The vast majority of input on Forums, FaceBook or Twitter is completely ephemeral – a thought for a moment in time. Hopefully nteresting, entertaining and illuminating – but all too often, just complete pointless rubbish that is not worth a moment of anyone’s time, never mind being preserved for eternity.

But then again, some of the comments that are made – especially on Twitter, I have to say – are interesting, thoughtful, amusing, perceptive – well worth reading and re-reading.

And some/many Forum posts I have read have been works of art in their own right, at once thought-provoking, funny, enlightening, illuminating, challenging, stimulating – carefully crafted and created with thought and intelligence. Some would not be out of place in an academic journal. These are more than worthy of preserving and keeping safe – they add to the sum of human knowledge, and are as important as anything published in the traditional manner.

How do we sort out the online ‘wheat from the chaff’, and ensure that quality contributions are not lost to the future? Interesting question.

The depressing part of this argument is that it presumes all audiences are idiots, incapable of sniffing out the good stuff (and seeing through the charlatans) by themselves. And that may actually be true. But the bigger problem is that the ease of modern media creation means anyone CAN get noticed, which makes it harder for those who “deserve” to get noticed to rise noticeably above the din.

If we, as an audience, were more critical of what we consumed, we’d be more likely to make smart choices. We’d reward the good, rather than the accessible. But that means we’d also have to hold ourselves to a higher standard as media consumers, AND we’d need to provide articulate feedback that would help those who “almost” produce media at a high-quality level with the critiques they need to improve.

And if you think writing for an audience is harrowing, imagine how hard it is to *read* intelligently…