CULT is live!

CULT has gone live. It's now available in bookstores everywhere. So please buy the book, read it and, if you like it, tell all your friends to buy and read it too.

The London Sunday Times ran a preview of the book yesterday ominously entitled "Thinking is so over." But I'm confident that CULT will help stimulate thinking. It's a book that represents the beginning rather than the end of a serious conversation about technology, media and culture.

And speaking of serious conversation, here's my video that ran at last week's Cultuur 2.0 event in Amsterdam (thanks, Bram!). Well, maybe not absolutely serious -- but at least entertaining, which is really the most effective way to stimulate thinking.

Comments

[Michael Pokocky]

There is no debate Andrew; you have taken a stand and I fully respect you courage to stand up to the self-appointed Internet Establishment. But then again courage is not even a necessary qualification to take a stand. Just taking it is what matters and let them all piss on you if they want to because that is how they work.

I have never seen such a perverted sense of self, ever in the real world, as I have seen on the Net. It amazes me because their supremeness is not based on value created, but in value they received in compensation from the hidden agendas of those who have been bought out by Traditional Media. This false sense of self is what you're up against and can easily be defeated by following this rule: do not give attention to those who criticize you, But, rather keep on writing articles, essays, etc. until the rest of the real people on the Net get to hear your views.

You will do good to write another book or take a vacation, but do not, please, and I advise you without agenda, give one second of your wonderful mind to those who are gunning after you.

This is the only strategy that will keep them at bay. The moment you give attention to them, that is the moment your cause will see its downfall, and then you will have to work very hard over a long period of time to gain the foothold you have now. You got their attention. You do not need theirs. I repeat, you do not need theirs.

Let the "real" people find you and I will leave you with this quote I wrote:"Everyone and Everything Will Find You If Your Findable." You got a book out and I found you through http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN0423182220070605 today, so keep going in that direction.

There is no debate I tell you; you are right and I can assure you of this. Let's take back the Net for knowledge and give people their culture back and bring back the idea that we will not tolerate the destruction of Traditional Media at the expense of inflated "false egos."

When the critical mass of people who have no agenda like the one's who are the "false prophets" find you, then and only then will change take place.

I applaud you on your stand once again.

Your new friend,

Michael Pokocky

[Roger Fenner]

Andrew,

You get a standing ovation from me. This is literally the first blog site I've ever visited and I've been a user of the Internet since the early 90's. I don't visit blogs because they are full of opinions and stolen information. They provide no objective truth. Thanks for standing up for those of us that don't care about how many dates some one has had this week.

Since I'm on a blog, I'll express my opinion. It seems that those most offended by your findings are those that have a hugely inflated sense of self-worth.

Keep up the good work,
Roger

[LeiLani]

I first confess the cardinal sin of criticizing your book before I've read it, an ommission I intend to rectify. However, the phenomenon you describe - blogs written in barely-coherent form or copied and pasted from other sources without permission or credit - make up only a part of the story.

There are a lot of us online for whom blogging is a group letter, a stream-of-consciousness letter written for ourselves and for a select group of friends. On the occasions when I've written factual-based articles, I've 1) done my homework and 2) written my story in my own words. The only times I've employed direct quotes, they've been identified as such, credited to the original author, and been used as brief illustrations of my assertions.

I've encountered all walks of people online, from the barely literate to intellectuals, perverts to prudes, young and old, the scrupulously honest and con men/women, and everything in between. Which, when you think about it, just means that the Internet is a pretty decent cross-section of the world; or at least, a cross-section of the world that's got access to technology.

I can tell you without question that the people I met online saved my sanity. The Internet is, for many of us, a new form of neighborhood; one in which we choose our neighbors. If you find otherwise, maybe you simply need to find a new "neighborhood" in which to plant your online roots.

