Monday, May 05, 2008
Information overload & cultural collapse: old fears
Reading The Cult of the Amateur has made me mad. I guess that’s one thing to be said in favor of the author: his writing can incite emotion. There are so many flaws in his logic that I am going to break down this post with subtitles to keep myself from rambling on and on and writing my own 205-page diatribe.
The overwhelming feeling I get from this book is fear. Fear of too much information to sift through. Fear that the professional is losing control. Fear that the masses are uneducated and unable or unwilling to embrace quality media.
Information Overload
All of these fears have arisen with other societal changes and are not new to the web. Technology and change seem to have this effect. The press and mass production of books incited similar grandiloquences about information overload: How will the people (and the experts, as a separate entity of course) ever wade through the innumerable tomes?
Information overload is not a new concept. And perhaps not surprisingly, it seems to affect those who were raised in the old system of information more than those born into the newer, differently structured, information network. It has been shown that kids have the ability to mutli-task better than adults. While adults may feel they are multi-tasking, they are actually less adept at each of their tasks as they attempt to juggle them. Kids’ brains are able to nimbly handle all those things they’re doing: chat on IM, search the web, listen to music, text on the phone, and type up a homework assignment—without the struggle their elders face.
Blaming New Technology for Failures
One of Keen’s main criticisms falls on Wikipedia. However, this is a case where his flawed factual backup is such a stretch that I can only use his own words against him: “The 232-year-old Britannica went through a series of painful layoffs in 2001 and 2002, cutting its 300-person staff in the United States almost by half; with the advent of Wikipedia, no doubt more layoffs are to come.” Wikipedia started in 2004. The old system was failing before the new arose. Although other arguments he poses against Wikipedia hold some value, this leaping accusation deteriorates the value of all other statements near it.
Assumptions About Mainstream Media
Keen also supports the mainstream media and states that it has “reinforced American values and made our culture the envy of the world” for 200 years.
Sure, the AP wire started in the 1840s, and in 1800 the Sedition Act forbidding criticism of the government by the media expired. However, it wasn’t until 1920 that our modern interpretation of journalism arose. Four journalism schools were formed in 1920 (Columbia, Northwestern, Missouri, and Indiana) because of the lack of faith the general population had in a media system run for profit, before this professionalization of journalism the media was based on sensationalism and yellow journalism. Prior to this, it was not even acceptable for a journalist to take notes. This change in journalism did separate the United States media from other countries, but it certainly wasn’t 200 years ago. It also was not the glorious and value-ridden idealistic media that Keen seems to imply.
Media has always been questioned in the United States. Training journalists and following ethical codes was an attempt to create unbiased media in the face of a profit-driven industry, but the credibility of media continued to be questioned. By 1996 the media was “seen as part of a strongly disliked governing elite” according to a U.S. News and World Report survey. Where is the motivation to save an institution that has been taken over by corporations despite the efforts to professionalize it, one that is seen not as the reinforcer of values but instead as one big advertisement?
Cultural Collapse
If generations of information jugglers are able to find all of the information they want, then why would they depend on a talking head to tell them what to think? This is where the next fear arises. If no one listens to the professional, is there still such a thing?
Keen’s argument supports being told by someone else what to think, or at least what to think about. His assumption is that mainstream media provide this service. Keen fears that without mainstream media as the middle man, we will not be able to recognize, or find in the marsh of information, true genius.
This concept reminds me of a presentation at the New Communications Forum by Tim Westergren’s, of Pandora.com, and Milton Olin, Jr., Altschul & Olin, LLP, on the fall of the hierarchy in the music industry. Musicians no longer need to know who is the head of a major record label and bow to the lackeys below to struggle to the top. When that was the case, 1% of musicians actually made it to a label. Even fewer made it to the public. They may have been signed but if their music sales weren’t projected to cover the expenses of recording and marketing, they were shelved and no one was able to hear them. Even the ones who made it big handed over most of their profits to that label to cover expenses.
You tell me, which is better:
Old men in suits deciding what good music is and allowing the masses to hear a small percentage of what is out there, while hoarding the profits even at the expense of the musician?
Or
Everyone being able to find music they like no matter what other people think of it, at the expense of taking the time and energy to find it?
There may still be a need for people to find quality information and entertainment, but rather than controlling it they will be sharing it.
Media • Technology • Social Media • Risk of Loss: A Series of Folly • Reading • Permalink
