Technology And The Decline of Gonzo Journalism 215
johnny maelstrom writes "Pitchfork has an article on how being unable to write about technology has dumbed-down the media. It's quite interesting to see that the formulaic writings in the technology media and the assumption that we don't all get it has lead to a stagnant media. They call for the next Bangs or Thompson and a revival of Gonzo.
From the article:
'They [the audience] want a tastemaker, a voice of authority, who can put it all in perspective and knock our heads together with his or her crazy-yet-dead-on arguments.
But I think I've found the answer: We don't have a new Bangs or Thompson yet because pop culture today is primarily a technology story. And we don't know how to write about technology.'"
More like we don't know how to read tech... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's important that people aren't sure how to interpret stories about technology. You can write an article about AOL hogging bandwidth, and while 20% of your audience scoffs at a lack of detail and your own lack of understanding, 50% of your audience doesn't understand. And rather than studying up or discussing the issue with their friends, like an average reader might do for a political or religious story, they completely lose interest.
I think this has very little to do with not knowing how to write technology, and much more to do with the fact that it is (IMO, provably) impossible to write a tech story that is understandable to even a significant portion of the population.
Maybe we do need a new kind of article, though. Perhaps we can display an article on the web, with a slider on the right, so readers can choose the level of detail and accuracy they're comfortable with. If they slide the indicator toward "troglodyte", then the article replaces certain nouns with aphorisms and factual statements with questionable analogies ("...a series of tubes"). If they slide it toward "industry insider", then all the technical jargon reappears and item names transform into well-known acronyms.
what is worth commenting (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, the raised points are valid and makes you wonder: what is it worth writing about? Seth Godin (video [google.de])gives no clues, but makes you think about it.
as soon as you get technical, its flame on (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:as soon as you get technical, its flame on (Score:3, Interesting)
Say, what the hell are you, anyway? =)
shooting at the wrong targets (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the reason nobody is able to discuss pop culture to the satisfaction of the author is due to pop culture itself, or more specifically its ever-shortening average attention span and its ever-increasing demand for the Next Big Thing. The fact that technical knowledge provides the objects of pop culture's current desire is entirely coincidental.
I disagree: The changes just come too fast (Score:3, Interesting)
The 70s? Disco, Glamrock, and so on. And again, a whole decade was in Saturday Night Fever.
80s? New wave, Synthpop.
Sure, there were some counter-cultures, by-cultures, trends that went along and against the mainstream, but trends held their ground for years.
The 90s started to change things. Trends started to emerge, get hyped up and disappear just as quickly again. And it didn't slow down in the new millenium. Quite the opposite. Things that are on top of the coolness list are just SO outdated within a few months or even only weeks.
Who can keep pace? Additionally, what adds to the problem (for the writers, that is) is that today, more and more people detest the media hype and instead rely on "peer" reviews. What's hot on YouTube is not up to the editors of the RollingStone or some other pop culture magazine, but it's the other viewers. You could well end up with some crap video being the pinnacle of entertainment, because it is just SO crappy that it's rolled over to being cool.
Badger,Badger,Badger, anyone...? Hey, ow, stop hitting me! Yeah, sure, it's over. Been over for LONG. The French Erotic Film is over (in case it ever started, that is), but that's today. 2 weeks of fame. MAYBE three if you're really exceptional. If you land 2 hits right next to each other, you're a star. For the month they are known.
What critic could keep up that pace? The only thing this has to do with technology is that technology offers the means to spread it faster. The content as well as word about it, the ability to let others know about something cool you found, encountered or did. But aside of that, technology plays a minor role. It's just the development of pop culture, not something miraculously technological that pushes the writers aside.
Re:Ignorance = cool (Score:3, Interesting)
The majority of people everywhere in the world have always expected the technology to just work. It is only from period to period that being a scientist/engineer in a specific field has really been fashionable, mainly when a breaktrough in science produce huge impact on everyday life and for a while look like magic.
When the magic is over, a bridge, power line, train, computer is just another bridge, power line, train, computer. Nothing to talk about.
Science has never been intersting to the vast majority of people. Looking good, be socially respected, having power, money, women, success,
Simple solution ... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why we read
Really, this is hardly a new problem. Print journalism has long had high-quality sources of scientific and other tech news, though most of them are now online [sciencenews.org]. The fact that 99% of the general public, including the mainstream media (MSM), were unaware of them didn't change the fact that good information was available to anyone at all interested. We've had weekly publications like Science and Nature for more than a century, and note that both are much fatter than Time or Newsweek.
