In the sense that practitioners use these words: If a specific part of what you’re calling presentation is actually part of the information being conveyed, then you’re using the term wrong and it’s content.
If that isn’t what you intend, then you’re confusing the well-defined technical usage with the much wider and less-defined colloquial usage. Which is a great way to completely destroy the meaning of any philosophical statement.
The words of Cory’s stories are content. That content can be rendered and framed in many ways – print it in braille, read it aloud, graffiti it on the side of a building, translate it into another language – and that’s presentation. Yes, a bad presentation is a problem, but that’s a problem with that specific presentation, not the result of this distinction.
If there is an illustration that Cory said should be included with the story, that’s content. If a magazine commissions an intro sketch for it, or bases a cover upon it, then as far as Cory is concerned that’s presentation… though of course from the artist’s point of view it’s content, and from the magazine’s point of view the distinction becomes fuzzy.
Are the terms being overextended and misused elsewhere? Sure. But they’re also simply being used differently elsewhere. And neither invalidates the technical usage; they’re irrelevant to it.
