Walloped by Emily

I've finally been nailed. Till now, I think I've come out at least even in all my debates with Web 2.0 boyz like Chris Anderson, Kevin Kelly and David Weinberger. But all good things come to an end. I've finally been outdebated. By a lady -- and an English lady at that.

In my Guardian newspaper debate with Guardian Unlimited's digital supremo Emily Bell, she outwitted me and then took me to the cleaners. My hunch is that I went in a bit cocky, stuck out my chin and got a good walloping. She's a tough bird, that Emily Bell. I'm not debating her again.

Speaking of being outwitted and taken to the cleaners, I'm appearing on the Colbert Report this Thursday (8/16). So those of you who want to see me get the mother of wallopings should tune in then. No doubt he'll make me the central comedy on Comedy Central (serves me right for idealizing mainstream media).

Anyone have any advice about how to outwit the great Stephen Colbert?

Comments

[Berbatov]

same thing happened to us on Saturday. Went in cocky and got stuffed.

Colbert is a lot nastier than Sunderland, though. He'll kill you.

ha ha ha

[DB Ferguson]

Um ... may I advise not throwing water on him?
http://www.nofactzone.net/?p=1969

In all seriousness, though, just remember, be true to yourself and your message, and let him be the funny one. His job is to make the funny and look like the buffoon. If you try to outwit him or to be the funny one, you'll be the one who looks silly.

And if you want the Google Love (as well as the gratitude of the Colbert Nation), do a nice, lengthy backstage/behind the scenes post when you get back. With lots of scoop! And pics! And lots of SEO-friendly terms such as "Stephen Colbert backstage" and "Stephen Colbert shirtless hunks bagging groceries."

[Zeno Izen]

The best guests on Colbert are always the ones who keep smiling and take it all in stride. And make sure you've seen at least four episodes of the show before you go on.

[WordsWithGrace]

At Colbert University (a prime example of Web 2.0; rest assured that the irony of our posting here doesn't escape us), we've compiled Stephen's own advice to his guests -- as well as advice from other guests and glimpses behind the scenes at the show. An excerpt:

Many guests think their role is to be funny, but “the best laughs [my guests] can get are through correcting my [character's] stupidity,” Stephen has said. “I think it doesn’t work when they have a joke or two that they’re desperate to say on the show, and then they don’t really actually listen to the conversation. ... They’re waiting to drop the joke in the middle of the interview, and it lands there like conversational plutonium.”

He also discusses the importance of the guest's holding firm to their ideas in order to give him traction to work against as a comedian, at http://colbertuniversity.nofactzone.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=53#advice.

So rather than making jokes, think about slamming your real ideas as forcefully as possible up against the character's ignorance. If it's any comfort, we'd guess that the real Stephen is sympathetic to your arguments at least in part, although his character will disagree completely, since he's "no fan of facts" to begin with.

For instance, when you write, "We’ve lost truth and interest in the objectivity of mainstream media because of our self-infatuation with the subjectivity of our own messages. ... A flattened media is a personalized, chaotic media without that essential epistemological anchor of truth," this ties in so well with the show's satirical concepts of "truthiness" (truth is what we feel it is) and "wikiality" (truth is what we all agree it is - as in Wikipedia).

The notion of the "personalized media" also ties in with Stephen's character: The point of his show, and the "serious" pundit shows that the Report parodies, is not what the news is, but rather what the host *feels* about the news. Which raises an issue: The cult of personality does not exist just on the Web; it's also very present on cable news and elsewhere today. Does this aspect of Web 2.0 represent a significantly different development, or just an extension of an existing cultural menace into a different venue?

Finally, the character is a big fan of the notion that "he who shouts the loudest is right-est," which could tie in nicely with your arguments about the frequent incivility of the Web. (Although again, wasn’t that incivility pioneered on cable news, talk radio, and the like – e.g., Rush Limbaugh, ‘The O’Reilly Factor,’ et al.?)

So, we see lots of fodder for discussion here. We're crossing our fingers for a great intellectual debate! Have fun!

[Jon Stewart]

Wicked. That means Stephen Colbert or one (maybe many) of his minions will be reading this blog entry of yours. ColbertNation attack. He can be outwitted. I've seen it done. Just act patronizing while he does his dumb little act, stay aloof, and make your points. Act like "Yes, you make funny" and then deliver very serious points without smirk.

Possible annoying comments from Colbert:

1) "But how can you beat down on Wikipedia when it's the most accurate and reliable source of information on the Internet?"

2) If you beat this, he'll be scared, and he'll get dumber. "So you think that one salaried smart person can out think a horde of dedicated unemployed sharp shooters? Are you saying you're smarter than my audience?"

3) If you beat him again, he'll exclaim that you are the one failing, and then he'll have his audience confirm this. He'll idealize the bloggers, and berate you with "So even though all of the internet is against you, you continue to believe in yourself, which is clearly only doing yourself any good. Is that a fair assessment of you?"