We do have a bit of a problem with the commercial consolidation in the MSM, which naturally goes with reducing costs by dumbing down. But anyone with access to a computer and the Net can easily spend their entire day reading good quality tech news. And that's probably where we'll find the next Hunter Thompson.
Or maybe (s)he's already here, blogging away. Anyone got any nominations?
Gonzo, please no. (Score:5, Interesting)
'I hate that shit...' he muttered.
Not a man of technology ...
Politics , yes [sex, drugs] . Music, yes [ rock and roll]. Technology - no ..
Not medium for gonzo journalism.
I work for the British national press and, although it saddens me to say it, the last thing journalism needs right now is more people humping the 'gonzo' thing. There are so many kids out there who think that any thing that crawls into their ADD ridden brain is 'gonzo' and therefore worthy of print. Well, it's not. It's just verbal vomit.
In the current media climate, what journalism needs is FACTS backed up by well researched and thought out opinion. Not ten million myspace blogs.
Anyway, that's my 2c.
Cheers
Rob
PS : in my humble opinion, Matt Taibbi [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi] is doing an excellent job are carrying on the beat/gonzo thing.. check out his article in the Stone on Iraq [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/106871 89/fort_apache_iraq/] . It's well researched and well written..
PPS: if this post doesn't deserve a modding up - I don't know what the hell does.. Also, my nickname was chosen years ago - before becoming a journalist. (to stop the trolls calling me a hypocrite ;) )
Re:Ignorance = cool (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly not true given the apparent urge of slashdotters to compare technology with cars.
Rich
Re:Is it a technology story indeed? (Score:5, Interesting)
We may even be able to expand that to a societal issue, as it seems movies are having the same problems [slashdot.org].
More accurate than you realize (Score:4, Interesting)
But the WOD has been 'won'; the vast majority of the people of HST's literary and intellectual caliber are 'too smart' for drugs, and would never even consider mind-altering experiences. And if they did, they'd likely fail the piss test that every employer seems to require. It was, IMO, the common nature of altered perception that gave rise to the electricity of the sixties. Anything that follows, bereft of unique experience, must seem prosaic and boring by comparison. As Bill Hicks said - "All that cool music they made in the 60s? *real* fuckin' high!"
Car analogy warning! (Score:3, Interesting)
Blacksmithing (Score:3, Interesting)
(Flickr set of all my Philmont photos [flickr.com])
Quality (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone mentioned the lack of tech understanding, and I think that's another big reason for the lack of good tech writing. How many tech journalists can discuss at length and in depth the difference between AAC and mp3 file formats? Or the advantages of DDR RAM? Game critics seem to spend too much time gaming and not enough time practicing their trade. I've never read a game review that delved deeper into the technology driving the game than a general description of the gaming engine; quick! what are the distinguishing characteristics of the Unreal 3 engine? You may not use google. Of course, none of this matters as the average person doesn't know what those terms mean, and won't read jargon-filled articles. Article A comes out first and uses little jargon, article B comes out later and uses some jargon. Guess which article gets read.
At some level, people understand how technology is changing their lives. We see it everyday. As the article said, "Technology is the province of geeks, a sterile, above-board, carefully marketed phenomenon; drugs are underground, illegal, and risky." We know what we're getting into when we buy a new computer, but have no idea what imagines and planes of existence we'll encounter with this new acid formula. No journalist is going to take home an Alienware machine and achieve a higher state of consciousness through it (well, maybe with an Alienware machine, but not the standard PC). The plainness of technology ensures that articles will be bland, and that people will look to primacy and radicalism before quality: people won't seek out great tech articles just for the reading as they'll already know what they want to know.
All of this assumes people want to read articles for reading's sake. In fact, most people read reviews to see if they should buy tech gadget #1192 or #1193. They're searching for information, not pleasure reading. Unlike with drugs, which the average person can't obtain and thus experiment with, technology is available to anyone with a decent cash flow. I'd rather know quickly if something's worth buying then play with it myself than read about someone playing with it.
Re:More like we don't know how to read tech... (Score:4, Interesting)