Do you agree or disagree with Andrew Keen's thesis in his interview that the Internet is "flattening" culture? How is his concept of flattening different than Powers'? Please respond by 4 p.m., Wed., Oct. 18.
In addition, each project group should be prepared to present to the class on Thursday, Oct. 19, a link to a Web site or Internet production that refutes or confirms Keen's argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I believe Andrew Keen’s argument that the internet is “flattening” society is absolutely true, and I don’t think it’s all that different from Powers’ thoughts on the subject. One of the things that struck me most in Hamlet’s Blackberry was Powers’ concept of “gap time,” or the idea that one needs to let things process in order for them to have any meaning. Because with the internet we move on so fast from one thing to the next, from image to image, we have no time to process anything and therefore nothing has meaning—nothing has depth. This seems to fit in perfectly with Keen’s thoughts.
I think Keen's view is slightly different from Powers'. While the latter is much more concerned with the problem of "busyness" on the internet and finding depth in our everyday lives, Keen fears the lack of "gate keepers" and how anybody can become an amateur reporter without the right credentials or research. While I think Keen's thesis is definitely true in some aspects, I feel that the another problem that leads to "flattening" is the fact that his gate keepers have simply lost their credibility. With all the corporate funding and opinion in the major news networks, the idea of "objectivity" has kind of become a running joke. People listen to who they believe are amateurs because at least they know they aren't lying about being subjective and can be called out on it a lot easier then a major media conglomerate.
I honestly both agree and disagree with Keen’s points. On one hand, I agree that amateur media, “citizen journalists” should never replace professional journalists. However, I think they play a valuable role and offer a valuable service in and to the press and our democracy. When Keen was discussing political candidate’s “invasion of privacy” by citizen journalists recording “private” moments in an attempt at “gotcha” journalism, for example, I wholeheartedly disagreed with this point. A prominent public figure such as a political candidate can have no reasonable expectation of privacy when speaking in a public place, which is defined as almost anywhere that is not his or her own home, office, or medical examination room. So when Mitt Romney was speaking at the “private” fundraising event where the traditional media where not allowed, and a citizen journalist secretly recorded his off-color comments about half of the country being lazy moochers, I think this is a perfect example of how citizen journalism can add to traditional media. I think the public deserves to hear what a candidate has to say when he thinks no one is listening. That “47 percent” video was distributed via Youtube and the internet. I think this is the opposite of “flattening” culture—I think this is enriching and adding to our culture by simply being a record of truth. I think anything that’s true and relevant and can help to educate or inform citizens, especially when it comes to political issues directly affecting our democracy and the functioning thereof, deserves to be “out” and available, whether this information is coming from a trained professional or an amateur, via traditional media news outlets or alternative sources, in print, online, or on a soapbox in the center of town.
Power’s theory about how the internet is flattening our culture is a little more down to earth and not so elitist, as Keen came across as, with his lauding of The Wall Street Journal as the only reputable source of information and talk of “anarchy” because ordinary people are allowed to speak and be heard. Powers thinks our culture is suffering because we are so busy existing in a virtual world that we forget to exist in the physical one. He’s right, especially in the fact that we are constantly interrupted by technology, and that it makes it hard to focus, be “present,” or achieve mindfulness. Powers writes how difficult it is to do real-world, human things, like run nations, raise children, compose symphonies, and fight poverty, while “simultaneously navigating the ubiquitous digital crowd.” Power’s sentiments ring much clearer to me, because I can see how our collective attention span is waning, than Keen’s theories that the Internet is not democratizing media and publishing, as it clearly has, but bastardizing it.
As a side note, as some of the snarky user comments on the Keen interview pointed out, it was pretty ironic to see someone disparaging Youtube for being advertisements masquerading as media, while appearing on Youtube to advertise his product (book).
