I don’t agree with this theory as stated, but it can be worth spelling such things out, if only to see their weaknesses, or perhaps some strengths at some of the more unusual or less likely margins.  Here goes:

People, especially “thinkers,” like to believe they serve all sorts of noble purposes in the intellectual infrastructure.  But in reality their main effects are either to raise or lower the status of the elites in their society.

Noam Chomsky, for instance, has lowered the status of American elites.  That is his net long-run effect, not that he drummed up sympathy for the Khmer Rouge.  A lot more people, for better or worse, are more skeptical of a bunch of things because of Chomsky.

The New York Times, in contrast, works hard to raise the status of elites.  It tries especially hard to raise the status of Democratic elites, but still it

Keep reading this article on Marginal Revolution.