Media Elitists - Old and New

[Michael Hardner]

Wikipedia defines Elitism as:

Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who supposedly form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.[1]

Wiki/Elitism

The media elite, now, again from Wikipedia is:

The elite media is a term used to describe newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and other media that influence the political agenda of other mass media. According to Noam Chomsky, "[t]he elite media set a framework within which others operate." [1]

Wiki/Elite_media

I would like to make a case that the web is not currently part of the media elite (the 'other media' of Chomsky's quote) but that we of the web represent a new media elite.

But how much influence does the web have over the political agenda out there ? Ostensibly, it seems like a lot however the term "influence" itself is a tricky one. The weather influences shopping, for example, but can one say that the weather "has influence" ?

From Merriam-Webster.com:

2

Influence ...

2: an emanation of spiritual or moral force

3

a : the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command b : corrupt interference with authority for personal gain

4

: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways : sway

5

: one that exerts influence

It seems from the definition that influence comprises some kind of willful power. So I would argue that the web "influences" mass media in the same way that the public themselves "influence" mass media, in that a website is a collection of individual viewpoints of that web's community. (The exception would be commercial websites such as CNN.com, etc, which are just web-based organs for those organizations.)

So while there there is influence there, it is held by millions, and billions individual seats of power; there is no willful power that can be wielded - arguably unlike mass media which is controlled by a much smaller group of people.

The web represents a collection of those various individual viewpoints represented in democratic society. And like individuals, the web sites have differing characteristics - how isolated they are in their views, how mainstream/fringe they are, what breadth of views are collected within their domain, how civil they are, etc. But they are, no matter what, a reflection of their society - not a singular source of power and influence but a mosaic of individuals.

As such, I don't think that the web can be counted as being "the media elite" as it's generally defined, and as it's defined in the mass media itself.

---

But I have come to realize that my views regarding the superiority of this medium make me some kind of elitist at a minimum. I'm not ashamed to say it: web crowdsourcing is (for simplicity) a better way to conduct democratic discourse, and obtain public feedback. If I'm not a media elitist (this IS a medium after all) then what am I ?

Douglash Rushkoff on Boingboing.net says:

we can't go on pretending that even our favorite disintermediation efforts are revolutions in any real sense of the word. Projects like Wikipedia do not overthrow any elite at all, but merely replace one elite — in this case an academic one — with another: the interactive media elite...

So, MapleLeafWeb, just so you know this: YOU (we) are the new elite - the interactive media elite. That's heartening to me, as I'd rather not experience a revolution in my lifetime.

[Shwa]

I would like to make a case that the web is not currently part of the media elite (the 'other media' of Chomsky's quote) but that we of the web represent a new media elite.

You are confusing 'media' with 'medium.'

There are certain nodes - media - of a given medium - TV, radio, press, including the web - that influence other nodes in their medium (or other mediums too) and these are known as the media elite. So, in a cursory examination Facebook and Twitter are one form of media elite while 4Chan and reddit operate other influences which might constitute an 'elite.' Plenty of internet memes, for example, make it onto TV and into the press.

So, MapleLeafWeb, just so you know this: YOU (we) are the new elite - the interactive media elite. That's heartening to me, as I'd rather not experience a revolution in my lifetime.

No, I don't think so, even if it feels good. MLW likely has very little influence on the web or with other mediums. I am sure there is a little influence here and there, but nothing that would constitute anything 'elite.'

[Michael Hardner]

You are confusing 'media' with 'medium.'

There are certain nodes - media - of a given medium - TV, radio, press, including the web - that influence other nodes in their medium (or other mediums too) and these are known as the media elite.

Media is the plural of medium, no ?

I chose the media elite definition from Wikipedia on purpose.

So, in a cursory examination Facebook and Twitter are one form of media elite while 4Chan and reddit operate other influences which might constitute an 'elite.' Plenty of internet memes, for example, make it onto TV and into the press.

How can facebook be part of the media elite when it isn't centralized ? As I said, memes make it on to TV, but the Pet Rock was on TV before facebook existed. Facebook isn't centrally controlled, so to call it media elite is a misnomer.

No, I don't think so, even if it feels good. MLW likely has very little influence on the web or with other mediums. I am sure there is a little influence here and there, but nothing that would constitute anything 'elite.'

