The End Of Discernment...

I was rather surprised to read this Tweet in the week: 

Surely not? Thinking there was some error, I clicked the link. And...worse was to come:

Journalists, broadsheet papers and magazines have a duty to widen their coverage, to review and write about all books not just the literary, niche non-fiction titles. Whether a book is reviewed or featured, for good or bad, implies that this book is worthy of note, this book was worthy of editorial space. Making a conscious effort to widen book coverage is a win-win situation, inviting readers in, establishing a larger audience, rather than pushing them away. Visibility is supreme and the media, and journalists, are key in upholding this principle.

So, that copy of 'Fifty Shades Of Grey' has just as much worth as Shakepeare or Ibsen. Really? That's the hill you want to die on? 

Reading is a subjective activity, bound by personal taste, and it is also an intimate one. Invading this space with prejudice and snobbery corrupts the choice in such a matter. Whether something is “highbrow” or “lowbrow” should not be an issue and these labels ought to be made redundant; it is if books are being picked up, freely, that matters.

Shall we extend this extraordinary outlook to other media, then - the collected works of the Spice Girls is of equal value as Wagner's Ring Cycle? McDonalds is equally deserving of a Michelen Star? 

Oh, wait. We already have.