Please watch the following video, and then let’s have a chat . . .

Cool, isn’t it?

It’s about the changing nature of text, information, communication, and, ultimately, thought in the age of Web 2.0. When colleagues and I watched it, we were impressed. We liked the story it told and how it was done. I mean, c’mon, we love online communication and the possibilities of Web 2.0 . . . this was designed to speak to us, and it does.

And after watching it a few more times, that’s what started bugging me.

The creator, Professor Michael Wesch of Kansas State, stresses that one of the new characteristics of digital media is the separation of form and content. Digital information is flexible, exportable, and often user-defined. Therefore, he sees it as “free” from the constraints of rigid form, unlike static, written text. Also, authors don’t have to be programmers to contribute (although the video doesn’t deal with computer literacy levels). Once unbound in this way, content becomes more important. As the creators of content, therefore, we have a duty to make sure its quality matches its significance. Form, Professor Wesch suggests, is a negative; it can only limit us.

The academic in me understands his argument. However, my practical side asks, “Then why did I have to watch a video that used creative screen capture, a high-speed camera, and a soundtrack to get this message?”

As the pragmatists have said, “Reality is perception.” To take a cue from them, form is content—or at least a significant part of it.

Separating form and content using a programming language is not the same as pulling them apart in purpose, function, or effectiveness. Sure we can get our favorite news in a variety of formats, but the format you or I choose does matter! Each has strengths, weaknesses, or characteristics that we either desire or dislike. Creativity and skill also make up form. Focus and clarity are not just functions of content, but also how that content is put together.

Finally, here’s what really makes me giggle: Would I even be writing about this if Professor Wesch’s argument had been presented as a white paper, article, blog post, or even less-entertaining YouTube video? Why did he choose such a polished and creative form for his content? I guess because it makes it more attention-getting, more popular, more memorable, and ultimately more effective.

That is what seems to be missing in this intriguing clip—the acknowledgment that content and form work together to create a message. In the world of Web 2.0, marrying the two will be a highly valued skill. We need to rethink that part of the future as well.