The Cult of the Amateur

Andrew Keen is not an anti-technology alarmist, nor is he a voice from the halls of right-wing conservatism. And yet, he is deeply troubled by the destructive effects Web 2.0 technology is having on culture and civic discourse.

Having been on the inside of both waves of the Internet revolution, he makes a compelling case that the seemingly amoral nature of the new Internet, with its' promise of radical democratization of information - specifically through blogs, wikis, social networking, and the digital world - is assaulting our economy, culture, and values.

He says, "The Web 2.0 revolution has peddled the promise of bringing more truth to more people- more depth of information, more global perspective, more unbiased opinion from dispassionate observers. But this is all a smokescreen. What the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than considered judgment. The information business is being transformed by the Internet into the sheer noise of 100 million bloggers all simultaneously talking about themselves."

Although Keen addresses the evil of online addictions (gambling and pornography), the most insightful commentary comes through his discussion of how all the "free information" comes with the eventual loss of established media - newspapers, magazines, professional recording studios, and book publishers.  

With little or no regard for copyright infringement, the Web 2.0 allows for easy piracy of music and video, and even easier cutting and pasting of legitimate news stories written by journalists who must be paid by someone. The Web 2.0 gives everything away "free", with the result being that everyone is an artist, writer, journalist, and movie producer- no matter how pathetic or untrue the resulting product is.

Furthermore, Keen explains that the main thrust of Web 2.0 is the call for the democratization of truth. When the collective opinion of the whole world can be measured through an interactive Internet, there is no need for a real "expert" to weigh in on any issue. But is truth really found in the collected wisdom of the many?

When applied to the advent of Christian blogging, many of Keen's observations hit close to home. No matter how amateur and uneducated an opinion-giver may be, harsh words and sensationalism will always garner a lot of attention. Keen says, "Today, on a Web where everyone has an equal voice, the words of the wise man count for no more than the mutterings of a fool."

For example, within the world of blogging, the life experience, education, and countless hours of study of someone like Al Mohler or John MacArthur can be shouted down by a 2nd year seminary student with access to a keyboard. Even worse, some bloggers insist we should automatically throw a blanket of suspicion over such leaders on account of the fact that they even hold such a position of prominence. I am not arguing that such men deserve a "free pass" in regards to their opinions. However, it is not elitist to say that their opinions, given their training and experience, are worth more than a neophyte theologian or pastor.

Keen says, "These 4 million wannabe [Matt] Drudges revel in their amateurism with all the moral self-righteousness of religious warriors. They flaunt their lack of training and formal qualifications as evidence of their calling, their passion, and of their selfless pursuit of the truth, claiming that their amateur status allows them to give us a less-biased, less-filtered picture of the world than we get from traditional news.  In reality this is not so."

"In the cult of the amateur, those who know the most can be persecuted by those who know the least," says Keen. "The most popular blogs are those that offer the seductive conspiracy theories and sensationalist antiestablishment platitudes that readers crave."

How many times have you seen the comments section of a controversial blog post run to 100 or 200 comments, without coming to one shred of Christian unity? Often, an ocean of words poured forth with scant wisdom or truth emerging from the mess.

Is it possible that the radical democratization manifested in the world of Web 2.0 technology is a "spirit of the age" from which Christians should flee? When a blogger writes ugly words about another believer within minutes of hearing him speak on an issue, shouldn't we see this as another sign we are living in a culture of instant gratification?

But the Apostle Paul specifically exhorts Christians to "Do not be conformed to this world" and to "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."  

Will the Christian blogosphere, under the banner of radical democratization, even allow for such an authoritative word to be spoken? Will this be the YouTube-generation of Christianity, where any blogger with broadband can say anything they want in whatever tone they want, without any accountability regarding the truth?  

The interactive nature of Web 2.0 makes it possible to have both great conversations and gross carnality. At the end of the day, Christians must take individual responsibility to make sure they are adding to the former and avoiding the latter.