ALA president Michael Gorman’s two-part post on the Britannica blog has incited a host of criticism from library and information professionals. Part one, titled “The Sleep of Reason,” argues the value of print resources over the “often-anarchic world of the Internet.” It’s hard not to miss the irony of Gorman using a blog to put forth his opinions, especially considering this.
Gorman loses me in the first paragraph, where he compares “citizen journalists” to a “citizen surgeon.”
The life of the mind in the age of Web 2.0 suffers, in many ways, from an increase in credulity and an associated flight from expertise. Bloggers are called “citizen journalists”; alternatives to Western medicine are increasingly popular, though we can thank our stars there is no discernable “citizen surgeon” movement; millions of Americans are believers in Biblical inerrancy—the belief that every word in the Bible is both true and the literal word of God, something that, among other things, pits faith against carbon dating; and, scientific truths on such matters as medical research, accepted by all mainstream scientists, are rejected by substantial numbers of citizens and many in politics.
Doesn’t this country have a long and valued history of “citizen journalists?” Michael Gorman is not even attempting (and I’m being charitable here) a reasonable argument to support his thesis that Web 2.0 lacks credibility and expertise. It would be so easy to give some good examples. Gorman seems to equate everything on the internet by the same simplistic standards, that if we have people doing journalism on their own, then the next thing you know they’ll be removing their own gall bladders or spanking their wives.
And that’s just the first paragraph. I know that Gorman is criticizing Web 2.0 mostly on the basis of its value to academic and scholarly discourse, but I can’t help comparing his “sleep of reason” postings to Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason.” Gore contends that popular civic dialogue for Americans is greatly enhanced by the internet. He has faith in us, where Gorman, it appears, does not.
A well-connected citizenry is made up of men and women who discuss and debate ideas and issues among themselves and who constantly test the validity of the information and impressions they receive from one another—as well as the ones they receive from their government. No citizenry can be well informed without a constant flow of honest information about contemporary events and without a full opportunity to participate in a discussion of the choices that the society must make.
Sorry, Gorman, but you’re the one who brought up the whole “citizen journalist” thing. By your own standards, I wouldn’t consider you a credible source.
I completely agree that Michael Gorman is way off track in his assessment of the Internet. I feel strongly that the exact opposite situation is the case, and that every day more and more well-reasoned and well-spoken people are joining the dialogue. Honestly, it pains me each time he visits a Dennis Miller-esque rant upon our heads. I have great respect for his position on so many other practical issues, especially regarding equality of service, freedom of information, and the humility we need to exhibit in proffering our assistance to everyone.
When he stood firm in his belief that ALA should hold their yearly meeting in New Orleans, while the paint literally wasn’t dry on the refurbished convention center, and when he oversaw the generous donation given to the city at the behest of ALA members, I felt proud of my chosen field, justified in the belief that not everyone is docile in the face of gross negligence.
So for him to continually condemn an embrace of digital technologies, and to devalue the communicative networks that are becoming so central to a new societal conception of community, is little more than hollow, fearful posturing of a reactionary kind. The possibilities that the Internet contains are staggering: for fostering a healthy interdependence with our fellow global citizens (human & otherwise), for collective unaligned scientific progress, for encouraging political and corporate accountability, and for networking social justice movements. They are only beginning to be understood, and to be utilized. We need to encourage and protect our ability to communicate, not denigrate it outright.
So shame on you, Michael Gorman, for using your influence to stifle dialogue, and advocate in the name of a false idol, the expert. As for the source of most experts’ influence, I would provide the same advice as Deep Throat: follow the money. Citizen journalists are needed because, with the wholesale buyout of professional journalism by the McClatchy Group (nee Knight Ridder), Gannett and their ilk, we lost the strength of our voice; the Internet, if not filtered or restricted by DRM, spyware, governments or fear-ridden regimes, returns a measure of force to it.
(ps. Sorry about your grandmother. Aged 93, that alone is an accomplishment.)
Comment by Vaucanson's Duck — June 14, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
Thanks for that. I don’t feel like I’m such a crank anymore. As stated, any technology that encourages dialogue is positive. And thanks also for the wife spanking site link.
Comment by bgood — June 15, 2007 @ 3:07 am
How sad that Gorman refuses to see that technology and globalization continue to reshape the world in a positive way. His failure to accept and embrace the digital world because it suffers from a lack of journalistic expertise suggests Gorman is not a leader who will help broaden the library’s role into the 21st century. What is he afraid of? How can he not see that the Internet represents a growing, active force that is directly tied to the way the world learns, lives, and works? Is there room for improvement?– of course. Wouldn’t it be great if he could use his own journalistic expertise to tell the world (via blog) what’s good about Web 2.0, and how libraries can capitalize on this– rather than what it suffers from?
Comment by kidslib — June 23, 2007 @ 3:18 am