Jeff gets Strumpetted

Jeff Jarvis isn't sure if he wants to debate me about the efficacy of the Web 2.0 revolution. So he asked the crowd for their opinion. I thought that the responses were hilarious, both for and against (I particularly enjoyed the most uncrowd-like wisdom of Jay Rosen). But I wonder if Jeff is being a bit of a secret mainstream media type in his editing of critical comments. For example, Amanda Chapel sent this to Jeff at 10.00 am yesterday:

Jeff,
DON'T DEBATE HIM!  Seriously, if you love your family, if you have ANY sense
of empathy for the 6 million pitchfork and torch bearing OS losers who cling
to the hope of a new free world where everyone's a star and theft is the
standard... don't. Keen will rip you to shreds.  You'll end up doing movie
reviews per diem for Channel 3 in Peoria.

Actually, might not be a bad idea. Surely, the Peoria gig pays more than
you're making blogging and pontificating at endless conferences.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Amanda Chapel
Managing Editor
Strumpette

But Amanda's suggestion hasn't appeared on Buzzmachine. Oh dear. I hope Jeff will eventually publish it.  Especially since, for once, Amanda is wrong. If I do end up debating Jeff, I fear he'll tear me to 
shreds and I'll be the poor slob exiled Peoria as a television reviewer (do they even have tv yet in Peoria?)

Comments

[Danny Motion]

you'll get trashed by Jarvis. He'll slice you and dice you until there's no you left.

welcome to the major league buddy!

[Suz]

Danny, I think if you try and spend a little more time learning grammar it might benefit you. An exclamation mark goes after an exclamation, not a statement. It's customary to start a sentence with a capital. Good grammar helps you communicate with people.

Otherwise people might mistake you for that guy Keen thinks is responsible for posting inconsequential and juvenile crap on the Web.

Where were we? Jarvis is jabbing his wooden sword at Keen, calling him a 'curmudgeon'. Is he going to come out from under his rock and fight?

My money's on Keen. He's got a better haircut, a solid viewpoint and the cojones to stand up and defend it. Jarvis on the other hand doesn't have a leg to stand on if he doesn't present himself for debate.

Keen has bought the ticket and he'll take the ride.

Jarvis is a cheese-eating surrender-monkey if he doesn't.

So far, it's not looking good for Jarvis. Nor yet for his blog.

[andrew]

Suz -- I'm not sure about the haircut. More ominously, he's got a beard and I haven't been able to grow one (after twenty years of trying, I've given up).

Thanks for the compliment about the cojones. I haven't seen Jeff's yet to compare....

ak

[Suz]

You're welcome.

Over in Jarvis's personal war-zone, the debate continues. At the last count there were 83 responses.

The debate about whether Jarvis should, er, debate AK has lapsed into insults and threats between the correspondents. Is this any way for a Web 2.0 democracy to operate?

Further more, it appears that AK has never surfed the internet:

Patrick Dodds says of AK: 'Forget about him - anyone who genuinely thinks there is nothing good on the net can’t have been on it.'

Hot damn. We didn't think of a double-bluff. Maybe JJ doesn't want to appear because he HAS surfed the Internet. Perjury in front of an audience is a vile and terrible crime, and Jarvis's perspicacity could be on the line here. The entire show is building into a new series of 'The Sopranos', with JJ cast as the whining ne'er-do-well AJ.

The debacle is hotting up. Half-time scores: Keen 1, Jarvis: Nil.

HBO are bidding for the broadcast rights.

[David Pleat]

I suspect that Jeff is a Gooner

[Eric Gauvin]

I was just over at his blog and made a bad first impression, I'm afraid. Jeff Jarvis personally called me a troll. (I think he may have been reacting to the way I made multiple successive posts which may have appeared troll-like). I poked around his blog site and just found a lot of stuff that supports his image as a "web guru" and "thought leader" etc.