You didn't read my full post. ( That's ok, I often 'glean' too...)

Elite -> those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously

[Topaz]

Could we call the Bilderberg group elitists? I think within this group are people with power and own radio stations and other media industries to control what is printed. Its mostly made of of world leaders and corporations and there's the power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

[Michael Hardner]

Could we call the Bilderberg group elitists? I think within this group are people with power and own radio stations and other media industries to control what is printed. Its mostly made of of world leaders and corporations and there's the power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

I suppose we could... definition from Wiki is:

The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence

They can put things on the agenda, but they can't absolutely "control what is printed".

[Shwa]

Media is the plural of medium, no ?

It could be used that way, but it is still a confusing of terms when you use the plural to refer to a specific instance. And as a singular form - mass media - while inclusive of all nodes of a particular grouping - does not specifically refer to one of them. For example:

The elite media is a term used to describe newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and other media that influence the political agenda of other mass media. According to Noam Chomsky, "[t]he elite media set a framework within which others operate." [1]

This is a grouping of those nodes withing a medium that have something in common. Their 'eliteness' does not extend to the medium as a whole itself. So the NY Times might be a part of the 'elite' media, their being so does not make the newspaper medium an 'elite media' itself which is what it is appearing you are saying:

As such, I don't think that the web can be counted as being "the media elite" as it's generally defined, and as it's defined in the mass media itself.

I don't see any reference to "the web" as being defined as "the media elite" or even "elite media." The term generally applies to the medium specifically as similarl to press, radio or TV. However, special nodes of each medium can be grouped into "elite media" or any other cross-medium grouping. And there are instances of those nodes - Facebook, Twitter, 4Chan and reddit for example - that can be considered "elite media" since they "influence the political agenda of other mass media." ANd also, just because CNN has a website in one or more mediums does not disount it's influence in one or all the other mediums.

I chose the media elite definition from Wikipedia on purpose.

For what purpose? It would have been more clear to say, "The elite media is a term used to describe those newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and other media that..."

How can facebook be part of the media elite when it isn't centralized ? As I said, memes make it on to TV, but the Pet Rock was on TV before facebook existed. Facebook isn't centrally controlled, so to call it media elite is a misnomer.

This is somewhat confusing. For one, where in your definitions does it say that for a node to be considered elite, that is has to be centralized? By your definition here, then none of the major networks would be elite media, nor national newspapers like the Globe and Mail. Facebook has an owner corporate cadre that make sweeping - and influencial decisions - about Facebook, social networking as a medium and popular opinion across other media.

Memes have been around a long time for sure, but that doesn't negate their origin on the web as being somehow less, especially when they have influence and even political influence.

You didn't read my full post. ( That's ok, I often 'glean' too...)

Elite -> those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously

I did read your full post and I am not sure how you arrived at MLW or yourself even as being "media elite." Elitist maybe, but not elite.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see any reference to "the web" as being defined as "the media elite" or even "elite media." The term generally applies to the medium specifically as similarl to press, radio or TV. However, special nodes of each medium can be grouped into "elite media" or any other cross-medium grouping. And there are instances of those nodes - Facebook, Twitter, 4Chan and reddit for example - that can be considered "elite media" since they "influence the political agenda of other mass media."

I see your point, however I don't see the media elite as being a subset of media that are influential. I see the set of media themselves as comprising the elite. Of course the New York Times has more influence then the Kingston Whig Standard but they are still as a whole above the masses.

For what purpose? It would have been more clear to say, "The elite media is a term used to describe those newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and other media that..."

Because, as a member of the Interactive Media Elite (yes, sorry, but I will be trying to capitalize those from now on) I accept Wikipedia as a source more readily than, say, my desk encyclopedia of 1964.

This is somewhat confusing. For one, where in your definitions does it say that for a node to be considered elite, that is has to be centralized? By your definition here, then none of the major networks would be elite media, nor national newspapers like the Globe and Mail. Facebook has an owner corporate cadre that make sweeping - and influencial decisions - about Facebook, social networking as a medium and popular opinion across other media.

Because they're centralized, then content control is absolutely centralized in a few individuals - per media outlet and over the mass media as a whole.

