Letters to the Editor
-
A call for more specific elitism....
And yet, it's too easy simply to celebrate the downfall of the elite media and glory in the toppling of the gatekeepers. Yes, they -- we -- could and can be smug and arrogant. Yes, we should be summoned to account when we screw up. And yes, the online revolution has made it easier to do that. But to be part of an elite doesn't mean you're divinely anointed. It simply means you have some aptitude for what you do and have spent years learning to do it, and so you're probably better at it than most people.
But here's the problem: what, exactly, are columnists -- like bloggers in general, or the writers here at Salon -- the "elites" of? Are you writers first, meaning that you should be better at writing than most people? Are you journalists first, and better at ferreting out the truth? Are you prescriptive sociologists, better at stirring up society until the cream comes to the top -- and then skimming it up with your pen?
A lot of the unfocused, random thrashing of the "comment gallery" -- at least, the part that's not all "Look at me! Look at me! I have an angry face on my bum!" -- is due to the fact that readers and respondents will hold you to a different standard than you hold yourself, a standard you might not even consider. Perhaps you got into column writing because you wanted to be a novelist, and this is a step along that path; in the interim, though, you're now reporting on facts, at least from the POV of some of your audience. (And the same holds true in reverse.) I suspect it's exactly that person who wants to do ALL of the above who is most vulnerable -- emotionally and professionally -- to hostile criticism from "hoi polloi" who, through anonymity or obscurity, do not risk as much.