Vaudeville 2.0
I’ve been stealing cycles throughout the weekend to read Andrew Keen’s much-loathed book in preparation for a 4- or 5-way deathmatch this Tuesday at 7:30 in Campbell California. The venue is a Baskin and Robbins — no, a Barnes & Noble, and the players are Andrew, Nick Carr, Keith Teare, and me, moderated by Dan Farber. I’ll reserve my comments for edgewise insertion on Tuesday, but so far I’ve been surprised at both the dismay on the part of A-Listers and the effectiveness Keen has shown at dragooning people such as my brother, Doc Searls, and Jeff Jarvis into promoting the work into the mainstream conversation.
I can understand my brother’s dismay at being simultaneously bludgeoned for championing citjournism and unfairly lumped in with Keen’s indictment of amateurs in the journalism space. In fact, my brother’s lending of his mainstream journalism credibility to the blog space early and then fulltime was one of the first and most significant validators of new media credibility. But I guess he can’t say that himself without appearing petty and self-promoting, so I’ll say it for him. Those of you who know both of us know that while I often find myself looking at Dan’s issues from another perspective, nobody can touch him as an ethical source of how to do what he does (journalism) right across the alleged divide between old and new medias. Keen loses points there that he will need to make up moving forward.
But Dan’s refusal to be engaged in the continued discussion falls flat with me, as it does when Doc demurs as well. Just as it doesn’t follow (in Keen’s work) that because mainstream media is finding it hard to survive on the realtime network, that the flood of amateurs from below is responsible, it also doesn’t follow that the wisdom of the crowd is enough to replace the inefficient media or that the frictionless voice of the Wordpress onramp has no conflict of interest of its own.
Keen is finding this odyssey something of a Nixon goes to China moment, where his more authentic exploration of the weaknesses of both sides on his road show is preparing the way for a real dialogue minus the posturing on each end. Tom Foremski’s emotional post about the Chronicle layoffs is one signpost along this more profitable road, and those who duck the old debate should only feel comfortable if they join a more productive “now-what” discussion on the other side of the mirror Keen suggests we are holding up to ourselves. Frankly, I’m sick of the debate, but if that’s what it takes to get to the real work ahead, so be it.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Steve, you’ve probably seen Keen’s dialogue with Kevin Kelly, but, if not, here’s where it starts.
http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/2007-05-29/can_the_internet_be_saved
Look forward to hearing how you get to the other side of the polemics.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I’m looking forward to the debate Steve but it is the “what do we do now?” aspect that interests me the most. The fact is that culture is destroyed all the time, and Keen’s observations are obvious and dull. It is what happens now that interests me and it is something that as media professionals we can engage in and create a new media world.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Steve, I see you’re still wowing ‘em after all these years !!! Say hello to the misses. Best wishes.
Jim Lovejoy