I’m not sure what to make of Mike Arrington’s blog post today that “fast-food” content is going to “destroy the mom and pop operations that hand craft their content”.

The biggest question is why this crap vs. quality thesis has grabbed Arrington so violently given the threats he talks about aren’t exactly new. Before the Web became the dominant content vehicle, crappy content was thriving in publications such as People and the National Enquirer. And since the Web went mainstream, crappy content featuring gossip and the antics of celebrities through sites such as Perez Hilton and TMZ has been wildly popular.

Throughout it all, quality content has continued to exist and thrive. Among the most popular Web sites are the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor, which are generating quality content.

I may be biased by the fact I used to be a journalist but my take is this isn’t a one or the other scenario in which crappy content will overwhelm quality content. There’s room for both because there’s an audience looking for different kinds of content.

For more thoughts, check out The Next Web, which argues that quality content will survive because “Audiences aren’t stupid. They know quality when they see it.”