This is in response mainly to the last article on the Screen discourse, “Is Today’s Internet Killing Our Culture?”.

Taking in Andrew Keen’s comments initially, I would say that there is a cause for concern. The new interactive platforms of Web 2.0, and the greater development and accessibility of technology, does mean that a growing population includes a greater input on the cultural media that is available, whether it is them consuming it or attempting to produce it. When the input is larger there is undoubtably less screening on the quality of it, and more opportunity for unskilled participants to gain just as much recognition as the talented, or official, participants.

The “Infinite Monkey” theory really is understandable, and the example, given in the article “Thinking is so Over”, John-Paul Flintoff, with the fact that the administrators of Wikipedia could value the opinion of Joe public over a qualified expert, is indeed worrying and slightly baffling. There is a growing culture of people believing they can know everything and have a right to everything rather than earning that knowledge. The recognition of high quality “Gatekeepers” like the BBC, and the Guardian etc etc are important.

However, there is something very elitist about this, it’s obvious. It is assuming that most of Joe Public have nothing of importance to deliver. To assume that the only work worth considering is that backed by an official status is purely naive and, again, snobbish, and I don’t think the issue is new either, seen repeatedly throughout history.

This in equality in status and the perhaps inefficient spread of cultural and collateral wealth in the industries have developed into a head to head dispute since this article was written, what with the recent American SOPA act and the huge debates as a result.

This is probably the most current issue to try and solve today. What would you say it is leading our future internet/media access to?