It is always fun to read essays (or rants) like this, which are so banal they become examples of what they try to describe. Why do some writers and other self-proclaimed intellectuals complain about media culture? Perhaps because they fear to lose the monopoly of culture and erudition. To be precise, there are at least two phenomena: the mass production and distribution of movies, music and books by an elite, and the spread of knowledge through the internet. In any case, the end-user gets the benefit of choosing what to use or read among a greater variety of entertainment products and, much more important, to look at least at some recent scientific discoveries which otherwise would never have been available to him. It is easy to say that without qualified censors, false information can be diffused very easily but that's what some people said when the Bible was translated into alive languages in order to be accessible to everybody and perhaps the confidence in oneself and entrepreneurism which distinguish(ed) protestants from catholics (an aspect of their work ethic) emerged as a consequence of this fact. There is the not so rare belief among educated people that if something is popular, then it cannot be good, and that culture is high when it is exclusively possessed by a minority.
Science, often neglected by non-scientifically trained intellectuals, is perhaps the most important part of our culture and, despite remarkable efforts to make it understandable to the public, remains largely disregarded. Some people argue that if a scientific exposition is good enough, then it can be understood by anyone. I disagree with them: there are already excellent elementary books such as those by Courant and Hilbert and they haven't dramatically changed the scientific education of the general public. Science remains a subject for an elite despite serious attempts to make it more popular, what else would snobs require of something to consider it an art?