Facebook Inc. can influence the structure of their medium, but they don't have anywhere near the control of content.

Memes have been around a long time for sure, but that doesn't negate their origin on the web as being somehow less, especially when they have influence and even political influence.

Right, but my point is that they don't have any more influence than individuals they represent themselves have. What I say on facebook has about the same force as what I say to people that I know. If I'm Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg then I have more influence but that has nothing to do with facebook or the web itself.

The New York Times is a different thing, for example, as is Glenn Beck (The Fox personality, not the person) or George Will writing in a publication.

I did read your full post and I am not sure how you arrived at MLW or yourself even as being "media elite." Elitist maybe, but not elite.

"Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who supposedly form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously"

[bloodyminded]

Could we call the Bilderberg group elitists? I think within this group are people with power and own radio stations and other media industries to control what is printed. Its mostly made of of world leaders and corporations and there's the power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

They don't control what is printed. I do roughly agree with the "propaganda model" of media; but that means I also agree that it is an institutionalized propaganda, with several factors involved (the "five filters" theory, only one of which is "ownership"); that most of it is not strictly intentional (that's why Western propaganda is more effective than, say, the enforced kind that appears in totalitarian societies: because there is some debate, some dissent, we can get the impression that the news media is better than it really is).

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

They don't control what is printed. I do roughly agree with the "propaganda model" of media; but that means I also agree that it is an institutionalized propaganda, with several factors involved (the "five filters" theory, only one of which is "ownership"); that most of it is not strictly intentional (that's why Western propaganda is more effective than, say the enforced kind that appears in totalitarian societies: because there is some debate, some dissent, we can get the impression that the news media is better than it really is).

Background: Propaganda Model

First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the "Propaganda model" views the private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product — readers and audiences — to other businesses (advertisers) rather than that of quality news to the public. Describing the media's "societal purpose", Chomsky writes, "... the study of institutions and how they function must be scrupulously ignored, apart from fringe elements or a relatively obscure scholarly literature".[1] The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five classes are:

1. Ownership of the medium

2. Medium's funding sources

3. Sourcing

4. Flak

5. Ideology

I modified #5 so that you can use this theory for issues that don't relate to anti-Communism.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Michael Hardner

[bloodyminded]

Background: Propaganda Model

I modified #5 so that you can use this theory for issues that don't relate to anti-Communism.

Yes, this modification has become standard for those who agree with the model...though I would contend that there is a residual "anti-communism" which bespeaks of a certain hostility to even mild socialism.

At any rate, I like to compare this model to the "leftist bias" hypothesis; while the model includes "ideology," as one of a somewhat interrelated five, the other notion assumes ideology is the answer entire. So the "leftist bias" idea is not an institutional analysis, but a politicized one.

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

I see your point, however I don't see the media elite as being a subset of media that are influential. I see the set of media themselves as comprising the elite. Of course the New York Times has more influence then the Kingston Whig Standard but they are still as a whole above the masses.

But the point is that the NY Times influences the Kingston Whig Standard and thus are elite, while the Whig-Standard - and a trillion other rags - are not. The print medium, or more specifically - the newspaper medium - is not "elite media" according to the definitions you supplied.

Because, as a member of the Interactive Media Elite (yes, sorry, but I will be trying to capitalize those from now on) I accept Wikipedia as a source more readily than, say, my desk encyclopedia of 1964.

But the Interactice Media Elite is Wikepedia and it's corporate cadre, not you, even as a participant. Of course there is a dependency, but all mediums have their dependencies. That still doesn't make them elite by nature or even you by association. Not all schools are elite and not all students that go to elite schools are themselves elite, even though a few might be.

Because they're centralized, then content control is absolutely centralized in a few individuals - per media outlet and over the mass media as a whole.

Facebook Inc. can influence the structure of their medium, but they don't have anywhere near the control of content.

What ad-free, post-what-ever-you-want Facebook are you using? Post porn on your Facebook page and see how decentralized Facebook is. Facebook is an influencial node on the medium of the web and because it has the user base, also has the ability to influence millions. So you are going to get ads and you can't post porn. Social mores you see.

Right, but my point is that they don't have any more influence than individuals they represent themselves have. What I say on facebook has about the same force as what I say to people that I know. If I'm Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg then I have more influence but that has nothing to do with facebook or the web itself.

