Andrew Keene Responses

Andrew Keene defines democratized media as content that is both created by the masses and consumed by them as well. Keene has several problems with democratized media and Web 2.O in general. Keene believes that the democratization of the media ultimately undermines truth, sours the civic discourse, and belittles the expertise and talent of individuals. What Keene refers to as the Web 2.0 revolution is in his opinion delivering superficial observations of the world around us, instead of the critical analysis we may have been used to in the past.
Also, Keene goes on to say that user generated content is decimating our “cultural gatekeepers” as the expertise of professional critics, journalists, and editors are being replaced by amateur bloggers. Basically Keene is exposing the idea that there is so much unfiltered information circulating on the internet that the purveyors of actual verified information (professionals) are getting lost in the shuffle. According to Keene the Web 2.0 revolution is a maelstrom of useless information involving less reliable news and less culture. In what Keene talks about as a flattened editor- free world, independent bloggers, podcasters, etc… can post their amateur creations at will with no form of fact checking. In the end, Keene advocates that democratized media is diluting our culture, we as a society cannot tell the good content from the bad.

Answer to Question 2.
The difference between Andrew Keene and David Rushkoff’s view of social media is that Keene believes that social media is not really a good thing. Keen believes that social media in the unfiltered state that Web 2.0 allows it to be is useless information. Social media is unverified and thus untrustworthy. Keene thinks that because of the anonymity that the internet provides anybody from corporations, to biased political commentators can create a post and call it news. However, David Rushkoff on the other hand is more cautiously optimistic about social media, but he believes that ultimately social media is good if used responsibly. I think I lean more towards Rushkoff’s view on things. Keene outright distrusts social media, but Rushkoff sees the potential.


Here is an article about amateurs written by Ruskoff