contentious.com

For about as long as I can remember, the cult of officialdom has grated on my nerves. Why is it that we’re only supposed to accept information, perspectives, and art from experts who bear certain stamps of approval? (Certain degrees, job titles, social position, mainstream media recognition, awards, etc.)

The unspoken tenet of officialdom is that if you haven’t been “vetted,” you have no right to express your views or present your information. Or rather, that people who are enraptured by officialdom and trained to ignore alternatives will automatically consider whatever you have to say meaningless, a waste of time, unworthy.

On Oct. 24, writer Evelyn Rodriguez tackled the cult of officialdom head on – and I think she nailed it. Check out An Internet Fed Mostly by Amateurs is Fascinating. There, she asks:

“[Where do people] think talent comes from? Does it plop up wholly formed in the sea foam like greek goddess Aphrodite? Or does the granting of a degree from an accredited film school or art school or journalism school now stamp one with the Good Housekeeping seal of approval? Should Bill Gates or Steve Jobs meekly crawl back and complete their professional degrees? Or does it sometimes come from passion, gumption, inspiration, and the sheer love of it?

“Why whine that the talent pond got bigger? Whatever happened to that little old adage, ‘Let the market decide?’”

Amen, sister.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I definitely still value expertise and quality…

For instance, if I need surgery, I want to go to the surgeon with the best success record for my specific procedure. I wouldn’t simply choose a surgeon because someone else happened to like her personality.

And if I’m covering a news story that involves a corporation, I would definitely want to quote sources from within that corporation. (Although I probably wouldn’t interview and quote management or PR alone.)

And if I want to know what a guy really thinks or feels about something, I’ll ask him directly. I won’t just blindly accept secondhand info. (Of course, I’ll also have to weigh how honest or open I think he’s probably being with me, too…)

Officialdom has the benefit of status and resources. It usually looks slick. It’s usually assumed to have a certain amount of inherent credibility or weight. It’s usually easy to access, and it usually meets high expectations for production quality.

…But unofficial voices in the public conversation matter, too. Even if they’re haphazard, or not slick. They’re getting easier to find, and more prominent. Sometimes they agree with or amplify officialdom. Sometimes they say the emperor has no clothes. Sometimes they raise entirely new topics. And very often, they pose compelling questions.

Evelyn said all this far more eloquently than I, with lots of good links and examples. Be sure to check out her article.

I’m not saying I think mainstream media or official perspectives are worthless. If I couldn’t access NPR, or the web sites of government agencies, I’d be pretty peeved. However, I do think that we all benefit from broadening our horizons and evaluating sources of content and information on their own terms.

Once we do that, it becomes obvious how crucial transparency is – and transparency is exactly where officialdom falls down very often, I think.

So please respect amateurs, even unpolished ones. I’m not saying you have to like them, but learn to appreciate their role. Just because you personally might not value amateur-produced content does not mean it has no value.