Sure, I'll Be a Monkey

Luddite — n 1. any of the textile workers opposed to mechanization who rioted and organized machine-breaking between 1811 and 1816 2. any opponent of industrial change or innovation

Andrew Keen doesn't seem to get it. Things are clearly changing, but what makes it so catastrophic that he wants to organize a metaphorical internet-breaking?

Oh, that's right. Because he thinks that he stands to lose his job to millions of amateurs, some of whom can write circles around him. If you literally gave a million monkeys a million typewriters, eventually they would come up with some nonsensical gibberish. Someone could then take that paper, and distribute it to whoever passes by them on the street. In the same way, if you gave millions of amateur artists and writers the opportunity to bang their heads on the keyboard or whatever it is they want to do, they could publish it on the internet. The same thing is going to happen: NO ONE WILL READ IT. Keen tells us “In the time you took to read this paragraph, ten new blogs were launched.” He says this as if all these new blogs were clogging up the internet like it was a series of tubes. He then goes on to assume that a majority of these blogs are where “kids” are getting their “credible news.” They should be getting it from “objective professional journalists” instead. Yeah, Fox, MSNBC, CNN. Probably objective, questionably professional, and kind of journalists.

Wikipedia pops it's head into Keen's article too, with the exact same argument that's been used against Wikipedia for almost half a decade. “Everyone can contribute, so it's false!”. He brings up that Walmart and McDonalds changed their Wikipedia pages. What he fails to acknowledge is that someone noticed it and fixed the problem. Who? Certainly not an “editorial staff.” According to Keen, Wikipedia doesn't have one of those.

Keen's also got a problem with Youtube. Evidently most of the videos that are posted on Youtube are trite and unwatchable. Shocking, right? He also says later that Youtube is killing the film industry, and he's actually serious. The paragraph is about internet piracy bringing down box office numbers, which is undoubtedly a fact, and he brings up Youtube. It's like he didn't want to sound too reasonable so he tossed it in to alienate even more people.

Reddit and Digg, although I don't personally use them, don't seem to be the worthless piles of junk news Keen's making them out to be. Just click on the category you want. They do have a “politics” section. It's not all about a “flat-chested English actress.” Unless you want it to be. The problem I have with this section of his introduction is the way he slips in Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. The middle-east sucks right now. Everybody knows that. But Keen brings it up like it's a secret to the intellectual elite, and everyone else is stuck in their own little fantasy world of “underground tunnels in Japan.” The elitism is sickening.

Keen's thoughts on Facebook and Myspace: “It's hardly surprising that the increasingly tasteless nature of such self-advertisements has led to an infestation of anonymous sexual predators and pedophiles.” I had to read that sentence a couple times to make sure he was serious. There were no sexual predators or pedophiles before Myspace? Rome begs to differ. And does calling them anonymous suddenly make the internet scarier? I just don't understand this guy's unhealthy opposition to new media.

He actually does make a point about newspapers though. They may be dead soon, and that certainly is a shame. Luckily, we can get all of our biased information on the internet. Wouldn't it be ironic if eventually the major news outlets would start charging their internet services and handing out newspapers for free?

So I say good. Let the monkeys take over. Everything seems to be going alright. We have access to everything we'd ever need to know, and even stuff we didn't think we needed to know, like what you'd find on Wikileaks. Keen and his archaic ilk can fade into the background, for all I care. I was starting to think that their corporate-funded “experts” weren't telling me everything anyway.

The Files Are "In" the Computer...

I agree with Dave and Amber. The pessimistic approach was not conducive of persuasion- or to put it another way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2NhwAG-ilw

I understand Keen's concern with the breakdown of our cultural gatekeepers and traditional media. In the end of his chapter he attributes the downfall of traditional news to the ever-growing forest of borderline intelligent media and blogs. These are multiplying and gaining popularity, but I believe he is viewing the glass as half-empty. Traditional news media has become a political outlet that has hung themselves through lack of professionalism. The glass may be half empty for CNN and The New York Times, but at the same time Fox News and other conservative media is on the rise. I believe that Keen's frustration over these "cultural gatekeepers" demise is actually rooted in the fact that the traditional media is no longer able to control American society. They had the rope in hand to save or hang themselves all along.