[Prokofy Neva]

. . . . . . . . ______
. . . .,,--` ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ` ' -,
. -`; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;ˉ\
.,; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \
(; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;`\
.\; ; ; ; ; ; __,,---,,__ ; ; ; ; ; ;}
. |; ; ; ; ; / . . . . . . . . }; ; ; ; ; /
. .\ ; ; ; / . ,.-., . . ,-., .\ ; ; ;/
. . . `| . . . .`` .\ . . `` . .| )`
. . . . .\ . . ,- .c _, `-, .|
. . . . .`| . . .oz##zo . `
. . . . . .|. \. . . ˉ``ˉ. . ./
. . . . . / -, _ `.ˉˉˉ . . ,\ ,
- .` . .\ . - . . `- ˉ /;;\ . .| `'--.,,__
. . . . . \ . . . . . \` \;;;;\` |. . . . . - . ``'''`--_
. . . . . .\`-,`-., . \ .\;;/ ./ . . ./ ``. . . . . . .` `\
. . . . . . \ . . . . . . \|;;;\/. . . /. . . . . . . y/ . . ..\
. . . . . . .\ . . . . . . .\;/ . . . . . . . . . . /`. . -`. . . \
. . . . . . . .\. . . __ ./ . __ . _____y . . . . `'. . . .-,
. . . . . . . . . ./``. . ``'" / . .|` \ . . . . . .```` . . .---.,, .\
. . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . |``| . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
. . . . . . . . . -`` .``''' . - .ˉˉ ```-----,,,._______ . . . ./
\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .__ .-`. . . . . . .````
. ` ` \ . . . . . . . __ . . .- - - --` ''`. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .`````` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . B L O G ' S . . . . . . C L O S E D. . . .

[Eric Gauvin]

Everytime I search for something on google there seems to be a wikipedia entry as one of the top results. It almost seems like I'm searching on wikipedia by default. It's starting to feel like wikipedia is being forced upon me. I almost wish google had a checkbox option to filter out wikipedia results... I think I'm not the only one who is sick of wikipedia. I see signs of wikipedia fizzling out fast. Next... digg... youtube... and I think bloggers will eventually be regarded more like ham radio operators... Maybe it boils down to a really simple idea: user-generated content by average people is pretty boring.

[Eric Gauvin]

comment from video blogger on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zOHUN_qQOk

[Betty]

This book may stimulate thought and debate but ultimately it stimulates your bank account. I appreciate your ideas but not your shameless advertising....Have you become one of the monkeys you speak so negatively of? Oh wait that's me!

[Mikail Ruschev]

Who is Andrew Keen to self proclaim himself the authority of what is right or wrong in the world wide web. Contributing to the very thing you proclaim to hate is the very action I would expect from a man who ran a business to the ground, and a man who is a waste of life such as yourself.

The only problem I find with web is that you're somehow on it.

[figa]

I heard you on Brian Lehrer, and I was sorely disappointed. There's an argument to be made that institutional media is dumbing down and cutting back on reporting in favor of punditry, but Internet content is a reaction to that trend, not the cause of it. Anyone with a camcorder can compete with Meet the Press because it, along with the other "news shows", is speculation and cheerleading, not reporting. At best, it's sort of the Andy Warhol "Interview" model of news.

As for the music industry, it was already in full decline when the Net sunk the knife in. The industry invested very little in sustaining new artists after the 70s, and those who fell into its clutches after that were more likely to be financially ruined than make a living. See Albini's "The Problem With Music", printed in the "Baffler" and widely circulated on the Internet. This is what reporting looks like, and it didn't come out of "Rolling Stone".

My friend who runs his own independent goth label is doing much better for himself than if he would have signed his band when he started. He sees CD sales slowing, but he's also making money on iTunes from odd tracks that people never would have picked up otherwise. Without the Internet, he'd be out of business, since Walmart doesn't stock goth music, and it's killing all the other music retailers, indie or otherwise.

I won't judge your book, since I haven't read it, but I am a contributor to WNYC and I felt like whatever portion of my annual donation covered your airtime was a total waste. You couldn't come up with anything besides reactionary scaremongering in response to Brian Lehrer's slow pitch, corporate-league softballs. You were just there plugging your book, turning a precious slot on public radio into a third-rate infomercial.