I thought Andrew Keen bought up a lot of interesting points in his interview about "flattening." I agree with a lot of what Keen was talking about. For instance, I agree with him when he was talking about media illiteracy and that people are unable to read what is going on beyond the video. People have the freedom to do this but as the viewers we have to be careful about what we believe to be true and what we think is not true. I agree with a lot of what he was saying about how ANYONE can put up ANYTHING that they want to on Youtube, and we as the viewers don’t know who put up the video or anything about the person who put it up. I think Powers’ view is different than Keen’s because Keen made it seem like Youtube was bad, and that there was nothing we could do about it. On the other hand, Powers does not think that technology and the Internet is all that bad. Powers thinks that we as individuals have to figure out a way to do other things besides always being connected. I agree with Powers more than I agree with Keen but I think that we are so used to being connected and distracted by things like Youtube that it is hard for us to disconnected. However, I think it would have been interesting to here Keen talk about his beliefs on technology other than just Youtube.
I think that the points brought up by Powers and Keen are both closely related as well as each bringing up valid unique points. Keen talks about the emergence of journalism for the common man and how it is effecting the quality of print and screen media news. I think this is an interesting paradox that has been created where the quality of news is compromised by a general lack of intelligence but the general lack of intelligence is arguably due to the way people are now receiving their information. It is clear that in the case of both men, the issue is the lack of depth that now dominates our lives. This flattening, however is seen as being a result of two different reasons. For Keen, the flattening is seen to take place in the quality of reporting itself, whereas with Powers it is derived from or perpetual connectedness. Powers seems to believe that if we were to simply take time to think about or technical interactions in a deeper way from time to time, the result would less severe.
I agree with Keen to a certain extent. He is right when he says that anyone can access the internet and write, edit or basically say anything, but you can’t trust them. For example, you cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source, because anybody can edit it, and possibly provide false information.
I do agree with what Keen stated in that free media is poor media. People these days cannot expect Google, YouTube, or any other website to find all the answers you need. You also can’t expect to post something on YouTube and instantly be a star. And having 1,000 friends does not make you a celebrity. However, I feel that for every farting video that is out on youtube, there is one person who is using technology the right way.
And now to play devil’s advocateI, what about the people who got famous off from these media outlets? Think about how many people got successful for posting Youtube or Myspace videos? There are people out there who are talented and intelligent, and are very smart with how to use media.
I am confused on Keen’s stance with people and how they use the media. At first, it sounds like he is blaming society for posting fart videos, and trying to act like the gatekeepers and geniuses of media. However later in the video, he seems to be defending people when Gregory Mantell mentions the audience participation in American Idol. I think that humans are definitely to blame. They decide what to watch, and what is credible. If they want to watch people talk about politics while farting, well we have a big problem.
As for Powers, the idea that the internet is flattening out culture can be seen as different from Keen’s. Powers wants some disconnection from the media, but I do not think that he is saying that technology is bad. He just thinks that people need to stop and take a breather.
Do you agree or disagree with Andrew Keen's thesis in his interview that the Internet is "flattening" culture? How is his concept of flattening different than Powers'? Please respond by 4 p.m., Wed., Oct. 18.
As was mentioned in class, Powers take a very "self-help" approach to his book and his tone is much more poetic and descriptive than Keen who used a blunt voice and snarky British accent to hit it home that Youtube, in all of its fart-video glory, is ruining our children and the nation.
When it comes to a "flattened" culture, I think that the two are trying to say the same thing but the difference is that Powers focuses on the potential and the need for humans to live a life of "depth." On page 13, he writes, "...every life has the potential to be lived deeply. That potential is lost when your days are spread so thin, busyness itself is your true occupation." Powers is concerned with the overload brought on by the media while Keen is more concern with false democratizing from the Internet (specifically Youtube).
Keen said in his interview that Youtube is "a wet dream for slippery advertisers" and his whole argument about stealth advertising in a supposed "creative" or open forum is so interesting because, obviously, it's not. He believes that culture is being flattened by 1. stupid videos created by amateurs that steal the limelight from professional and talented individuals and 2. the fact that our society believes that the internet is a connecting and democratizing force.
Keen: Sick of the bullshit on the internet and the "slippery advertisers."
Powers: Writes eloquent paragraphs about phone calls to his mother and the after emotional effects that seem to give him some sort of faith for our society
I think Andrew Keen's description of flattening is very different than Powers'. Keen says that the role of advertising, journalism, and entertainment have all been flattened so that we cannot tell the difference between them. Each of these facets of media should be presented as distinct and with sites like YouTube, this is not the case. He argues that amateurs are replacing professionals and that citizens are not receiving credible information when they rely on these amateurs for news.
