A lot of people mistake appearance for quality. The better something looks, the richer the form, the better it is. Or so they think. This is interesting when it comes to writing or the market of thoughts in general.
A book – finely printed paper, carefully bound and layouted – appears much more appealing to read than a stash of scribbled notes. A newspaper – be it the NZZ or the New York Times – looks so much smarter than a random blog on a website. But as they say: Don’t judge a book by it’s cover. Only non-readers do that (and sometimes me, as I tend to spend most of my money on all kinds of books I never get to read, but that’s for another day).
The internet has long had a stigma of being trashy and full of bullshit. You can still sit in a conference-room with print-journalists or academics and hear them being nasty about it. The «blahwgers», the know-it-alls, the trolls. I know a lot of educated people who would never write something only for the internet. As if their thoughts were reliant on the print to make sense. As if internet-users would not understand their points.
What a bizarre thought to have in 2013.
I have met some of the smartest people on the internet. I read essays, posts and picks from writers all over the world. I don’t care if they publish books or in newspapers. What I do care is how original their thoughts are. How clever their arguments might be. And I can interact with them if I feel the urge to. It’s not the internet that is trashy and stupid. It’s your use of it, that might make it seem that way.
(You could make the same argument with any medium. Even TV can be all dylanesque if you listen to the words.)