The War On Bullshit

On August 16th, Stephen Colbert interviewed Andrew Keen, author of a new book, The Cult of the Amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture. Admittedly, I’m a little behind the rest of the blogosphere on this one, but only because I wanted to be more specific then just saying Keen is a senseless twit, and more specific I shall be.

Granted, Keen comes off like a complete idiot in the interview, like when he says “Even the Nazis didn’t put artists out of work.” That’s because they were too busy killing them along with everyone else. They also ransacked museums and destroyed piles of religious artwork. See this timeline for details. However, he does have his arguments, and I dare not dismiss them too casually in case, like a weed pulled without care, they survive to consume the garden we call the blogosphere.

Keen argues that the internet is destroying culture in three ways.

1. The internet makes it harder for artists to earn a living.

Keen says, “The problem with the internet is that it is making it increasingly difficult for artists to earn a living because everyone is stealing.”

As I’ve already described, there is no evidence whatsoever that downloading music (or movies or whatever) decreases the incomes of artists. Moreover, it is now far easier for talented artists to become known through myspace, social news sites, blogs and all the low cost viral marketing tricks that rely on network externalities rather than money to make someone famous. Once you’re famous, people will pay to go to your concerts, see your movies in theaters, buy your merchandise, etc. The internet has increased competition, and perhaps made it harder to become wealthy as an artist, but it has arguably made it easier to become known at least well enough to beat minimum wage.

2. The internet trivializes culture

Keen says “The internet is trivializing culture to such an extent that everyone is broadcasting, everyone is writing blogs, everyone is putting music on the web”

What he seemingly doesn’t understand is that before the internet, someone had to invest boatloads of money to get exposure for their art. Now, for less than $10 a month you can put your work online where quality (or at least likability) will gain you far more acclaim through social networks than advertising dollars. The internet doesn’t trivialize culture, it switches the success criterion from investment capital to quality.

Does anyone know how much money it costs to get as many hits on your site as you get from hitting the front page of Digg?

3. The internet does not ensure good journalism

Finally, Keen argues that bloggers are not objective because they cherry-pick facts, make stuff up, they’re anonymous. He says “I think we need objective, professional journalists who responsibly collect the news, rather than anonymous bloggers who are often in the pay of corporations, foreign governments, that’s the crises of this media.”

This is an interesting point. I have to agree that many bloggers cherry pick facts, make stuff up and do not report the news objectively or responsibly, but neither does the mainstream media! Has this guy ever watched CNN or Fox News? Has he ever read TIME? It’s perfectly fair to criticize the internet as a news medium because it lacks quality control. The reason this argument is bullshit is that there is no quality control in mainstream media either. One of the great services of bloggers in my opinion is blowing the whistle on biased, factually incorrect, or (in my case) bullshit stories in mainstream media.

And what is this about bloggers being anonymous? Anonymity lets people write things that might get them fired from work, put on the no-fly list or in some countries, killed. Clearly, anonymity is not all bad.

Keen is a dick

I try to resist personal attacks on this blog, but this time I can’t help it. Keen said that he loathes Wikipedia. What an evil bastard. Wikipedia, which rivals the encyclopedia for quality and is rivaled by nothing but the web itself for shear quantity of information has brought unfathomable amounts of knowledge to millions if not billions of people who could not otherwise afford it. Sure, if you live in North America you can visit your local library for much of the same stuff, but try that in Thailand, or D.R. Congo, or Sudan. Wikipedia opened the knowledge of humanity to anyone who could scrounge a donated third-hand PC and a dial-up internet connection. What’s to loathe?

Why does this guy want to maintain the divide between rich, powerful content producers and poor, powerless content consumers? Why does he want to silence opposing voices, to squash the dialogue the internet allows? Is he an evil bastard? Is he just stupid? Whatever the case, I’m having none of it.

You can see the Colbert/Keen interview here.

On Saturday, Time ran a story claiming that “the Bush Administration will put Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorism list.” Supposedly, this “can be read in one of two ways: it’s either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a strike on Iran.”

Yes, the war on Iraq is just going so well that it’s time to start a new war, with someone who can actually fight back this time. This is such bullshit. Washington can’t just decide to go after Iran without first finding the necessary resources. I don’t know how it looks to everyone else, but it seems to me that the US military is in no position to get into another war right now… unless Bush institutes the draft.

What bugs me most about this article is that it concludes with a quote from an Administration official: “…There will be an attack on Iran.” This leaves the reader with an unrealistic impression that it’s a simple matter of ordering an attack and then BOOM, no more nuclear facilities in Iran. This is absurd. Where’s the analysis of the US military’s ability to manage another conflict? And they say blogs aren’t real news…

While I’m on the topic, why exactly does everyone think Iran wants nukes? To fire them at the US? That’s ridiculous. The reprisal would wipe Iran off the map. Iran wants nukes for the same reason any anti-western country would: to ward off US military action. If Iran has nuclear weapons with even a remote capability of hitting western targets, nobody is going to go bombing them or rolling in on tanks. Iran just wants protection from the most unpredictable, dangerous nation in the world. You know, the one between Mexico and Canada?

After The War on Bullshit got 110 000 hits in its first month, I decided to move to an independent host and put a little more work into the look and feel of the site. Now that its been moved to its new home, with associated new look, feel free to let me know how you like it.

Special thanks to Disha and Jeremy for their assistance.

PS. It will probably take a few days to work out all the bugs. Thanks for your patience.