[anonymously anonymous]

http://www.vaspersthegrate.blogspot.com/

Who exactly is Vasper The Grate? I suspect Amanda or Andrew or Nick Carr invented him to show how incredibly pathetic the blogosphere has become. He appears to be the parody of a complete loser who sits in his soiled underpants all day writing gibberish on the Internet. What a loser. What an awful advertisement for the human race.

[andrew]

Suv -- It is amazing the interest that Jeff's post has generated. And I do have to concur with anonymous about Vasper the Grate. I'm surprised Jeff allows somebody so self-evidently psychotic to post so frequently on Buzzmachine. It really does everyone a disservice. Especially given that a lot of the comments -- by Jay Rosen, Chis Brogan and Jeff himself -- were really interesting.

andrew

[Eric Gauvin]

Oh. You've got a point. I didn't even think it could be a hoax. It's very revealing that I wouldn't suspect such an ridiculous site could be a hoax. Should have been my first instinct.

[Eric Gauvin]

I've got to stop! That site reminds me of the movie Idiocracy too much.

[Suz]

.. the bland leading the blind.

OK, let's open a book on this. I got fifty bucks that says AJ, sorry, JJ will not show because he's suddenly remembered an important speaking engagement. Ten bucks on him not showing because a distant nephew, once removed, has grown another foot.

A hundred on him showing and not being ripped to pieces by AK on the evidence of his own blog. How Web 2.0 is that?

[Suz]

Web 2.0 seems to have invaded my word processor. I just fired up Open Office to construct a pithy update on the JJ vs AK forthcoming un-scrap, in which Jeff Jarvis declines to debate with Keen.

Open Office is offering me a choice of twenty-seven yummy backgrounds for this post, from 'Ice-Light' to 'Confetti'. Doesn't it know puberty passed me by decades ago?

Forcing their minds out of puberty might be a problem for some of Jarvis's New Meeja correspondents. Only two days into the debacle and a hundred and fourteen responses have lowered a simple question: 'Should I debate Keen'? to vile rants from Vaspers the Grate (sic) et al, espousing that Keen's publisher merely wants the debate to make money.

Well, Vaspers, old bean, that's what publishers do. Somebody has to foot the bill for all that editing, fact-checking, indexing, printing, binding, warehousing, distribution and libel writs from men with beards.

I know with New Meeja you could just stick 400 pages or rant into your blog and have done with it, but if you want it to be there in a hundred years time, you kinda have to produce it in a format that will survive. It's called 'Old Media'.

But try the Socrates Three Filter Test: Is what I am about to say the truth? Is what I am about to say good? Is what I am about to say useful? If not, then shut-up.

Never mind. Vaspers has snatched his own defeat from the jaws of victory: 'You go “defend” and “argue” with the haters of Cluetrain Triumphant, but I prefer to keep serving clients and making money with Web 2.0 tools and social networking.'

Spend it quickly, my friend. There won't be much more of it coming.

Jarvis has a fine mind (and a strange beard) but he needs to build a more literate fan base. He could put most of them out their misery by agreeing to show up to the debate, but three days into the melee, we're no wiser.

We want JJ in there.

We want him to clarify this: 'I argue that media old farts and the curmudgeons who feed them pay too much attention to the bad and miss the good, and that is a waste. '

You shouldn't argue with yourself, JJ, unless you're on Lithium

Just thought I'd mention it.

[Eric Gauvin]

@sue

I see you're a professional writer, and it shows. Enjoy reading your posts.

[andrew]

Sue -- That is brilliant. You've summarized the whole argument in three lovely paras:

"Well, Vaspers, old bean, that's what publishers do. Somebody has to foot the bill for all that editing, fact-checking, indexing, printing, binding, warehousing, distribution and libel writs from men with beards.

I know with New Meeja you could just stick 400 pages or rant into your blog and have done with it, but if you want it to be there in a hundred years time, you kinda have to produce it in a format that will survive. It's called 'Old Media'.

But try the Socrates Three Filter Test: Is what I am about to say the truth? Is what I am about to say good? Is what I am about to say useful? If not, then shut-up."

