There are differing accounts on who coined the term anti-intellectualism, but there’s little doubt Richard Hofstadter popularised it following his book: Anti-Intellectualism in American life, which won him his second Pulitzer in 1964.
In this book, Hofstadter puts it that, as an idea, anti-intellectualism is not a single proposition but a complex of related propositions. As an attitude, it is not usually found in a pure form but in ambivalence—a pure and unalloyed dislike of intellect or intellectuals is uncommon.
We also take this view because it makes it easier to show how the media can be anti-intellectual while appreciating the complexity of the concept itself. For instance, Merriam Webster dictionary defines anti-intellectualism as opposing or hostile to intellectuals or an intellectual view or approach. Therefore, operating with this definition would be a disservice if one were to critic the media’s display of anti-intellectualism because, in all honesty, the media doesn’t outrightly dislike or show hostility to intellectuals – at least not openly.
The picture painted by Lisa Holderman, associate professor at Arcadia University in her book, Media constructed anti-intellectualism: The portrayal of experts in popular US television talk shows, gives a fair insight into how the media can be anti-intellectual. She examines the popular portrayal of intellectual expertise through content analysis of 200 of the 10 top-rated popular US television talk shows and finds that experts were typically brought on late in the programme, allotted little speaking time, placed among non-experts, frequently interrupted, and sometimes disagreed with or challenged.
While we haven’t conducted any research here in Kenya of a similar magnitude, we have observed what Holderman found from this research. Pick any news programme, and you would find a talk show host who bundles an expert together with non-experts and gives minimal time to articulate the issues in a meaningful way to the audience. We often don’t even see the experts, just the usual commentators.
For example, in the last two years, when the country battled the Covid-19 pandemic, local media interviewed political commentators instead of scientists leading to lots of misinformation about the pandemic. Few media houses dedicated time for local scientists from institutions working to figure out the virus – like Kenya Medical Research Institute (Kemri). The only time these institutions got a lot of attention during the pandemic was during the PPE scandal with Kenya Medica Supplies Authority and when a doctor from Kemri was fired for wanting to test further the samples.
When our media houses don’t have any dedicated experts on climate change that can dissect why droughts and floods that are cyclic events continue to undermine the country’s food security; but have dedicated time for political commentators — a majority of whom are neither political scientists nor work with any political think tank or even teach politics – they are displaying glimpses of anti-intellectualism without even realising it.
Sadly still, it is the same politicians with a questionable academic background that rotate from one TV station to another to analyse politics. Again, on the rare occasion that we see experts on TV, as Holderman captures in her book, they’re made to debate with political novices who keep interrupting them with humorous but otherwise nonsensical remarks, making it very difficult for them to give useful information that can add value to the viewer at home. The net effect is that most Kenyans consuming information framed like this end up not appreciating our intellectuals fully or the role they ought to play in shaping public discourse.
It’s not entirely clear whether we can blame this promotion of anti-intellectualism purely on the media’s business model. Still, it’s safe to suggest that overreliance on advertising only serves to make he who pays the piper to call the tune.
In fact, in 2010 Friedrich Ebert Stiftung published a report titled, The Media We Want: The Kenya Media Vulnerabilities Study, revealing that, “Media owners with strong political affiliations tend to be politically co-opted and influence editorial policy in line with their persuasions.” Meaning if the political class dislikes intellectuals, then the media house whose owner is co-opted would push for anti-intellectual content.
As the political temperature is predictably going to get hotter near the general elections, it will be important that the media checks itself against anti-intellectualism, especially because it is the unintelligent, ignorant politicians that spew hateful messages that are beamed in all homes. Another critical step would be to figure out a better business model to secure media independence.
