.... in the usa we wouldn't have an inkling of the truth w/o alternative newz sites challenging the mainstream press.

Fun thing that if you spend any time and open his books you will see data (also present on PV) about history of that happened with news and how it become few leading corporations. Exactly in sync with fairy tales about bloggers and independent views. Yes, you can find it, but more than 90% of people consume main news and sites, and this number become more and more.

The alternative newz sites that have survived have proved their worth.

Most alternative new sites are quite dirty also being sponsored by various guys. Many are sponsored by gold sellers and survival kits/spam sellers, for example.

Point of this guy is not that all progress is bad, it is that fairy tales that we hear do not match with reality. And in reality you have sites/press firing photo/video staff, mass reduction of musicians who can survive doing their professional things.

I didn't get one minute into this interview to realize this guy is full of shit ! He's nothing but an advocate for the thought police autocraticrons who want to control all avenues of expression and thought. If he thinks the "old world" newz systems were truthfully informative then he hasn't understood the historical significance of the liberation of truth from the controlled media through the free availability of internet investigative journalism.

Well, reading this you understand how right he is. Instead of making loud noises get his books and read.

Words about liberation is so wrong, as real regional journalism is being destroyed all around the world, mostly replaced by shitty bloggers who love local authorities much more and lick their ass 24 hours 7 days a week.

I didn't get one minute into this interview to realize this guy is full of shit ! He's nothing but an advocate for the thought police autocraticrons who want to control all avenues of expression and thought. If he thinks the "old world" newz systems were truthfully informative then he hasn't understood the historical significance of the liberation of truth from the controlled media through the free availability of internet investigative journalism. This guy is like many who create an "informative phrase"...i.e. the cult of the amateur , and then bend reality to support his one-trick pony idea. And as he openly states...he believes in that same corporatocracy that has been controlling society since the mid-19th century. It started with Hearst and the other robber-barons using their purchased platforms to control how we think, refined by edward bernays and executed to perfection by the cia and it's equivalents in all major world powers and their official newz outlets. He's nothing more than a orwellian apologist. And if anyone reads what most bigtime directors did as kids was shoot film with super 8 cameras. Look at the biggest film this year ...boyhood. Read how linklater got his start....making super 8 movies. Sadly it will be opinions like his that will result in the control by governments of the only free space on planet earth...besides pitcairn island of course !

ps...I've never watched one "cat" or dog video .

and @Vitaley...concerning the idea of the "filter" ...or better , as in the art world , the dealer, this is a common and still appropriate and functioning system. I think it was clement greenberg who said that the art world is a tripartite system made out of the artist, the critic , and the collector. Film is exactly the same. You have to have critical reviews, and viewers. Both together.

@karl....hey thanks for that pitcairn tip ! Looks like they could use some new genetic material, and they're not a bit too choosy either !

I almost totally disagree with what Adrew Keen says. Selling copies of artwork has been a business model for only a short glimpse in human history. Before book printing was invented, millenia went by where art had to be performed one-piece-at-a-time, with no possibility of distributing copies. And now creating copies of artworks has become so simple and cheap that there's not really a demand anymore for specialized companies to choose a tiny subset of stuff considered "art" by its makers and to invest into producing copies of just that. Everyone can publish anything and try to attact attention on the InterNet, just like anyone can go to the city center and try to convince people passing by that his music performance is worth listening or paying for, just for a much larger potential audience.

It's certainly true that the vast majority of stuff published today is quality-wise total crap, and if you pick some random youtube video you'll see that chances are it got watched by the author himself and hardly anyone else. That's not a problem, storage is cheap. A 250€ 8TB HDD can store tons of 30-second clips with farting dogs or cute cats, there's no harm in storing them and making them available for download like forever. Andrew Keen suggests that this does harm because a "modern Hitchcock or Scorcese" would not be found amongst the flood of garbage. That's nonsense: You can be sure that at the same time Hitchcock or Scorsese got the chance to direct movies that became famous, a thousand equally talented people did not have that luck to be given such a chance. Sure, a million additional director-wannabes might have been rightfully ignored by the companies who gave Hitchcock or Scorsese a chance, but I'd rather like to live in a world where everyone has a chance to obtain attention to his talent by publishing unpaid work than in a world where purely out of luck or by heritage a tiny few can be published.

And yes, the democratization of the "economics of attention" begins to dawn on us how little quality is required to attract a gazillion clicks. I recently clicked through a "top-10" clip collection that was assembled for the 10-year youtube anniversary. Sure enough, I didn't find any of those 10 worth watching to their end. Is this a problem? Not really, it just demonstrates that what I consider worth watching is not what average Joe likes best. Do I want to live in a sort of totalitarian society where a few people decide what's worth watching, or what is "art"? Hell no!

Andrew Keen says it's a problem beyond art - that we don't trust doctors, politicians and other professions to "know better than us" what is to be done. I think that is great rather than a problem! I want documented evidence and reasoning to convince me of some medical procedure or political decision to be favorable rather than some illusion of eminent authority in "people knowing better than me".

Tomorrow I'm going to help a group of Jazz musicians to produce a video clip for publication on the InterNet. It certainly won't become an outstanding piece of art, it will hopefully become better than the average school band demo (or farting dog clip, of course). Neither me nor the musicians will be making money from the production or publishing of the clip. We'll rather do it for the fun of it. Maybe they can use it to convince somebody to stage yet another gig. Sure enough, none of us should expect to make a living out of this - boring daytime jobs are much better to make a living from. Millions assume they are undiscovered artists who deserve to be high-earning stars - chances are, none of us really are.

@chauncy: If you want to get away from enslaving communication technology, it might be your lucky day: The government of Pitcairn Island is giving away land for free to people willing to settle there, a beautiful place with no mobile network.

We're not on the verge of a new dark age. We're in a new dark age. The internet, social media and the smart phone have done very little positive compared to what they've taken away. The concept of lightning fast communication and news can be a good thing in some situations That's about it.

Anyone born after 1980 who hasn't studied what's happened should probably listen and learn, because you have no first hand experience of the absolute hugeness of what's been taken away. So much has been taken, so much, the void filled by pathetic youtube videos and facebook. The positive broadness of distribution has made the depth of quality an inch deep. Quality, particularly artistic quality, will come forward, eventually. But human lives are so short the chances of that happening for any true artist during his lifetime are miniscule.

Our lives are filled with meaningless noise and the arrogance of beeping smart phones. We've become slaves to communication technologies that don't improve the quality of our lives.