Elites and eLites

Back in 1995, when every "user" with a borrowed IP stack on his POS Windows toy had finally got on the "web", laying down the ground for such horrors as webmail, MySpace and yes blogging, there was already a bunch of snake oil salesmen waiting for these innocent hordes. The trick was trivial: add an "e" to any old world business and you got the New Economy. eToys. eTrade. ePinion?! So now meet the new media criticizing the old media (MyDD :: Low Information Elites and Fox News):

If you're a policymaker, or if you pay attention to elite discourse such as that in the New York Times while living in a high information culture, it's easy to ignore television and/or cable news. even easier to pretend that the televised propaganda coming at most Americans every day isn't important or relevant, or even that it does not exist.

[...] Fox News is a partisan Republican outlet, as opposed to MSNBC or CNN which aren't, even though they have mostly partisan shows hosted by Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, and Glenn Beck. It's not that these low information elites particularly like or respect cable news, it's that the marginal difference between cable news channels are not necessarily noticeable. [...]

Anyway, one specific way that bloggers and activists differ from elites in the party is that we notice and take Fox News and the right-wing radio circuit seriously as a part of public discourse. We believe that people watch and listen to these outlets, and believe what these outlets say. We recognize these outlets as affirmative carriers of diseased misinformation, not as market suppliers for a conservative public. Roger Ailes and Fox News aren't just an inevitable part of the news environment; they are adversaries, as much as Mitch McConnell if not more so. They are powerful purveyors of Republican propaganda, but it's both possible and important to damage their capacity to deliver information to the public branded as newsworthy. Even if journalists refuse to distinguish between what they do and what Fox News does, we believe that this distinction is important.

Low information elites don't see any of this. They haven't been educated as to the purpose of Fox News, and often believe that the public can simply see through Fox News or any of the other cable news channels. After all, it's obvious to these elites what is and isn't true, because they have access to the newsmakers or elite information streams themselves. Many of them hope to get onto Fox News, because they don't realize that Democrats don't gain from going on a Republican propaganda outlet. They do not distinguish between Fox News and MSNBC, and they do not understand why and how right-wing media works. There's just a lot less media and communications literacy among these low information elites than there is among bloggers and activists, mostly because we are at the receiving end of the propaganda and being insulted, lied to, marginalized and then blamed for the poor state of the party and the country gets old after awhile.

Well played! There is one unsettling thing... were we to substitute Fox News, right-wing media etc with the "netroots", "information" with "principles" or "truth", "Republican" with "centrist e-activists" (eLites?), the result is... well, unsettling:

If you are a principled politician, if you pay attention to honest and logical discourse such as that in intelligent times while living in a humanist culture, it's easy to ignore blogs. It's even easier to pretend that the blog smearfest coming at online leftists every day isn't important or relevant.

But many within the real left are unaware of the full online environment. They don't for instance get that the "netroots" is a partisan centre of left outlet (literally an outlet for any real rage at the state of things, the sort of rage that demands truth and principles, not simply tactics).

One way that the principled can differ from eLites in the party is that we can notice and take the "netroots" circuit seriously. We can recognize that these outlets as affirmative carriers of diseased lack of information. They are powerful purveyors of centrist ("gradualist") Obama-esque propaganda.

Naive principled leftists do not see any of this. They haven't been "educated" as to the purpose of the "netroots" and often believe that the public can simply see through the tactics and smear, for its obvious what is and isn't principled, rational and true. We, the principled left, should know because we are at the receiving end of the propaganda and being insulted, lied to, marginalized and then blamed ("Nader cost us 2000") for the poor state of the party and the country.

I exaggerate. These are well meaning young people, but they do fail to see how important even the little of the analogy that is applicable to them is. And as long as they live in an internally focused self-sustaining echo chamber they will continue to hurl insults at Nader or Kucinich or Chomsky rather than learn from them.