Will Keith Olbermann offer greater insight into the human condition than Salinger - who has not published since 1965? Does Lou Dobbs discuss weightier issues than Arthur Rimbaud - whose entire literary output was squeezed into four thin volumes?

Fortunately, quantity of opinion is no guide to quality of thinking.

But in an age when everybody and anybody (Bill O’Reilly) can publish or broadcast, where every industry and its subset has its own battery of columnists, commentators and experts, how do we separate the wheat from the chafing?

In the internet-fueled-democracy the sine qua non is that self-determination is invariably better than someone else deciding for us. But what qualifications do we have to judge what is important other than our own prejudices and preconceptions? Unless we’re an expert electrician, few of us attempt to rewire the house. What makes us think we are better editors than a professional with a global remit and historical perspective?

The irony of writing this in a blog, by the way, is not lost on the author. Though with this particular blogger there is no equivocation: your time here would be far better spent reading Rimbaud’s A Season in Hell.