[Eric Gauvin]

@ Mikail Ruschev

I don't think Andrew Keen has proclaimed himself the authority of our culture. He's got the balls to raise some very important questions that should be considered seriously. The fact that he's gone the distance and written a book about it says a lot. It shows that a publisher thinks there's an audience for it, which implies that people are interested in these ideas.

How do you think our culture should filter out the bad from the good? If, for example, you had written a book, how would you plan to get people to read your book? What influences do you think contribute to a culture that produces works of a high quality?

[xen ix]

I haven't read your book yet, but I will as soon as I get a copy of it.

But from what I've read in newspapers and (oh my gosh) on the internet I just can't help laughing at you.

You kind of remind me of that dude that is facing foreclosure and now has to flea the country because so many hate him now. You was like him, on the right track of something good, but for some reason you messed up. Now you are pissed at everyone else that does it better then you.

They say that in everyone is a critic, but they also say that a critic is someone who never succeeded in what he criticizes. So, does this fit you? Someone who didn't succeed and now dislikes everyone else who do? Or were your feelings hurt when you ended up in the Fucked Company Hall Of Fame?

And it's probably an American thing, but you criticize blogs, but here I am, commenting on your own blog. Talk about perfect example of double moral.

This is what the internet is all about. Information is free and anyone can participate. If you don't want that you can join everyone else on the right wing that wants censorship total control of the internet. Just don't hate us for exploring the possibilities of what we can do with the internet.

And you know as good as I do that many blogs have uncovered a lot things around the world and more and more blogs is becoming accepted sources for the media.

I like Macformat, and as a Mac user PC World is nothing for me, but it doesn't mean I will say that all magazines are useless because I don't enjoy them all. It's like TV. If you don't like the channel, don't look at it, it doesn't force you do look, does it? And the same goes for any other media. If you don't like a certain blog, don't read it, just ignore it. I see a lot of bad blogs on the internet, but I see a lot of good ones too.

This is all I have to say for now. I will probably write more when I've read your book. Just keep in mind, just because you didn't make it on the internet don't take it out on everyone else who does.

[Phillip Green]

Hello, to the last few comments.

ANYTHING CAN SELL, Just because there is a market for something doesn't give it any credence.

I can point out RAP ARTISTS and I can point out many other types of MEDIA that makes MILLIONS however is generally considered CRAP.

The point is, CRAP SELLS, and ANDREW KEEN HAS JUST FOUND THE RIGHT CRAP AT THE RIGHT TIME.

Phillip Green

[Phillip Green]

If you don't have the balls to publish any of my other comments, at least, for me define "Talent"?

[Naseer]

Andrew, don't you see it as ironical, perhaps even cynical that you go to no end bashing blogs and internet culture and then go on and publish your own blog?

Don't misunderstand me here. It is great that you've started a blog. Perhaps this will teach you more about internet culture.

Looking forward your next title "The Cult of the Ignorant"

[Steve]

I was over at this other blog, and the guy, who had recently been on a panel with you, thought the criticism of you by others was too harsh, though he did not necessarily agree with all your views.

I had recently looked through your book in the local Barnes and Noble, and I was gratified by the opportunity to let fly. I ripped you a new one!

When I found your blog, I decided that I really should share my criticism with you directly. I will warn you, it's harsh and polemic. I accuse you in very strong terms of not being a good person.

And, let me here add a point which had not occurred to me when I wrote that post. You actually believe in the concept of intellectual property. You seem to think that the fruits of the mind "belong" to the person who utters them, and that they should be considered an alienable commodity. But creativity doesn't work that way. Intellect is not a possession, it is on loan from the universe. Any thought and any intellectual product stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, during the thousands of years of our shared culture - the great-hearted men and women who gave freely of their genius that all might know. Truly we stand on the shoulders of giants. Those who choose to consider their thoughts a commodity surely have their reward. But I will not try to stand upon them. The shoulders of midgets are too easily broken.

The post follows:

I recently spent a couple of hours in the local Barnes and Noble perusing Keen's book. You are entirely too nice to the guy. There is an overriding issue which transcends the admitted validity of some of his points. It is this. This guy is simply an ass.