Powers uses the term flattening in a more philosophical way. He talks about busyness and how switching from screen to screen does not allows us to fully analyze and comprehend the information we are reading, watching, and listening to. He argues that people should be living lives of depth and can do this by critically thinking about their interactions with media.
While Keen discusses the erosion of the fourth estate and the transformation of news as something provided by professionals to information picked up by amateurs and spread throughout the internet, Powers discusses the obsession we have with screens and instead of dissecting the media itself, he dissects our relationship with it and cautions us to step back and analyze how its effecting our relationships with people.
I agree with many of Keen's points and do think that there has been a flattening of advertising, journalism, and entertainment so that it's difficult to tell the difference between them. But I do think there is a place for citizen journalism and the so-called amateur content. We need professional journalists and without them, I think it would be difficult for some of these citizen journalists to do their jobs. There needs to be a clearer distinction between journalism and entertainment. Keen argues that "journalists are getting laid off in droves" and this disrupts the "echo chamber." We need people who have been trained thoroughly and effectively to report on important issues and this weird hybrid of journalism and entertainment hinders a citizens' ability to receive this information. I don't think this hybrid will ever cease to exist and this is why I think citizen journalism or amateur content has become more popular. Unless there is an unflattening between journalism, advertising and entertainment, I don't think this amateur content will ever go away.
I think that both Keen and Powers hold views similar to each other, but approach their arguments in different ways. When I read Powers, I almost feel like I am being coddled and protected from the harsh truth that Keen has no problem describing in detail with his unforgiving British accent. While Keen coins the phrase "flattening" of our culture, Powers tries to express the same concept by focusing more on the loss of depth and the increasing consequences of being too connected. Powers offers a positive solution by saying that if society stood back and thought about what it was doing more often, then we might stand a chance. Keen worries more about the crap that is posted all over the Internet, and particularly the amateur videos on YouTube that weaken the meaning of professionalism. Regardless of how eloquent or blunt they make their arguments, their concern is the same: that our culture is overriden with useless knowledge and garbage advertisements that our sense of depth and appreciation is slowly becoming nonexistent.
I think Andrew Keene is much more extreme than Powers in his view of cultural and social "flattening."
Powers talks about flattening in terms of "depth" and how technology/the Internet are making our interactions resonate less. Powers is more concerned with how technology makes us so busy that we can't focus on any one thing in such a way that we feel it and thus react to it "deeply." Whereas Keen talks more about how the amateur has becomes the most prominent presence and distributor of news (and entertainment). He sees the internet (particularly Youtube) as dangerous and poisonous to culture. He's deeply concerned with the increasing amount of amateurs on the web, the decreasing amount of professionals, the lack of transparency, and the anonymity of the internet.
I think I agree with Keen on a lot of his points. Yes, he's quite severe, but I think he's right to be so deeply concerned. The internet is one of the most important mediums in our culture and if it has completely poisoned, what does that say about us? I personally cannot stand Youtube. I do use it to listen to music or watch Jon Stewart/Bill O'Reilly videos (oops), but for the most part, it is a sludge puddle of nonsense. It's full of videos of cats, babies saying offensive things in a cute way, and people hurting themselves. I'd say for the most part the internet is serving to flatten our culture. If we are only exposed to non-sense then our conversation will be too (and it really is).
I agree with Keen that the internet plays a large role in flattening our culture, though he was too dramatic and severe with some of his points for me. I was intrigued by his statement that Youtube is one long commercial break, but I disagreed that it is hard to distinguish between independent content and paid for advertising. I rarely have a problem deciding whether the content I view on Youtube is paid for advertising or a home-made amateurish video uploaded by a nobody. Keen was over the top when he said the 70 million bloggers on the internet result in “chaos and anarchy.” I do have a problem with the fact that journalists are being laid off while amateurs write whatever they want and thrive in the blogosphere. Obviously, Keen finds more fault with the fact that these stories go unchecked and crap is circulating around the internet. But as an amateur journalism major in a tough market, taking advantage of the resources around me (like blogging) is one of the smartest things I can do to further my career and put my name out there. If you can’t beat them, join them.
