The hack
I got calls from two NPR shows on Thursday asking me to appear to debate Andrew Keen. Man, hire his publicist. That debate shtick has worked well with personal appearances across the country and now broadcast. I refused both requests. I said the book is just plain bad. It’s sloppily researched and written. It is link- and PR-bait disguised as a polemic. If it were intelligently, thoughtfully presented, I’d be happy to talk about these ideas. But it’s not. The irony is that Keen accuses us all of being hacks but his book is just a hack. I told them I chose not to play into this publicity mill on my blog and wouldn’t do so on the air, either. Here’s the interesting part: They each said they’d heard just this same perspective from a lot of people they’d called looking for debaters. There’s no conspiracy here; we all simply said no. And one of the shows decided to change its topic and talk about the future of the web instead. Hurray. Quality will out.
Tags: populism
July 7th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Excellent!
July 7th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
There you bloggers go, lowering NPR to your level…
July 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Great response! Keen is always harping about our culture being “destroyed,” as if his contributions to culture and beauty and art and literature and civilization are anything more than PR drivel, fluff and fanfare for himself.
I think the Web medium is one way to push the envelope of creativity and language, and we’re surfing the edges of our own culture rather than having be spoon-fed to us by the appropriately appointed “culture engineers,” as Terence McKenna would say.
Short sweet video of McKenna talking about cultural diversion, and reclaiming our own culture - and mind and soul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARIG-BQRATs
July 8th, 2007 at 9:04 am
[...] Jeff Jarvis revient un brin sur le livre “The cult of the amateur” d’Andrew Keen. Comme plusieurs autres, Jarvis a refusé de débattre avec l’auteur, jugeant que ce serait une mauvaise idée d’accorder de l’importance à ce livre mal foutu. “I said the book is just plain bad. It’s sloppily researched and written. It is link- and PR-bait disguised as a polemic. If it were intelligently, thoughtfully presented, I’d be happy to talk about these ideas. But it’s not. The irony is that Keen accuses us all of being hacks but his book is just a hack. I told them I chose not to play into this publicity mill on my blog and wouldn’t do so on the air, either. Here’s the interesting part: They each said they’d heard just this same perspective from a lot of people they’d called looking for debaters.” [...]
July 10th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
The NYT did not find this book to be useless piffle. You’ll argue that the review is from the gasping mouth of old media. But without an actual debate, you leave we readers of both Keen and Jarvis at an ambivalent impasse. Not fun. Not productive.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:46 am
For Ms. Conrad:
You both overestimate the weight the Times carries, and underestimate the regard many of us hold for people like Jeff.
It IS possible to be an intellectual without being an effete snob, as is the fashion of Mr. Keen.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
i heard an interview with him on NPR a few weeks ago.
he made very weak arguments. and the interviewer (i think it was Brian Lehrer) did not do a good enough job in digging deeper.
does not worth buying the book. and probably should not get airtime either.