I'd still advise people to buy my book (so my editors and I can pay our mortgages), but you've nailed it. We should call it the hundred yearstest. The problem with blogs is that they don't even survive the hundred minute test. Here one minute, gone the next. Ephemeral -- that's new meeja for ya.

ak

[hugh macleod]

Well, I know Jeff personally, and I partially have him to thank for a lot of the success I've enjoyed as a blogger [he was a big influence on me in the early days], so apologies in advance if I appear biased :-)

Look on the bright side: if blogs are as dreadful as you say they are, surely that will increase demand for quality, non-amateur product from people like yourself?

Though I applaud the vigor with which you defend your position, I think you're missing the point. The BIG point. To quote Clay Shirky:

"So forget about blogs and bloggers and blogging and focus on this -- the cost and difficulty of publishing absolutely anything, by anyone, into a global medium, just got a whole lot lower. And the effects of that increased pool of potential producers is going to be vast."

Methinks your book is about 5 years to late. The genie is already out of the bottle. And no amount of musings on paper, however erudite, is going to change that.

Good luck with the book, though. I hope it finds the audience it deserves.

[Eric Gauvin]

@hugh

For those of us who don't believe in genies (or meaningless catchphrases), I assume you're just saying that you believe that since new media is so trendy right now there's no point in questioning how it fits into our culture.

[hugh macleod]

You can question how it fits into our culture all you want, Eric. I'd recommend it highly.

In hindsight, as a relatively early, non-techie adaptor to blogs, I find most of the intellectual resistance to the medium had more to do with erosion of gatekeeper privilege than anything else.

btw I do not consider the internet "new media". Or trendy.

[andrew]

Hi Hugh -- nice to meet you. Your cartoons are great.

not sure how to take your remark about hoping my book gets the audience it deserves... Would that be angry old leftists who aren't impressed with the lumpenproletarian cultural consequences of democracy? Or angry old conservatives looking for a reason to loath new media & the internet?

I'll be in London last week of June. Speaking at the ICA on June 25. Hope to see you there.

best,

andrew

[hugh macleod]

Hi Andrew, I meant it in a friendly way :)

Just because I may disagree with you, doesn't mean it's a book that doesn't deserve to be read. Time will tell.

But knowing how much trouble it is to write a book, as a fellow writer-type, I'm wishing you well.

[Suz]

It's a filthy job, but someone has to do it. The answer to the question 'Should I debate Keen' over on JJ's site has reached well over a hundred posts.

Wow! you might say, that's the Power Of The Blog-O-Sphere for you. And you'd be right.

Here's the breakdown to date:

YES! Debate the Keenian Troll and Smite Him!: 19 posts

NO! Keen is SATAN! Touch him and you'll be tainted: 20 posts

Abuse: 3 posts (I'm being kind here)

Counter-Abuse: 10 posts (I'm being even kinder.)

Off-topic wibble, sorry; democratic voices: 52 posts.

If you add these figures up, you'll find they don't add up. That's because some people posted a 'yes' or a 'no', and then changed their minds.

Some folk didn't know but posted heart-rending tales of how blogging has saved their marriages, cured warts, and shown them the truth about the Apollo moon landings. (These examples are metaphors.)

Others just joined in because they like blood-sports, or posted several times because it was either raining or the iPod had packed up again.

Statistically, the yeas and nays (forty-nine posts) seem outweighed by the other sixty-five posts. So the answer must be.....

Heck, work it for yourselves.

It's a shame JJ couldn't use his own mind to make a decision, but I'm pleased the debate about debating is over.

I'm just sorry that none of this fine example of Web 2.0 democracy will be enshrined in the Library of Congress or the British Library for our great-grandchildren to read.

But hey, that's New Meeja for you.

[Suz]

Amanda has her finger on the pulse, as usual.

Is that white smoke coming from Jeff's chimney?

http://strumpette.com/archives/397-World-Blog-Organization-Elects-New-Leader.html