While he is kind of a pedant speaker (I hope for his karma he only plays it), he makes some good points.
- Kids are running the show, look at wikipedia, facebook...;
- economy of today is a Web2.0 economy;
- everyone is an autority;
=> so the challenge is to implement media literacy, so all kids would get to know what content is interesting and so on.
He also wrote a book (of which he is no doubt very proud to a strange extend): 'the cult of the amateur, he really does not trust the fact that everybody can create knowledge => the infinite monkey theory (give enough monkeys a typewriter and one of them will eventually publish a shakespeare).
the kids are in control, so the monkeys lead the world => he is not pro new media lets say.
What would be interesting would be to look at the discussions in the French revolution on education (Rousseau...). Maybe those discussions would parallel the ideas he is talking about now.
He is going on on Pamela Anderson and why she is not as important as Marie Curie, though the wikipedia has equally long sentences on these two characters.
But I think, each time has its soap opera players and soap characters have always been discussed and used in stories and knowledge.
The characters of Greek mythology were soap opera characters... so do we say Greec mythology is not historically interesting and lets erase it because it was not scientific enough?
It would be interesting also to see whether there are historical waves that have a focus on science and then again on cultural ... etcetera with moral differences that are related to this.