Blogs suck, because they're uneddited and written by amatours
Reuters, a professional international newswire service which much of today's professional press relies on, publishes an interesting look at the work of anti-blog zealot Andrew Keen.
Keen doesn't like the internet-driven shift in cultural preferences toward "amateurism", which reduces incentives for professionals in whatever field.
You know, professionals, like Reuters copy-editors:
You'd think they'd hit "Preview" before they hit "Post"
PS: I thought this quote in the article by philosopher Jurgen Habermas was also unintentionally revealing:
"The price we pay for the growth in egalitarianism offered by the Internet is the decentralized access to unedited stories. In this medium, contributions by intellectuals lose their power to create a focus," Habermas said in a 2006 speech.Ah, yes, the old "too much democracy" canard. Habermas' pronouncement shows that he believes intellectuals--whatever he means by that term-- hold this power as a birthright. I disagree.
Intellectual pursuits offer knowledge as their reward. That's pretty much it. Knowledge, and a modicum of respect because the pursuit of knowledge ought to be recognized as a worthwhile goal. This idea that because someone has a PhD or tenure, they therefore also gain some sort of political authority is misguided and pernicious. Scholars and brainy types have to compete for attention and recognition in the marketplace of ideas as everyone else--even though in some cases they will have the advantage of a slightly higher perch. But they don't have a monopoly on the discussion of ideas, and the assumption that they do, even coming from Jurgen Freakin' Habermas, is just bumper-sticker sloganeering:
JYB tailwag to Hot Air headlines.