At this point you're just killing time. You've won. It was difficult. You beat him and he'll be personally flustered (make-up will hide this blush) and you can deliver serious commentary to your heart's content.

Possible chance to say you have in fact walloped a debatee for the first time.

Good luck and let us know whether he can actually be human in between breaks and before/after the show.

Late night for me.

Jonny

[matt pritt]

I realizew this is a little last minute, so feel free to pass if you so desiire, but I am the producer of the Lynn Cullen Show, heard in Pittsburgh on 1360 AM WPTT, weekdays from 9am-12pm M-F (and on the web at www.1360wptt.com). While Lynn is going to be off on Tuesday (August 13th), her guest host Tony Norman, a columnist at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, asked me to contact you to see if you might have some free time Tuesday morning to discuss "Cult of the Amateur". I doubt it will be as hard hitting an affair as a Colbert Report, probably more of just a forum to get your ideas out there more than anything else. Anyway, if you have some free time on Tuesday and would like to do a little radio, we would definitely liek to have you on. I imagine we would look to do a half hour or so, again depending on your availability. As of this typing we have the entire show open, so whatever works best for you is fine with me. I can be reached via email @ mattpritt@verizon.net to answer any and all questions.

[WordsWithGrace]

@"Jon Stewart":

"whether he can actually be human"? Colbert isn't the anti-intellectual idiot he plays on the Report; he's a brilliant and thoughtful satirist who's playing an anti-intellectual idiot -- modeled on the real idiots polluting our airwaves.

To see the "real Stephen," check out his "60 Minutes" profile:
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/05/stephen-colbert-60minutes-segment.html
This is a good one for this topic because he talks about truthiness, loudness, and rudeness.

[WordsWithGrace]

@"Jon Stewart":

"whether he can actually be human"? Colbert isn't the anti-intellectual idiot he plays on the Report; he's a brilliant and thoughtful satirist who's playing an anti-intellectual idiot -- modeled on the real idiots polluting our airwaves.

To see the "real Stephen," check out his "60 Minutes" profile:
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/05/stephen-colbert-60minutes-segment.html
This is a good one for this topic because he talks about truthiness, loudness, and rudeness.

[Jared Bieberich]

I think you and Stephen will get along fine. He'll make you look like an ass in the most complimentary way possible, and all of his viewers should understand that. You have many good points regarding the Web 2.0 trend, so just stick to your guns. People are debating what you have said and continue to say. If it's worth starting a conversation then it is worth something (I'm claiming that statement before someone else uses it in their blog and makes a YouTube mash-up rap video featuring that line over and over).

[Gary Graham]

About the Emily Bell debate...I'm always astounded by how quick we are to defend and embrace the technology of the Internet and at the same time dismiss old media as if it were absolutley worthless. I'm certainly one for change, but change for the better. The web has only been around for so long (as opposed to traditional media). The possibilities are exciting, the implications are unknown. I am no economist but I did take one class in which I was taught one certainty...and that is: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. So to hear of all the talk of free news, free music, free video, free content I know that somewhere down the line, somewhere...someone has to pay. I have a good suspicion of who that someone will be. The major corporations are PLEASED to see us all scattering and chattering on our blogs, dishing up all that free content on our myspace and youtube accounts (where they make money from ads...it's nice to be pimped) . It means they can fire the real journalists who cost money and increase their bottom line by even more. And the beauty of it is the public is escatic about this. Hello, Andrew! Keep up the good work!

[BornAgainYankee]

I find it ironic that I just saw you on Colbert bashing bloggers and yet you have a blog yourself...

[Teh_1337]

y0 gu1z, whurr can 1 d0wnl04d teh_b00k @?

1 r3a11Y w4nt$ teh DL it.

[Justin]

'Johnny,' you do realize Colbert is in character in the show, right? He's playing a character who espouses opinions he himself usually does not share - you get the concept, yes? If so, why the vitriol? It's not meant to be a serious talk show. It's on Comedy Central. He's a comedic actor. There are clues aplenty here.

[David T]

I saw you. I'm disgusted by your elitist attitude. If you want "professional" things produced, pay for them yourself, and let the rest of us happily enjoy our free "amateur" content.

[Jenna McLovin]

As I type this, I just finished watching your Colbert interview.

His character was correct. You are an elitist.

Don't worry, your book won't be "stolen" on the internet. Based on how you came across tonight, you probably hurt your sales.

[Philip K. Templeton]

Congrats. You looked like a simpleton and a jerk. Mission accomplished.

[Bill]

Hi, if you loathe the internet why do you have a web site?

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm glad I saw you for the complete arrogant elitist you are on Colbert.

You were the first person I have seen who articulated so vividly the disdain and condescension that liberals have for the average person.

