The Great Seduction

1.) Keen refers to democratized media as "the great seduction" because it has so many possibilities, so much revolutionary potential. In most people's eyes it promises that the latest media technology in the form of will enable everyone to become widely read writers, journalists, movie directors and music artists. It also mistakenly suggests that everyone has something interesting to say. In the world we live in today most people tend to over-share, whether this is through frequent status updates, tweets, or posting videos of personal moments and events. Another issue is that many people are just looking to get their fifteen minutes of fame. An example of both of these issues is this video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txqiwrbYGrs. As soon as this home-made video begins there is a pop-up to "click here to see our new video," which shows that these people are just looking to get as many views as possible. Keen's main argument against democratized media is that it will have a destructive effect upon our culture, especially criticism. He says that "taste resides with an elite of cultural critics able to determine, on behalf of the public, the value of a work-of-art." With democratized media the value of a "work-of-art" may now be determined by how many page views something gets, regardless of its aesthetics or message. People with little or no talent can become famous over night.

2.) Keen has an extremely negative view towards democratized media. He believes that it will lead to the destruction of our culture if it hasn't already. He believes that it allows people with little talent to become popular and influential even though they don't have anything important to say; in short amateurs are phasing out professionals. Professionals are having a harder time making a living because everyone is stealing. In Keen's opinion the internet trivializes culture to the extent that everyone is uploading, broadcasting...etc. He believes that objectivity is gone because bloggers cherry pick facts to support their point. We need objective professional journalists who responsibly collect the news rather than anonymous bloggers with their own motives. Rushkoff on the other hand, believes that advances technology and social media may in fact benefit our culture. While he acknowledges some possible drawbacks of media technology, such as distraction and ineffective multitasking, addiction, and possible cognitive effects, he believes that the positives outweigh the negatives. He thinks that social media provides us with better and easier ways of communication and ways of obtaining information, that it gives us more control over what is in the media. In my opinion, I think Keen is too critical of democratized media, while Rushkoff is too positive about it. I think that people should be educated on how to use the internet and obtain information from reliable sources, but I also think that it is important to see professional and amateur work and that social media has done wonders for communication.