Andrew Keen gets it wrong again
Unfortunately, the internet is bloated with the hot air of these amateur journalists. Despite the size of their readership, even the A-List bloggers have no formal journalistic training. And, in fact, much of the real news their blogs contain has been lifted from (or aggregated from) the very news organizations they aim to replace.It is not surprising then that these prominent bloggers have no professional training in the collection of news. After all, who needs a degree in journalism to post a hyperlink on a Web site? Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, for example, the founder of Daily Kos, a left-leaning site, came to political blogging via the technology industry and the military.
Kos responds by listing his education and professional background as a journalist, which anyone with access to the Internet can easily discover for themselves.
Moulitsas earned two bachelor degrees at Northern Illinois University (1992-96), with majors in Philosophy, Journalism, and Political Science and a minor in German.Link (Thanks, Gary!)After a hitch serving as an artillery fire director at the headquarters for a missile battery, he attended Northern Illinois University, winning dual degrees and majoring in philosophy, political science and journalism and minoring in German.
From there, it was on to Boston University, where he earned his law degree.
“I knew in law school that I never wanted to be a lawyer. It was a way to kill three years of my life,” he offered with a smile.
He could have become a reporter—there was a job offer from the Associated Press—and he did freelance for three years for the Chicago Tribune, “but I decided I didn’t want to live vicariously through other people’s lives.”
the latest
latest episodes
Phooey! - what does he know?.....lol
There are exceptions to every rule. Unfortunately, when trying to define a rule, you try not to cite the exception as your proof. Time for my tiny violin lessons.
Keen's more intent on protecting his niche than getting it right. I sent you a long list of stories broken (not "aggregated") by bloggers a few weeks back that was a response to more of the same...O'll see if I can't relocate that link.
Regardless, I think one of the most important questions when it comes to blogs is "What is the source? What is your standing for making that statement?" Alot of blogs serve as little more than portals for the journalistic work of others. It's hard to take a blog seriously as a replacement for "old journalism" when the site is filled with links to the NY Times and AP services.
Yeah, he could have been a journalist. And MC Hammer could have been a professional baseball player.
When you come on like Andrew Keen is a moron, you need to back that up with something more than this cherry picking bullshit.
So, Moonbat: first, Andrew Keen's book is extremely silly. You can't pose as a thoughtful cultural critic when you get that many facts wrong--including facts that have nothing to do with the internet. Also -- and I'm not the first person to point this out -- he can't tell the difference between "culture" and "production value."
Second, what kind of examples would you not think constituted cherrypicking?
Third, you've got some nerve, sneering at Marcos Moulitsas. Yes, he could undoubtedly have been a journalist. That would have been easier than what he's done. As it is, he's a better writer and news analyst than many (arguably most) working journalists. Throughout the Iraq invasion, his site has been one of the preeminent sources of information, news, and analysis of the war. During that time, the site has grown into a large, energetic, reasonably orderly community that takes on all kinds of useful and interesting projects. Marcos has also been doing real-world political campaign work, and he's an extremely effective fundraiser, raising money from numerous small donors on behalf of good but undersupported candidates. In his copious spare time, he writes a good sports weblog.
What have you done lately?
Garrett, none of the weblogs I read think they're replacing "old journalism." They're a separate form, and they know it. Most of them are mindful of standard journalistic procedures and ethics. And if the print media were doing a better job, weblogs wouldn't have nearly as much material to work with.
Tim, it's not your call and it's not going to be your call. Jennifer, sorry about that.
The commenter in question has delighted us long enough, though we hope to see him back when his week's suspension is up.
Keen's perspective is entirely valid. There are definitely good, talented people out there, but much of Internet "journalism" is generated by partisan hacks with less-than-stellar credentials. And that's true of people on the political left as well as the political right.
It is not surprising then that these prominent bloggers have no professional training in the collection of news.
Fine, I'll give that to him. But to be honest, I'd rather take an amateur, identified, knowledgeable blogger interested in presenting the unbiased truth with good writing skills than someone who follows his own/someone's agenda presenting just the facts that they see fit, and just happen to have a degree in journalism. Which, to be honest, are the vast majority when the stakes are raised. There's a lot more than a diploma to be a good journalist.
Also, as far as I know, his background isn't on technology or journalism. Then what are his academical credentials to write and gloat on the subject?
