The first few things we learnt in pre-school were to read, speak (ok, maybe not speak exactly, but things like-to count, the alphabets, etc.), think and of course- write. Given the cynicism with which we think back on what we actually did learn in school and college, the primary formative years are what we must be most grateful for. It is precisely because of those skills which our primary teachers imparted and made us exercise on, that we are capable of, and improve on, our current cognitive abilities.
A new generation of children will soon attend pre-school and all they will learn is- How to handle content?! People are not referred to as filmmakers, musicians, artistes, cartoonists, essayists, reporters, photographers or writers anymore: they are content-creators. A content creator is an individual or a group of collaborators and her/their idea now forms part of a huge and rich digital media landscape which allows one to use various modes to represent it. Personal opinion is now digitally democratised and hits you through a variety of resources on and off the web.
Websites abound with pages of (dis)content that clutter the ether-world. Traditional wordsmiths/economists/socio-politico scientists, thinkers, et al who spend a respectable amount of time on research and deliberate thought do exist on the web, but the crowd-sourcers who bitch about diluted rum in their mojitos and lesser sex in their love lives outnumber them. Commentators with qualifications such as MA in Cliches make you jump for the remote and mute out their idiocy during cricket and most other sport matches. Chat show hosts want to discuss with you why X brand of poodle hair dye is better than Y…
I have always been a great fan of opinion and being able to express it. But with the dumper trucks of rants and abuses termed “content”, where exactly is the value add? Given that my last few lines do sound rather emotionally strained, who decides what the nature of content should be? Who says whether something is content-worthy or not?