Keen and Powers address their audiences differently. Keen seemed to blame society for uploading these fart videos to Youtube, and he laments lack of gatekeepers to keep amateur citizen journalism at bay (in addition to his complaint of deluded people considering themselves gatekeepers). Powers has an optimistic tone and discusses how the need to recover depth by disconnecting is necessary to de-flatten our culture. In Power’s eyes, we have been misguided, and in Keen’s, we’re “inmates running the asylum.” They have similar goals in their arguments but they go about them in different ways. In the end, I agree with Keen that we are degenerating into the amateur-ness of the 21st century. But that is not necessarily a terrible thing that will result in “chaos and anarchy.” Will it result in less informed, more apathetic people? Of course. But they existed before the internet began flattening our culture.
I do agree with Keen's thesis that the internet is flattening. At first I didn't but looking at what he says about it being amateurish I thought that it was absolutely true. Youtube and other sites invite anyone from any walk of life to be whatever they want even if they don't really know anything. We have bloggers who act like journalists and unknowing people will read their posts and think it is legit when it is really just someone's opinion. This differs from Powers because Powers says that flattening is more of a lack of depth. While this is also true, I think the internet does actually provide depth if you look in the right places and take time to think about what you saw or read afterwards.
Keen's argument is primarily concerned with the idea of internet technology being a method by which culture is diluted and debased. He describes this effect as 'flattening'of culture. Internet technology since the '90s has evolved based on a model of hive or collective production of information. This model was driven by websites and platforms known as 'Web 2.0'. Web 2.0 platforms, like YouTube and Wikipedia, allow for instant, anonymous, distribution of digital content and the ability for the internet public to respond anonymously.
I believe that the practice of web anonymity in its current state is detrimental to the formation of public discourse on the internet. While anonymity should have a limited role, like in the protection of dissidents who may be targeted by their governments, it should not be the norm.
Powers' definition of flattening is related to technology's role as in distracting and alienating us from our environment and from direct human interaction.
As it relates to Keen's point of the necessity of 'gatekeepers' of culture, I believe that the idea of a gatekeeper, especially when it comes to information and knowledge can be a repressive form of social control. This applies both in the U.S., where corporate owners of media dominate, or in Iran where religious clerics are the gatekeepers of information.
Despite this, I understand Keen's critiques of the current internet landscape. The lack of civil discourse or quality content, I believe, has a great deal to do with the anonymous nature of internet users. If one's name were associated with blog comments, posts, and Youtube videos, greater care would be taken to cultivate our online identities as we would in our daily lives.
Recently, the internet has moved away from Web 2.0 openness into what I think is a more troubling direction. Cookie-cutter platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Blogspot etc., have replaced personal, independent, sometimes quirky personal websites that lent valuable creativity and freedom to the internet. We are seeing what amounts to a corporate takeover of the internet.
Andrew Keen made a lot of valid points in his argument. I agree with Keen that the internet is not democratizing our society, because only people with the resources can make really good videos. With that being said, the people who can make better videos are sometimes considered more creditable. A person who can do fancy editing tricks becomes more of a resource to people over those who actually know what they are talking about. In our society, there's the haves and the have-nots, and sadly, sometimes no matter how corrupt or evil the haves are, people are more likely to gravitate to them because the world we live in tends to be more about what you have than who you are. The internet feeds into this idea. Another perfect example is the iPhone ad we watched in class, which was basically saying "you're a no body if you don't have an iPhone."
This is why we live in a world where people kill for sneakers, phones, money, and other material possessions. There's very few things out there that allows people to think as individuals. Technology, particularly the internet, has a lot to do with this, because if it was so-called made to make human life easier, or bring us closer together, why isn't it accessible to everyone?
As far as the media being a "wet dream" for advertisers as Keen stated, I couldn't agree more. I can't watch anything online, or even listen to music (Pandora) without being bombarded with ads. The internet has become modern day television. They operate just the same, except I would argue that TV has more gatekeepers.
I do believe that the internet is flattening our culture, mainly because it has become our culture.
We measure our progression as a people by what technological devices we come out with next. The internet seems to hold our future in it's hands, and it should be the other way around. We created this monster, and we just need more self control with how we use it.
I think that Powers and Keen are pretty much saying the same thing, just with different volumes of intensity. Powers makes you think about it a bit more. His perspective sounds like someone from everyday life who one day just woke up and smelled the coffee.
Post a Comment