Rant Against the Machine: How the Web is Putting Me Out of a Job – and Why You Should Care.
Over the course of his book, Lee Siegel explores the changes that growing Internet technologies have brought about in western culture, with a specific focus on publishing and publicity. He attempts to criticize and condemn a variety of aspects of the Internet, but I suggest these criticisms are based in fear of his own future as a journalist. This review attempts to analyze the book and provide thoughtful criticism, where possible and applicable. Throughout his text, Siegel is critical of what I will call the “Open Internet”. More than just the Internet in general, and more specific than Web 2.0 technologies, the Open Internet implies that information, data and knowledge flows freely in both directions. Unlike traditional unidirectional media (newspapers, television, magazines), the Open Internet allows greater freedom for the Audience to become the Author, Bloggers to become BonaFide, and Citizens to become Celebrities.
Audience as AuthorIn the past ten years, it’s become increasingly easier for the Audience to become active in the publication or presentation of media. Web-based tools have continued to make it easier for any motivated individual to self-publish and self-promote. With new technologies, these self-published journalists (usually bloggers) are able to create professional looking pieces that rival the outward appearance of other “credentialed” journalists. They are also able to disseminate their media to a wide audience, something that was previously only available to “traditional” journalistic methods.
Siegel seems obsessed with the vulgarity and filth that’s present on the Internet, and uses it ad nauseam when highlighting problems with the Internet. Often, when mentioning the Internet, he strives to convince his audience to think of a depraved, unprofessional and dangerously unregulated entity. He uses some of the worst examples of what the Internet has to offer, forsaking many of the benefits to individuals and culture overall. Authorship, through this lens, is highlighted by the sexually-charged examples Siegel provides throughout the book: websites, chatrooms and videos available to most anyone with an internet connection. This one characteristic of Internet culture is continually used by the author as a scare tactic for those not already familiar with the abundance of erotic, vulgar, fetish and “shock” sites present on the Internet. In his epilogue, Siegel finally makes a clear connection, and attempts at a possible justification for why he insists on using shocking imagery throughout the book: “In a sense, pornography and technology are joined at the hip. They both transform the reality outside your head into means whose sole end is convenience.”(178). This connection stems from his earlier assertion that technological advancements are nothing more than the result of laziness, weakness and convenience.
Siegel is openly critical of “Mash-Ups” because he doesn’t believe they are as creative or as good as original content. However, by combining pre-existing media in novel ways, isn’t the user able to actually create something new? Although it’s been most closely examined in Postmodern contexts, authors, poets, musicians and other artists have been doing this for centuries. In literature, it’s called intertextuality. In classical music it’s called pastiche. On the Internet, it’s called a “mash-up”. Users are now able to become producers and consumers of media at the same time. Beginning artists often start their careers by copy others’ paintings. Young singers cover songs from famous singers. Inspiration for creativity needs to come from some external source, and by using Internet technologies, and creating mash-ups, young, inexperienced directors are able to explore and experiment with content that’s available to them online.
There have always been mediocre journalists, undeveloped singers and beginner directors. The Internet hasn’t created these individuals, but has given them a platform to exhibit and celebrate their work; with the Internet, their work can be widely disseminated to a larger audience. The quality of their work hasn’t been diminishing over time – the only real difference is the method in which their creations are shared with their audience. Siegel is nervous about these young, inexperienced and unknown journalists, concerned that they will gain the same level of credibility as the work he’s done.
Siegel’s writing style is highly biased, with an (unsuccessful) attempt at subtlety. When describing other authors, he tends to use highly-charged adjectives and descriptors: “characteristically mechanistic” (125) “strangely” (127), “a shameful generalizer”(91), “unsettling habit” (92) “preadult idiom” (97). I am not familiar with some of the source material, or authors that he’s attacking, but if they cause such a negative passion in Siegel, I am assured they are worth me spending some time researching. His biased, thinly-veiled tirades against these sources indicate to me they have touched a sensitive nerve with him, and I would like to explore their ideas in more detail.
Bloggers as BonaFide
Throughout the text, there are countless references to Bloggers and the Blogosphere as a destructive force that’s changing the way journalism is viewed and accepted in mainstream culture. Strangely, and hypocritically, Siegel himself maintained a successful blog. However, his language choices always make a clear distinction between legitimate bloggers, such as himself, and all of the others who profess to be journalists. I don’t believe it’s the technology or format that he’s against, but the individual at the other end of the keyboard. He feels that there is a lack of “expertise” on the Internet. He says that the internet hasn’t created a break through in medical science, or engineering, yet many bloggers claim to be making contributions that are just as important. He’s uncomfortable with this. He sees his expertise in his publishing rights –and has published a paper copy of a book rather than have it published electronically: to him, a far inferior medium.
