Again, carrying on from my analysis of the article on the Screen discourse, “Is Today’s Internet Killing Our Culture?”.

From Emily’s point of view, I believe that there is a huge positive way of looking at the argument. It is not about losing the quality of culture through the internet, it’s about using the internet to provide high quality culture to a larger audience, which surely has a larger value? We are now opening up content on a Global scale, which means input of different values and culture which would be hugely productive in possibilities to learn from each other, even if it is not ‘officially’ regulated or qualified.

Because the internet is open, all these Gatekeepers actually could have gained productivity. As Emily states about her position at the Guardian, “Without the internet we would not have reached a worldwide audience of more than 15 million a month.”

I really do agree with her when she states that good quality pieces will be recognised for what they are, “If the mainstream media are as good as you say they are, then there is nothing to worry about.” Because the audience is wider, the opportunity to highlight high culture in media is greater, as things like ratings, viral and social spreading shed light on these. As Chris Adderson states, “People can now be the teachers, and we can learn from the finest.”

Of course, going back to Andrew’s original argument, this isn’t the case and lower quality input is starting to be prioritised. But the internet is the same as any space, there is the good and the bad.

I want to propose that one way to tackle this problem. If large media organisations and gatekeepers are worried, maybe they should invest more time in fighting back?! The should use our tactics to more effect, force a larger input and presence within the Web 2.0 environment. They should utilise the open market, and pander to the amateur audience with accessible qualified content to promote education rather than attack the lack of it.