Now admittedly, that's a little subjective, so let me try to refine and support it. The guy is an unashamed elitist. He really believes that some people are better than others (and I have little doubt where he would place himself on that continuum and with whom he would identify.) His railing against the quality of amateur work is outrightly mean-spirited. He does not wish to acknowledge the intelligence, training, or capability of producing quality work of anyone not certified and/or employed by the gatekeeper institutions.

Now all this might be excusable if his evaluation of amateur versus professional quality was actually true. But it's not. It's a half-truth which could be more accurately encoded by saying that many but not all amateurs are incompetent, and many but not all professionals are more competent than most amateurs. Not nearly so impressive as an argument - but it has the advantage of being a truthful formulation.

The truth is that the gatekeeper institutions are broken and have been broken, to my personal knowledge, for over a generation. Certification as a media professional has become a license to censor and to lie, and in the monopolistic sector of the entertainment industry, arguably, to steal.

The way anyone can judge the truth of this is to look critically at media coverage of events they have personal knowledge of - especially if those events are related to controversial or minority social or political viewpoints, or to the lifestyles of the poor. They lie, they distort and they censor. Had that not been the case, the Internet explosion would have surely proceeded somewhat differently than it has.

Does the entertainment industry steal? You say Britney is talented, and much as it disgusts me, I must agree. But that misses the point. Consider a unit of analysis we'll call "Britney, Inc." This would include Britney in her own person, her paid entourage, and the various corporate entities who dispose of the Britney generated income stream. What does Britney Inc. provide that is worth what it gets paid, compared to lesser known but equally talented entertainers? Very little!

One could argue that we need universal or at least majority-dominant cultural icons as a centripetal force to prevent social fragmentation. And, surely Britney Inc attempts to provide that, and that is surely part of what we pay for when we patronize a Britney Inc product or service. We pay to keep the mechanisms of monopoly communication in place. But do the icons thus produced actually deliver the hypothesized benefit? Watch Britney shake her stuff on stage and ask if you would want that as a role model for your daughter, should you have one, or other young female within your sphere of caring and responsibility. Like to turn my stomach!

So, the thing to remember about this Keen character is that he's down with all this. And, to paraphrase the Jefferson Airplane, he is very proud of himself.

Now does he have some valid insights? Sure. I remember having one or two "stopped clock is right twice a day" moments as I went through the book. I think it was the insight (and I paraphrase greatly) that it's hard, if not impossible, to find the good stuff as you wade through a sea of crap. Agreed. Heck, it's hard to find the right good stuff wading through just the sea of other good stuff. And yeah, we need to seriously talk about that.

But the point isn't that he's right about some things. The point is that he's a partisan of those who want to turn back the clock and stuff the genie back in the bottle. I hope to heaven he's getting well paid - I'd hate to think of anybody being that stupid for free.

And, not only does he take the losing side of the historical question, he's even ignorant of the history of what he wants to criticize. Let me give you four names not found in his index. Vannevar Bush, Ted Nelson, Bruce Sterling, and John Perry Barlow. I'm sure there are many more, those were the four I checked for. The man is an ass, and an ignorant ass beyond that.

The grains of insight that can be rescued from Keen's dungheap surely deserve to be showcased and discussed. Let a new book be written by someone with some brains, integrity and good-heartedness toward the common folk.

And show due respect. Give Keen a footnote. It's what he deserves.

Just a thought,
-Steve

[bioqubit]

Dear Mr. Keen,

When in an ideological battle, a certain rule applies there, as in any conflict: Know thy enemy.

Suggesting that the journalists, broadcasters, et. al. possess capabilities for deep analysis and clear reasoning that so many members of blogosphere lack is you failing to "know thy enemy".

All I can say is: Keep believing your own nonsense.

It is the same rebaked crap tossed at conservatives. You want to talk "substantiive debate", then maybe you need to remind Dan Rather that his deep analysis of those forged documents on President Bush's jet pilot days was in need of improvement. Of course, we shouldn't mention the sterling scholarship of Jayson Blair, either.

People like you need to get a life and get it straight. But then again, I care only to point it out to you so that you know people are taking note of your shoddy thinking. Your's is a dying theology.