In this way, many would subconsciously agree with his unstated bias: Paper lends a certain legitimacy that’s seemingly missing from electronic sources. Although a bias, there is some truth underneath this prejudice. Printed texts are generally required to meet more rigorous editing and publishing criteria, and would generally be reviewed by a number of critics, experts and editors before being disseminated to the audience. Most electronic resources aren’t regulated in the same way, and it’s possible for unedited, unfounded and unreasonable information to be presented in a professional-appearing medium. Rather than rely on thoughtful, media-savvy consumers, Siegel simply attacks the offending authors, in hopes of discrediting their work.
When quoting someone’s work, he’ll (unfairly) criticize their writing style, before attacking the content. “Before you try to figure out what Lessig is saying, you have to get through the Internetese, this new, stragely robotic automatic-pilot style of writing” (126). He sees himself as a master of language and rhetoric, and is offended that his protected realm has been infiltrated by amateurs, and those without the professional experience he’s gathered over his years in the industry. He’s worried for his own future, for the future of his profession, and uses this book as a way to effectively cut down amateur journalists.
In fact, near the end of his book, Siegel finally presents what I believe is his real agenda: naming his “Five Open Supersecrets”.
1. Not everyone has something meaningful to say.
2. Few people have anything original to say.
3. Only a handful of people know how to write well.
4. Most people will do almost anything to be liked.
5. “Customers” are always right, but “people” aren’t. (p.161)
After 161 pages, Siegel finally expresses his frustration with current trends in a clear way. By virtue of being a true journalist, and published author, he has something meaningful and original to say, in a polished and professional manner - and he doesn’t care if he is well liked, and offends his “customers” in the process. By offering these “Supersecrets”, Siegel is accenting what he believes he can offer that other writers and authors don’t. I don’t necessarily object to these five points, but rather to Siegel’s aristocratic attitude and superiority complex. He doesn’t give beginning authors or inexperienced journalists a fair chance to explore and present their own work, without being criticized and belittled in this manner.
Truly, it must be terrifying to contemplate that the industry you’ve worked in will soon be open-source, and the high esteem for the profession will be virtually destroyed by twentysomething authors who resort to calling their critics “douchbags”. His fear of losing the position and respect he’s worked towards are evident when he continually cuts down others: “You don’t have to possess a perceptive, synthesizing, verbally nimble mind to be a journalist all you have to do is present yourself as a journalist and insist – on your blog, for example – that you are doing journalism.” (p.139) He feels that he’s worked too hard to establish himself as a Journalist, and is offended by those who haven’t followed the same career path, and avoided much of the hard work and potential bureaucracy to arrive at the same point he is now: Journalist.
But, who’s to say what makes an individual a journalist? According to this tome, Siegel himself is the only one qualified to make the distinction between Real Journalist and poseur.
As a suggestion to prove his argument, Siegel asks his reader to imagine their reaction if he had prophesized ten years ago a time when anyone with something to say, “no matter how vulgar”(132) would have the means to publish to millions of people. He wants to offer a criticism of this current reality, but manages to protect himself against future criticism; the very criticism that that I am offering here. He does this by unfairly providing a prebuttle that cannot be argued with: “And what if I had, to your great irritation, persisted and told you that anyone who tried to criticize one or another aspect of this situation [the current state of Open Internet] would immediately be accused of being antidemocratic, elitist, threatened by change, and pathetically behind the times?” (133). A critic cannot adequately respond to this. He is elitist, threatened by change and pathetically behind the times, yet by making this proclamation, he’s prevented me from using any of these claims against him. This is a protectionist strategy, used blatantly to prevent any condemnation of his ideas and theories, while simultaneously closing off any possibility for discourse. Siegel’s intention is not to initiate in thoughtful dialogue with his audience, but rather to barrage us with his biased thoughts and theories. Repeating something long and loud does not lead to legitimacy: a point Seigel tries to make about others, but (hypocritically) never in reference to his own work.
