Zach Beauvais

I am a firm believer in the idea that a little knowledge is dangerous. When you overhear a conversation in which one person says to another (imagine whatever derisory accent adds to the flavour-I always seem to hear Watford…):

"Yeah, ever since I watched that (insert celebrity TV show) the other day, I gave up (eating, drinking, buying) + (wheat, white wine, bleach…). Really makes you think, donnit?"

I always, always wince and imagine having the temerity (or bad manners) to break in with questions about the speaker’s level of intelligence, trust in an over-paid celebrity, or belief in a ridiculous cult of misinformation. Allergies seem to be a favourite topic in these conversations, I’ve noticed.

I find the proponents of these ideas far more galling, however. Dieticians, ‘scientists’ from dubious academic associations, ‘specialists’ and ‘independent consultants’: all these people ruin their very titles for the proper holders. Worse is when people go off half-cocked and make a mint selling their partially-formed philosophy.

I have just discovered a new breed in the person of Lee Siegel. I will, in the interests of transparency, state that I only heard about the man today, at about 16:30, and I know about him only what Wikipedia does, so not much, and therefore have only a limited platform from which to wince and whinge. I found out about his new book through Mashable (article here) which is a critique of the internet in what Siegel calls ‘popularity culture’, and I am responding to an interview on the Wall-Street Journal (video from Wall Street Journal here).

My problem with Siegel is that he is cashing in on a poorly-expounded idea and will doubtless make a lot of money in the process because he is critiquing (from an authoritative position) a very popular topic: internet socialising. Siegel seems to think, from his interview, that people on laptops in coffee shops are offensive and indicative of a cultural waste of real socialising. He also seems to have a massive problem with bloggers who:

"…under the mask of anonymity to write the most scurrilous, even libelous things about other people…"

Now, I’d like to add in some points of contention:

Siegel has chosen an easy target, of which the general public are only just becoming aware, and reinforcing a negative idea using generalisation.  I believe that anonymous bloggers have said libelous things, and I agree that this is wrong. Bloggers have also raised huge issues with international communication and have reported with insider information the most atrocious abuse of human rights, and many of them were anonymous for their own safety. Many bloggers are not anonymous, yet might become tarred with Seigel’s muckraking.

Siegel’s main points don’t make sense. He calls internet culture ‘popularity culture’ using an authoritative tone of voice to hide the forced juxtaposition, and expects people to follow his thought without comment. What does he mean? I would have though the internet is a brilliant place to find things which are less popular than what can be found in more traditional media.

As a major point of contention to Siegel’s ideas (and please remember, I am only basing this on a single interview, on what might not have been his best day!) he claims that newspapers are pressed to write only the most popular articles because the internet makes them do it.

I’m sorry, what?

I would have thought that newspapers, by moving online, are actually trying to capitalise on a market by trying to make their content more popular with internet buzzwords like ‘blogging’. This, to my mind is more of an opposite move. Also, when has a newspaper ever made profit from writing articles which more than the average number of readers will find uninteresting or unimportant? Siegel even states that they are losing merit by trying to keep in touch with the popularity culture of the web. Newspapers publish articles to sell newspapers, and always have. The internet has absolutely nothing to do with this ‘culture’.

Some of his ideas actually contradict themselves in a terribly obvious way. He thinks we shouldn’t hang out at Starbucks with laptops, because we are interacting with phantoms and no longer read newspapers.  I have to agree, to an extent, in that you should hang out at a local coffee shop in preference to a massive chain and my previous employer. Nevermind that the vast majority of people I use the internet to contact I actually know. And  nevermind that blogs actually offer the opportunity to actively contribute to a dialogue, whereas a newspaper is strictly one-way and therefore more passive! He then goes on to suggest we don’t have the space to be introspective.

I’m sorry, what?

So, we shouldn’t interact online, because they aren’t real people and the process is just bolstering our solitude, but we should go to coffee shops and read newspapers and be introspective. I respectfully suggest Siegel is talking out of his arse here, though he’d probably interpret that as being scurrilous.

Siegel thinks that the scurrilous, disgusting nature of bloggers is a ‘malicious convention of internet culture’. The interviewer then brings in Siegel’s own blog-related fiasco, in which he used a pseudonym to respond to commentators comments on his own newspaper’s blog. According to Wikipedia (ever the source of scurrilous, libelous content), Siegel responded to commentators on his blog and refused to admit it was himself responding until the New Republic, who hosted the blog, posted an apology and suspended his blog.

‘sprezzatura’ (Siegel’s pseudonym) wrote, "Siegel is brave, brilliant, and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep." (Wikipedia.org)

I think I can see where Siegel’s diatribe originates now. He got burned by the blogosphere. His blog platform was attacked, and when people found out he was not being transparent (which is something the internet is very good at) they lost trust in him. He’s obviously a very intelligent character, and has a reputation for being caustic, but his defensive position betrays a lack of confidence in this matter. He is now making the system his scapegoat, and I daresay will probably make a tidy profit from it.

Now, for a bit of balance:

Siegel makes some salient points, which should make the internet community’s ears prick up and listen. Firstly, when anonymous content hides people from the consequences of their comments, you find despicable behaviour and bad taste. I have absolutely no doubt that Siegel was offended by some of the comments on his blog, and that he has every right to so feel.  Indeed, the content of comments can be cause for serious concern, and is often abusive and disgusting. Steve O’Hear wrote about his personal take on the issue, and that of some other bloggers over at ZDNet: http://blogs.zdnet.com/social/?p=121.

His point about popularity is also important. The more the ‘net is pushed to make more space for the already popular, the more the only content we will get is pre-fabricated and tailor-made to be popular. This is bad news for independent thought, to a certain extent, but mostly it’s boring. Celebrity, What’s Hot, and the like are an insult to intelligence, and I think we should make an effort.

But I think Siegel, in this one interview, makes a bad point badly and with poor backing thoughts. I hope he has the good grace to write a balanced book, but I worry that it will capitalise on his ability to be caustic rather than raise salient points which need serious attention.