what is your area of expertise?
PS – if you’re wondering what the “professionals” had to say:
- NY Times Review
- The Guardian Review
- CNET Review
- Lawrence Lessig responds to Keen
- Wikipedia Entry – note that Keen tears into the Wikipedia founders in is book
Tags: amateur, andrew keen, Resources, Social Media, youtube
Nice post Steve. I would categorize myself standing somewhere between your convictions and Keen’s. While I do believe in Wikipedia’s philosphy that with many minds we can no doubt find the truth, but I also think that a room full of monkey’s probably won’t write the next great American novel. But it does bring about the question, what constitutes and ‘expert’ now? And even so, does being an expert mean your opinions are right, or worthy of being digested as such?
Nice article Steve. This is the same issue that we had in the early 90’s with the advent of digital video editing. Everyone thought they were Steven Spielberg. In the long run, while the tools have lowered the barrier to participation it still requires a level of expertise and talent to excel. The film industry was required to adapt so will the internet. It will be interesting to watch how it plays out.
I can’t agree more, Jen. I call the video issue the “iMovie Effect” where suddenly video’s of your kids are cut together with transitions and effects that rival what you see on tv. At the end of the day you still have to have a story to tell with a coherent argument and ultimate conclusion. Most amateurs don’t know how to construct, illustrate and defend that on paper let alone on video, but alas, we have YouTube anyway.
Glad to see you read it. I forgot that I had recommended it to you! I’m currently reading a few books including Clay Shirky’s “Here comes Everybody”. In it, he talks about how we’re moving (or already have moved) from a time of “filter, then publish” to “publish, then filter”. There’s a ton of information out there, which gives us all incredible opportunity to learn different sides of a story, make our own decisions, mash up information and find new things. But there’s also the opportunity to tailor our news and information so that we only hear from those who think like we do and end up more and more disconnected from one other.
That presents a lot of challenges organizations who want or need to get their message out there, dispel rumors and lies, etc. I work in government, where crappy content by people who don’t know what they’re talking about or are looking to stir the pot is more than just a nuisance. It can actually compromise the safety and health of citizens. We have to be engaging with people where they are in multiple places online and monitoring what’s being said about us and the many functions government is responsible for so we can meet people where they are online and make sure they’re getting accurate information.
Thanks, Brad. I like that simplified way to look at the reversal of process with publishing and filtering. I can also see how that causes a major issue with gov’t communication. Perhaps you’ll write a book about it one day, Brad?