I don't mean to get on my high horse (as I have already used the spell checker four times) but our local paper, The LaCrosse Tribune is a joke when viewed through the professional looking glass. The editors miss the usual spelling and punctuation as is human and acceptable, however the sentence structure and lack of coherency makes me wonder if the writers have even heard of a "topic sentance." The paper seems to be written in the local jargon- Don't cha know, -and many quotations are so nonsensical that it's obvious they are being used as fillers. In addition to the lack of pertinent news the paper often shows its political bias and religious bigotry as demonstrated in last weekends edition. If you don't believe me, read it for yourself: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_ba759390-c037-11df-812e-001cc4c002e0.html Granted these can all be excused under the guise of "opinion" but there is a distinct lack of rebuttal, not to mention that that article was very wrong on multiple levels.

Keen complains of mediocrity, but I believe that is the level that many of our traditional "Gatekeepers" have stooped to. Self conscious Americans are no longer listening to their garbage. They are turning to alternative media and finding outlets that help them think rather than tell them how to think.

As far as Facebook, blogs, Wikipedia, and stupid videos on You-Tube are concerned- WE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE- we turn to Wikipedia knowing that it is not a credible news source, but it's great if you want to see the list of episodes in that show you were just introduced to. Facebook and Twitter are cluttered, but it's a way to contact friends far away and let them know what is happening in your life, and see what is happening in theirs. Self advertisement is O.K. Also, everyone needs a break from reality or perhaps a simple laugh on You-Tube. The point is, when we engage in these activities we are aware of what they are and we are exercising our personal choice.

Unlike Derek Zoolander and Hansel we are not stupid monkeys, and without our bad attempts at professionalism we will never improve. At least bloggers, forums and the like have never claimed to be a professional and reliable media outlet whereas many of our "Gatekeepers" do, and miserably fail like the rest of us.

M'ap boule, Christian Sorensen

Keen's "Cult of the Amateur"

In the excerpt of "Cult of the Amateur" by Andrew Keen, the idea that the digital age is quickly taking over print is discussed along with the author's unfavorable attitude toward the rise of blogging as a source of newsworthy information. Keen uses T.H. Huxley's "infinite monkey theorem" to compare bloggers to monkeys with typewriters. This comparison illustrates Keen's judgment on the ease in which anyone with access to a computer can become a published writer. He believes that if this continues, the majority of the information consumed will be false. He says that it is already difficult for people to distinguish between fact and fiction when a person turns to the Internet for his or her daily news update.

Keen also addresses sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia. When describing YouTube he state that it "eclipses even the blogs in the inanity and absurdity of its content" (5). Obviously, Keen is not in favor of expanding the digital age. In regards to Wikipedia, he also notes his distrust when he says "Then there is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia where anyone with opposable thumbs and a fifth grade education can publish anything on any topic from AC/DC to Zoroastrianism" (4). Sure, anyone can post anything they want on Wikipedia. However, with a short period of time, the information will be taken down. He seems to think Wikipedia is not monitored at all, which shows how little he actually knows about the site. This makes me question why he writing a book on this subject in the first place.

I disagree with Keen for the most part. I think his outlook is pessimistic and it is not likely that every person with something to say should be compared to a "monkey with a typewriter." Admittedly, there are probably some people like that out there, but I do not think that it is rational to believe that it can be stopped or that the majority of Internet users are that way. Instead, I think our energy should be placed on educating people about how to find a reliable source and how you know if a source is legitimate or not. Any resource can be abused. Obviously, everything on YouTube is not educational, but why should it have to be? YouTube can be used in a scholarly way, I know a lot of my classes use clips from YouTube that apply to what we are learning, but it can also be used for pointless fun. I do not necessarily think that is a bad thing.

Keen does make an interesting point when he explains that if someone searches for a phrase in Google and clicks on one of the links that appears, that link is more likely to show up for the next person with a similar search. Depending on the situation and what is being searched for, this could be a negative consequence of having so much faith in technology. I think it is important to know that there is information on the Internet that is true, that is not true, and that is merely someone else's opinion. People just need to be educated so they understand the difference and know what to watch out for. I also do not believe that the majority of people who conduct a Google search believe the first thing they read. Keen does not give the average person much credit.

