Mark Bernstein has raised some issues about historical accuracy in Shirky's talk, but does admit that the conclusions have merit.
I wonder, however, about the overall merits of the talk. For me, there are not just possible historical flaws, there are logical ones also. For example, if Desparate Housewives was a cognitive heatsink, what is wrong with that, and why should television watching be downgraded as a second-rate, passive activity? Watching television is, in fact, a social activity. People talk about shows the next day, and they do so on the basis of shared experience. Talk and shared experience are the building blocks of a culture and a society. And if society needed, and got, a heatsink, that seems like a good thing to me.
Shirky's conclusions are attractive, but they are based on a flawed argument and should be examined more closely. Their real value is as a discussion starter, and it would be a shame if people accepted them too quickly without having a much more valuable discussion.
