Does Gorman really believe, along with Andrew Keen, that “the most poorly educated and inarticulate among us” should not use the media to “express and realize themselves”? That they should keep quiet, learn their place, and bow to such bewigged and alienating confections as “authority” and “authenticity”? Authority, after all, flows ultimately from results, not from such hierophantic trappings as degrees, editorial mastheads, and neoclassical columns. And if the underprivileged (or under-titled) among us are supposed to keep quiet, who will enforce their silence—the government? Universities and foundations? Internet service providers and media conglomerates? Are these the authorities—or their avatars in the form of vetted, credentialed content—to whom it should be our privilege to defer?
Here's a different take (we link, you decide): Lost in the Hive Mind.
I am surprised that so many seem unaware that authority is the weakest form of verification, that it needs to be corroborated, that something is not necessarily so because some guy with a big name says it is. The antidote to what Gorman and McHenry are compaining about is critical thinking, not submission to authority. An agrument is good or bad based on its structure and its grounding in fact, not by virtue of the letters appended to the name of the person advancing it or the title that precedes that name.
Update: Britannica Stirs the Pot.