See above.

The New York Times is a different thing, for example, as is Glenn Beck (The Fox personality, not the person) or George Will writing in a publication.

Beck and Will are tricky slopes. One could argue that they constitute 'elite media' by the nodes in which they use to get their message across. Not the medium they use, the node, like the NY Times. Either could make their case in the Whig-Standard, but unless there is a desire for it to be widely circulated, I doubt they would be political influencial, even in Kingston. Well, maybe in Kingston...

"Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who supposedly form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously"

Yes, agreed. Keyword - supposedly. And generally an attitude that is born out of self-reference. THe Whig-Standard can pronounce themselves as elite within the medium of newspapers, but they aren't. So the pronouncement of such is simply elitist.

[Michael Hardner]

But the point is that the NY Times influences the Kingston Whig Standard and thus are elite, while the Whig-Standard - and a trillion other rags - are not. The print medium, or more specifically - the newspaper medium - is not "elite media" according to the definitions you supplied.

Maybe.

But the Interactice Media Elite is Wikepedia and it's corporate cadre, not you, even as a participant. Of course there is a dependency, but all mediums have their dependencies. That still doesn't make them elite by nature or even you by association. Not all schools are elite and not all students that go to elite schools are themselves elite, even though a few might be.

Wikipedia has little central programming of content, though. Elite doesn't mean 'big'.

What ad-free, post-what-ever-you-want Facebook are you using? Post porn on your Facebook page and see how decentralized Facebook is. Facebook is an influencial node on the medium of the web and because it has the user base, also has the ability to influence millions. So you are going to get ads and you can't post porn. Social mores you see.

Yes, there are TOS restrictions on Facebook but to compare that to editorial control that a newspaper has isn't on, is it ?

Yes, agreed. Keyword - supposedly. And generally an attitude that is born out of self-reference. THe Whig-Standard can pronounce themselves as elite within the medium of newspapers, but they aren't. So the pronouncement of such is simply elitist.

Ok, so the elite media maybe doesn't include the Whig Standard. They may think so, though. And I still like Rushkoff's term, especially to address the individual medium's view of its own importance, and my view of our medium's importance.

[Shwa]

Maybe.

I am sure if you did a search of elite newspapers, the resultant list would be relatively small. Sure the Whig-Standard might be politically influential in Kingston and maybe some outlying areas, but hardly what we would call elite and definitely not nationally by any national standard.

Wikipedia has little central programming of content, though. Elite doesn't mean 'big'.

Central in what way? Editorially there are those dastardly wikipedians... (which begs the question, is the Colbert Report part of the media elite?) and I am sure there is an elite group among them controlling the content. I mean why do they not allow nonsense articles to provide an editorial counterbalance to the sensible view? Philosophical terrorists!

Yes, there are TOS restrictions on Facebook but to compare that to editorial control that a newspaper has isn't on, is it ?

Is there an editorial control gauge somewhere that provides a measurement for inclusion in the elite media?

Ok, so the elite media maybe doesn't include the Whig Standard. They may think so, though. And I still like Rushkoff's term, especially to address the individual medium's view of its own importance, and my view of our medium's importance.

It might have been true at one time, but even most blogs now are unimportant and uninfluential 'cause anyone can make one. The problem is that viewing oneself as elite - even promoting oneself as elite - opens a can of worms in that anyone can make such pronouncements. Which appears to have happened. But at least with blogs, as opposed to the philosophical facism of the dreaded wikipedians, the nonsensical view is as valid as the sensible - from the perspective of the medium.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Shwa

[M.Dancer]

The whig is part of an elite group....and that group in Canada is quite infuential. There are only 3 really.

[Michael Hardner]

Central in what way? Editorially there are those dastardly wikipedians... (which begs the question, is the Colbert Report part of the media elite?) and I am sure there is an elite group among them controlling the content. I mean why do they not allow nonsense articles to provide an editorial counterbalance to the sensible view? Philosophical terrorists!

How many editors are part of Wikipedia ? Thousands, I expect.