Citizens as CelebrityThe Internet has allowed for the de-mystification of celebrity, and has permitted ordinary people to feel a stronger, personal connection to famous musicians, actors, politicians and authors. Celebrities host personal blogs, fan pages and twitter accounts. By knowing that @MarthaStuart makes spelling mistakes on her Twitter feed, I feel a little closer to her – and understand that she, like me, is human. Celebrities have taken these technologies into their own hands, to ensure they are in control of the information that’s released. Rather than waiting for the paparazzi to publish photos of a couple’s intimate getaway, they can retain the control and post their own photos to their blogs. Siegel makes connection to other forms of popular media, and intimates that changes in network and cable television shows have also followed this pattern. Because of these changes, audiences can better understand and empathize with the characters and personalities of the most popular shows.
In the Open Internet, as quickly as a celebrity can lose their mystery, and become average, familiar and human, a citizen can become a celebrity. This might mean attracting a higher number of internet hits than anyone else, becoming an internet phenomena, and “going viral”. Siegel’s argument focuses on the difference between popularity and merit as he dissects American Idol, and related media. There are many examples of people becoming famous for inane or obtuse reasons, as Siegel rightfully points out. However, what he misses is that there are also many individuals who have been recognized because their talents, skills or passions were widely disseminated on the Internet. Siegel feels offended that many regular citizens are moving into his field of expertise: Journalism. He feels threatened by bloggers, and the notoriety they will continue to gain as they obtain more readers and followers. He insists that many bloggers are only interested in their own notoriety and fame, to the exclusion of facts, truth and legitimate journalistic methods.
The entire book reads as a collection of personal attacks against specific individuals (some named, some implied), and it’s clear that Siegel had a personal or professional relationship with some of these individuals. Siegel’s apparent resentment towards Biz Stone (page 96-97) must be multiplied now that he’s gained increasing notoriety as the creator and co-founder of Twitter. Although Twitter is too new a technology to be included in this book, I can only imagine Siegel’s reaction to it. He wouldn’t see the potential for networking, sharing or communicating – but would instead likely focus on the banal everyday use of the tool to let followers know you’re waiting in line at Starbucks. More likely, he would vilify this technology, and mention how transsexual prostitutes have their own twitter accounts to tweet out their price-list and specialty services.
My biggest regret is that by purchasing this book, I have subsequently added to his overall popularity: a concept he vehemently denies as being important; and yet, a concept he seems unnaturally obsessed with.
The Way Things Are is The Way Things Are
Siegel’s introduction indicates that “Things don’t have to be the way they are” (1), and yet throughout his book, he never provides viable alternatives or any suggestions for government, corporate or individual consumers. Although offering sharp criticism of contemporary Internet Culture, he never makes an overture to change the way things are. If I can permit myself to get past his anger and his rhetoric, there are some interesting and appealing points he’s making. The nature of the Open Internet means that yes, there is a lot of misinformation masquerading as Truth. Yes, almost anyone can profess to be a legitimate journalist when they don’t have any qualifications or training. Yes, there are many millions of uninteresting webpages. Yes, mixing two videos together as a mash-up isn’t the same creative process as creating original content. However, rather than exploring these technological advancements in a balanced manner, Siegel has attacked and vilified each example, without providing an appropriate counterbalanced argument. The potentials of Internet technologies are never explored, and any reader not already familiar with the significant benefits of using the Internet as a publishing, communicative and learning environment would be highly influenced by this biased presentation.
Where I think Siegel really loses out is by not giving individuals enough credit to tell the good from the bad on their own. It will never be the job of educators to tell students that one particular form of media is superior to another, but to offer them the tools and skills to come to this realization on their own. Siegel’s argument is based on the assumption that the audience is too naïve or inexperienced to make sound, rational judgments on their own, and instead need to be told, by experts, what they should or should not have access to.
Maybe things don’t need to be the way they are – but Siegel never presents any concrete, realistic or pragmatic ways for it to be anything else. His tone is accusatory, his references are graphically unnecessary and his true rationale has been obscured behind elitist fear-mongering rhetoric.
Although he’s criticizing many aspects of the Internet and Web 2.0, I feel many of these are contrived points, used to bolster his real concern with the Internet: his own livelihood. Had he simply constructed an attack against blogging specifically, his true intentions would seem more apparent, and therefore self-serving. Instead, he shrewdly focuses his attacks on multiple parts of Internet Culture to disguise his true intentions. As an established and successful author and journalist, Siegel longs for nostalgic time; a time when there was a clear-cut distinction between Author and Audience, Blogger and Book-maker, Celebrity and Citizen.
Siegel, L. (2008). Against the machine: How the web is reshaping culture and commerce and why it matters. New York, New York: Spiegel and Grau Publishers.
