"Beneficial elitism is the notion that we can all handle the truth and make educated decisions. Its enemy is the ersatz populism so often practiced by politicians who prey on Americans' anti-intellectualism. ...Jon Stewart is practicing beneficial elitism. If only more people would follow his lead.
"Harmful Elitism is loosely akin to cynicism. It's the assumption of someone else's inferiority, leading to a premature dismissal of what that person is saying or doing.
I'm sure Andrew Keen would like to believe he is a "beneficial elitist" - however, I'm not so sure. What I've read of The Cult of the Amatuer (I'm nearly finished) seems to suggest his beliefs are more in line with "harmful elitism."
However, the book and Dure's quote made me stop and think: is there a golden mean to find between the two extremes? And, if there is, the most important thing journalists and bloggers can ask is how we can acheive this golden mean.
I agree with Keen that we do need some gatekeepers, some experts (so to speak) to help us filter out the good information from the bad. But at the same time, I can't help but believe that, as a society and as individuals, at some level we have the power to understand the truth and decide for ourselves. We could just recognize both points of view, but is that more of a compromise, a social contract, than a golden mean?
No comments:
Post a Comment