The Internet is not "killing our culture" as the title states. It is definitely a useful resource. Any resource can be seen in a negative light if it is abused. However, I do not believe that there is any reason for the Internet to be seen as purely a hindrance on our culture, it is a part that needs to be accepted.

-Amber Griffin

Keen, Andrew. The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture. New York: DoubleDay, 2007.

In Defense of the Infinite Monkeys.

When reading the introduction to Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur, I was shocked, appalled, and worried at the state of the modern media. But I'm pretty certain that I was not shocked in the way that Keen wanted me to be. Keen builds his thesis upon the belief that the internet is the ruin of all. According to Keen, the internet is a breeding ground for mediocrity and inanity that goes unchecked and is destroying the populace. What shocked me about this was not his sensational message, but the fact that a book such as this should be relevant.

In the first place, a book such as this is written specifically for those who already agree with him. An enthusiast of the internet would probably not, under normal circumstances, purchase this book, nor would he or she be particularly swayed by the arguments if he or she did. The majority of people who will actively seek this book out have probably never posted a video to YouTube, nor have they ever started an account on LiveJournal. If this book is meant to change the course of the internet users into giving up their current actions merely because the author equates them to monkeys, then clearly it was misguided in its attempts.

But even so, it almost seems like the author is trying to use fear-mongering tactics without actually thinking about his claims. When he discusses the abomination that is YouTube, he talks about videos featuring "a Malaysian dancer in absurdly short skirts grooving to Ricky Martin and Britney Spears; a dog chasing its tail; an Englishwoman instructing her viewers how to eat a chocolate and marmalade cookie" and so on. While these do sound like things that could admittedly find a home on YouTube, there are really only two possibilities as to the formation of this list.

The first possibility is that these are real videos, which would not be necessarily surprising. But if the author is aware of these videos, then that of course means that he had to actively seek these out. I do not mean that he searched "how to eat a chocolate and marmalade cookie", but in order to view any video on youtube, one is required to click on a link that contains a thumbnail image of the video, a title, and possibly a short description. The question then arises as to why the author chose these particular links to follow. Perhaps he found the Malaysian dancer's legs enticing. But of course, I am attacking the author's character, which is a childish tactic.

The other possibility, which would be just as unsurprising, is that the author made these videos up. This does somewhat make sense: Why would a dancer be "grooving to Ricky Martin and Britney Spears" in 2007, almost a decade after the peak of these performers' careers, when there are far more popular club song performers in this year such as Akon, Rhianna, and T-Pain?

That's not the only thing that seems suspect about this article. Keen states that Wikipedia can be updated by anyone and is not checked or edited for content or fact at all. This is simply not true, no matter how many people may believe it. To prove this to yourself, you must only go onto any page and post something that is blatantly false. Yes, you can do this. You have the ability to go onto the page about famous television actor David Duchovny and, in the section discussing his early childhood, state that he sprang fully formed from the throbbing forehead of his father. However, I urge you to check back on that very page in twenty-four hours. The page will invariably look exactly the same as it was before you posted. An overzealous teacher at my high school encouraged students to vandalize the page about our high school. The repeated misuse caused the Wikipedia moderators (and yes Keen, there are moderators on Wikipedia) to block the school's IP address from ever editing articles again. So, in response to Keen: No, not everybody can edit Wikipedia, Yes, it actually is checked and edited for content, and as a matter of fact, there are consequences for repeated misuse of the website.

With all of this considered, I must wonder what exactly Keen takes issue with in regard to the internet. He talks about the endless drivel created by uninteresting users posting about their personal lives. But really, what harm does this do? I will admit that not everyone is relevant, but why can't people post about their lives online? Certainly anyone who has started a video web log series on YouTube or a solitary account on LiveJournal can tell you that they get almost no views or comments, save for the friends whose faces are bombarded with constant links and urges to read. Yes, anyone can post. But does that mean that anyone listens?

-Dave Briggs