[Oleg Bach]

Just like the jerks that run the judicary and the banking system..they for the most part also own media...take your average radio talk show - they only hire speakers that will act as shameless henchmen..who are told on what policy to adhere to...most meida likes to generate hate and loathsome behavior..If you debase the polulation - eventually you will have a simplistic populace that is easily controlled...hockey and now ultimate fighting..does not broaden the personal scope of the typical watcher but....cramps and stiffles the spirit...in other words not much has changed since old Roman times...our "media elite" - still use the same old play book because it works --- and the people are stupid as well as the media elite also are a stupified unimaginative lot - of parasites.

[Shwa]

The whig is part of an elite group....and that group in Canada is quite infuential. There are only 3 really.

The Oshawa 'This Week' is part of an elite influencial group too - Torstar - but being a part of the group does not make it elite media like, say, the Toronto Star.

[M.Dancer]

The Oshawa 'This Week' is part of an elite influencial group too - Torstar - but being a part of the group does not make it elite media like, say, the Toronto Star.

That's okay, I don't consider the star part of the elite.

Globe and Mail

Post Media

Quebecor

All of those have national audiences...all of those (excepting the G&M) use their satelitte papers for content and for distribution. The Star is only the GTA.

[pfezziwig]

Check this story out from the cbc http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/01/13/homophobia-pointe-claire.html , talk about an elitist group of biased journalist supporting their own slants

[guyser]

Check this story out from the cbc http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/01/13/homophobia-pointe-claire.html , talk about an elitist group of biased journalist supporting their own slants

Do explain your assertions.

Edited January 14, 2011 by guyser

[WIP]

Okay Hardner, since you started this thread for the apparent purpose of informing us that the importance of new media (internet) means we don't have to concern ourselves with the corporate concentration of ownership of newspapers and broadcasting, what the hell happens as soon as net neutrality falls?....which it will in the coming years. Those of us who have gone outside of print and broadcast media to find the unvarnished information are going to find these sites failing to download webpages and video links as the bandwidth gets hogged by the big infotainment conglomerates.

And, as a sidepoint; you invoked the name of Noam Chomsky in your opening post; now doesn't the fact that someone with this level of intellectual heft has been frozen out of the MSM in the United States because of his harsh criticism of NAFTA, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, tell you something about how free and open print and broadcasting really is? Aside from internet programs, the only place where you'll find him interviewed in the last few years is on CBC Radio, and other foreign public broadcasting channels.

[Oleg Bach]

The lady at the welfare office called me an elitist...is this possible?

[guyser]

The lady at the welfare office called me an elitist...is this possible?

No, IIRC she called you a P.I.T.A.

Clean your ears.

[Michael Hardner]

Okay Hardner, since you started this thread for the apparent purpose of informing us that the importance of new media (internet) means we don't have to concern ourselves with the corporate concentration of ownership of newspapers and broadcasting, what the hell happens as soon as net neutrality falls?....which it will in the coming years. Those of us who have gone outside of print and broadcast media to find the unvarnished information are going to find these sites failing to download webpages and video links as the bandwidth gets hogged by the big infotainment conglomerates.

That wasn't my purpose.

I don't have a position on net neutrality. It seems stupid to me that a company would not want me to have access to the full 'net. How often do I spend time on MLW and other small sites vs. CNN.com ?

And, as a sidepoint; you invoked the name of Noam Chomsky in your opening post; now doesn't the fact that someone with this level of intellectual heft has been frozen out of the MSM in the United States because of his harsh criticism of NAFTA, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, tell you something about how free and open print and broadcasting really is? Aside from internet programs, the only place where you'll find him interviewed in the last few years is on CBC Radio, and other foreign public broadcasting channels.

I have seen Chomsky in the MSM. I think he's a crappy speaker. I have seen him speak so I know. If they wanted to Freeze Out leftists, you can explain why Michael Moore had a #1 movie in the US about 9/11, or why Fox gave him a show.

[Shwa]

That's okay, I don't consider the star part of the elite.

Globe and Mail

Post Media

Quebecor

All of those have national audiences...all of those (excepting the G&M) use their satelitte papers for content and for distribution. The Star is only the GTA.

True, but in context of political influence I think the Star is right there precisely because it is only GTA and surrounding areas. (Metroland is also moving into Ottawa as well) By being able to focus on the issues of the most populous region in the country, they have some national clout nonetheless.