BHLNYC: Go on, name names. Show us you know what you're talking about.
My aphorism regarding Keen: There's a difference between being right, and being on another side against something wrong.
(i.e., from another angle, two wrong don't make a right)
The big problem is that web-evangelists will drive out anyone making a thoughtful and moderate critique, so the only people who will get HEARD are those who play to a different power-center, like Keen does.
I think that's a good point, Seth. It's like the Ann Coulter school of thought (or that's how I think of it, anyway). Moderate, thoughtful debates get you nowhere. Who do we even know that's a famous spokesperson known for moderate, thoughtful debates? Wild one sided stories and name calling, now, that'll make you famous and I'm sure we can name a dozen people who use that style.
So I suspect the Keen haters, like the Coulter haters, are probably just playing right into their game, exactly as intended.
Most of what Keen is saying is technically true -- the internet IS bloated with the hot air of ameteur journalists. There must be, what, 10 million bloggers out there? More or less depending on where you draw the line, I'd bet. And probably 99% of them are average Joe Schmoes like me (I have a blog, too! And I have no formal journalistic training! Hey, I think Keen might have been insulting me! That bastard!)
But the language he uses is obviously meant to incite arguments, if not necessarily debate. That's his chosen road to fame and glory, I guess, and it'll probably work better than any moderate approach.
Seth, good point.
Nonesuch, what makes you think I or the boingers or anyone else here hates Andrew Keen? I think he wrote a silly book, and he gets a lot of factual stuff wrong. That's not hating; that's judging.
What's so impressive about journalistic training?What degree has a less demanding curriculum? If journalists are so highly trained why do they spend so much time on false irony,reductionist dualities ( I seldom see or hear aan interveiwer who doesn't use some variation of "do you think this,or do you think that?") and endless cliches. The word cliche was originally a french typesetters term for words and phrases used so often they were left setup for reuse. and what's with all these journalists interviewing other journalists,as if they were experts or primary sources.
>When you come on like Andrew Keen is a moron, you need to back that up with something more than this cherry picking bullshit.
It isn't necessary to "come on like" you are a moron.
When you wrote: "After all, who needs a degree in journalism to post a hyperlink on a Web site?" it is obvious that you did not do your research, since Zunigas clearly has a degree in journalism (and philosophy, and political science).
How on earth is that "cherry picking bullshit"?
Keen is, clearly on this point, greatly misinformed.
I have no intention of spending any money or time on Keen's ramblings, but every time this thing about the validity of blogs comes up, I have to ask, 'so what?'. The same principle applies to blogging as to all media, that 99% is sh*t, and the other 1% has to earn its reputation, and it would be foolish to think in any other way. That's where Keen seems to be fundamentally wrong, he seems to believe that the Internet is there to replace existing media, whereas most of it merely extends existing media, and much of what he says is sour grapes and should be met with a shrug and a 'your point is, caller?'. If we stopped talking about him, he would disappear.
I don't even know how this guy gets airtime. His technique itself is amateur academia. Take extreme position lamenting change, speak in hyperbole. Do you think people keep asking him to be on panels because of the accent? Does it somehow lend authority to his words? Because it just fits with the overall mentality.
If that's a call for a vote, I'll second it.
Am I the only one that thinks the word "journalist" has lost 98% of its credibility? Dan Rather could have gotten out of trouble by telling the truth that he is an overpaid talking head that had nothing to do with the reporting that got him fired.
The "professional" news services have been reduced to mouthpieces for the people they should be watching and then asking "oh gosh" questions.
much of Internet "journalism" is generated by partisan hacks with less-than-stellar credentials.
And this differs from the average Fox News commenter how? See Sturgeon's Law.
Keen applies the attention-getting techniques of blog A-listers (or trolls ... :-))
See this column I wrote on a similar event (which involved him):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/12/comment.guardianweeklytechnologysection
Interesting piece, Seth. That's you in the picture?
If what we have today is "professional" journalism, then give me more amateurs.
Yes - no goggles or cape for me :-).
Re: Rather and the bloggers
"Rather's", or correctly, the Bush desertion story covered by CBS News (and by BBC's Newsline, and the Boston Globe in 1990), contained no factual errors. Rather was forced to apologize under tremendous pressure from the Republican owners of Viacom and CBS itself.
