I kind of feel a little weird blogging about Keen’s article, seeing as i have no editor to proofread this, no credentials to be writing on the subject and am actively wasting the time of my readers by contributing the noise residing in the blogosphere. I guess rhetoric-wise he is fairly surgical. He has a contempt for the current state of information and a knife-like percision for when to write and cite his various sources.
At the very heart of his argument, arguing the credibility of various Internet information channels, I think he is right. There is no way to tell who is writing and editing any of the content on the internet. The jobs of the people lost in the second internet boom are not coming back (and arguably have been replaced by online content creators).
I don’t know if it works to his best interest though. I read his words as hostile and kind of pretentious. But there is a part of me that thinks that is just the point he is trying to make. There is so much user generate content out there that people think those who who yearn for a more structured, reliable system are the ones trying to restrict the content people read/write/watch.
Not knowing where the information is coming from is a concerning thought, but i do not think it is strictly applicable to the “user-generated” content portion of society. Who owns NBC, CBS, ABC? Where is that information coming from? All of those news outlets have stakes in things and spin them accordingly. I mean Sarah Palin is a news consultant for Fox news. How on earth is that unbiast?