It even was worse when I subsequently read your garbage on the ABC News. I guess you know what is best for everyone.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/WebCast/story?id=3432007

You are the most pathetic human being in existence.

http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/08/andrew-keen-most-pathetic-human-being.html

That includes Al Gore.

[Anonymous]

Owned by Colbert. Maybe you should give up the "I know more than you about the internet" attitude.

[Rockefeller]

How can you ask the advice of the "ill-informed" on the internet, when you dismiss them for not having a professional opinion. The poster above me is the perfect example, you're not an economist, so why comment economics on here? Where is your board certification?!

In all seriousness the argument this book makes is weak enough on its own, made a laughing stock due to the presense of an associated blog site. You really can't make this stuff up.

[Alec Texas]

I just watched you on the Colbert report. You are such an arrogant douche. I have watched Colbert report from the first show and I've never seen a guest who was so out of touch with reality. You just sounded like a bitter talentless hack with a fake british accent. I hope I never see you on TV again, you are disgusting. Stephen Colbert is making money off the internet because people see his funny clips on utube and want to see the show and you don't making anything that's why you are so bitter.

[Chris Peterson]

Just caught the Colbert Report. I thought it was interesting. I think you're wrong, but I also think it's interesting.

There's no doubt that digital media is different from traditional media. In some ways, companies like YouTube and Facebook have created a fiscal fount. While traditional media would be expected to create both content and the means with which to deliver it, new media gets away with building the infrastructure and encouraging its users to create content. It eliminates the need to hire creative professionals, since for most people the simple attraction of seeing their YouTube video go to one million hits is repayment enough. I call it the "attention whore" complex.

At the same time, I don't see why this is a bad thing. I don't think traditional media is going away. I don't think that the New York Times or Encyclopedia Britannica will be ousted by TalkingPointsMemo or Wikipedia. Most people understand that, while Wikipedia might be good enough for a quick-and-sloppy reference, you still need to go to the experts for the real facts.

I don't see the new media as a replacement but as a complement. Spiderman 3 and "The Evolution of Dance" have had approximately the same global views, but you can't say they're competing in the same context.

On the other hand, OKGO is a band, a professional band, which rose to prominence on the strength of their innovative music videos, popularized and propagated by and across YouTube. And I don't know how much time you've spent around local music scenes, but oftentimes there are bands that are just as good, if not better, than many more popular bands. The music industry controls so much of what becomes popular that success is no longer a barometer of talent or artistic worth but rather of accessibility and marketability. Most of your points seem to support the plight of the artists. Why no sympathy for musicians being screwed over by a monolithic industry?

Ask someone to watch a popular YouTube video. They might like it and they might find it entertaining, but no one will argue that it is of the same cinematic quality as "The Departed." People recognize disparity in quality, but also recognize that different needs can be met by different means. If anything, it will force lazy creative professionals to become better, because there's more competition in the market. Sure bloggers can be paid out of company coffers--but they're oftentimes nimbler and more devoted than regular journalists, who are slaves to ratings and advertisements and Hiltonesque hussies.

Essentially, I agree with you that there is a different in talent and skill between a professional (like, for instance, Stephen Colbert) and an amateur. However, I don't think the activities of one necessarily impact the market of the other.

Honestly, your argument seems more born out of bitterness than anything else. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a creative professional who writes for a fairly large website and consults for a startup social networking service.

[Chris Peterson]

And one more thing:

"Anyone have any advice about how to outwit the great Stephen Colbert?"

Could it be, possibly, that you are condescending to the level of amateur advice-givers? Unless you employ professionals to comment on your weblog, I doubt any of the aforeposted viziers meet your standards!

[kam]

I'm surprised Colbert took it so easy on you. Your arguments are completely flawed. You are looking at new media through old lenses. This new media isn't stealing, it's a construct that allows for feedback and interaction. It's amorphous.

This new media is a public forum where the individual has farther reaching influence. How is this destroying culture? Your culture is not my culture. If you listened to the new media you would see culture spreading before your eyes from art to forward ideas that can be evolved and applied elsewhere. I think your confusion comes from not understanding this new age. We are still in the early stages.

You can see it in the lowbrow art movement that has usurped influence from mainstream art galleries. This new media is just a threat to the established elite and your poor old media mind can't quite keep up. The very fact street art can infiltrate the established art elite through the power of the internet and new media proves this. We are in a hyperculture where the face changes rapidly. If you could only see the sort of things and ideas people are creating from this new forum.

You have bad journalism in print and on TV just as much as you do on the Internet, except with the internet you can talk back and the ideas evolve faster.

[Hazel Main]

Congrats Keen, Colbert rocks.

By the way I totally agree with Emily Bell's take on art and money. I think thats what bothers me most about your argument. (So far I still need to buy (ugh) ;) and read your book. Artists are compelled to produce and it seems really peevish that anyone who considers themselves an artist would want to decide who should or shouldn't avail themselves of todays technology based on an economic formula. It seems so cold. Brrrr.