As for the accuracy of CBS's report: it was called into question by the writer of the right wing Powerline blog minutes after the broadcast of the episode -- an amazing feat considering all the fax-distorted "evidence" that Powerline presented as fact. Usually takes more than a few minutes to analyze a news story. Apparently Powerline was working closely with Rove's little disinformation team. Anyway.
Powerline was *wrong*. Selectric typewriters had optional proportional font features, if one paid for them. And apparently the military paid, because other documents in Bush's file were typed in proportional fonts. If those were "forged", then Bush's entire military record must be considered a forgery as well.
The "typeface didn't exist" argument was wrong. That particular typeface existed since the 30's.
The "document was typed in Word" argument, linked to the typeface fallacy, also wrong. The "evidence" was micrometric examination of documents, probably stolen from CBS's news department, that had been re-faxed and mutilated thereby. No forensics expert would use such tainted "documentation" such as those faxes.
The overwhelming evidence BESIDES the one document questioned by Powerline minutes after the broadcast damns the President. Witnesses say he wasn't at his duty post for a year. His CO says he was missing. He was seen working at a campaign that year by the entire campaign staff, for crissakes. Everyone in damned Texas, BTW, knows junior deserted and his daddy's friends covered for him. This was not exactly news.
But somehow, this blogger, a far rightist writer, became the source for the repudiation of an accurate report without a single "news reporter" investigating his claims. They instead reported the "controversy". Other bloggers, the non-rightist variety, had the refutation of his points up immediately -- but could get no traction, no mention in the news wires, nothing. Amazing. CBS trumped up a kangaroo trial chaired by a Bush family partisan, and they examined no evidence, and instead lambasted Rather's producer for using naughty words in her emails.
So somehow, a stellar report by the last credible TV newsroom in America ran a report on a long-reported and undenied fact that Bush deserted (AWOL over 30 days) from a Guard post during wartime was somehow deemed irredeemably false and the news reporters destroyed. By one right wing blogger with no facts to back him up. So nastily, so completely that even John Stewart disparaged Rather's work.
I hope Mapes and Rather take Viacom and CBS's trick elephants to trial, open the emails from the RNC and Rove, and empty their piggy banks in penalty. No doubt the report of their vindication will be printed in the "political opinion" section, rather than repudiate the right wing's consensus, so the fact of their innocence will become another "controversial opinion". No one in journalism will admit that they can be deceived so completely, either in this matter, or in the matter of the case for war. They will not face the mirror.
Catbeller (25): that's what Powerline is for. It got used as a catspaw all through that election. The fact that Time Magazine named it Blog of the Year in 2004 was a measure of that magazine and that set of awards, not the blog itself.
If by "professional" you mean "they're getting paid to do it," IMO Powerline is only nominally amateur.
The fuss over the publication of Fortunate Son was just as much of a stitch-up. They used it to float and then dismiss all the stories about Bush's cocaine use.
One of my favorites was the press conference following the Florida non-recount where James Baker stood up and said that "everyone knows" that computer counts are more accurate than hand counts. That was a flat-out lie. What everyone knows is that hand counts are more accurate. That's why they're used around the world to check computer counts.
(Quick illustration: if you put a dollar or five-dollar bill into a change machine, and the machine spits it back out, do you throw the bill away? Of course you don't. You know that change machines will reject bills that don't meet their precise requirements, whereas human beings will have no trouble recognizing such bills as the real thing.)
Did any of the reporters there point out that Baker's assertion was contrary to known fact? As far as I can tell, not a one of them did, and very few newspapers or magazines mentioned it either.
I've never quite gotten over that.
By coincidence, see my column:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/04/guardianweeklytechnologysection.blogging1
"In war, truth is the first casualty. And that's being proven many times over in ongoing controversies about George W. Bush's Vietnam-era military record."
Note - I hate the title it was given ("Is it easier to believe the bloggers now rather than the journalists?"). I didn't choose it, didn't even know it until the column was published. It's against the real point I was making, which was the issue of finding truth.
A couple of bloggers have journalism cred and suddenly Keen's whole argument is wrong?
This is a silly debate. Do we really need to stick blogs into the journalism box to legitimize them?
You bloggers need to get over it. If you have readers, then who cares what label some pundit attaches to you (or doesn't).