The consumer of Web 2.0 content was dissected from several vantage points in this week’s readings. For the key issues explored by our class over the semester, Anderson’s From Indymedia to Demand Media’s exploration of algorithmic journalism stood out as exemplary of both a function and problem created by Web 2.0. The mystical audience lies just on the other side of the screen, determining our own future content exposure with every click. Our preferences and interests are being cataloged and indexed for reference in future content production. While the other types of journalism explored in this article were useful for gaining a better understanding of audience issues within reporting, the tracking of audience interest, preference, and consumption done using algorithmic journalism could mean that in the future, we will have no one but ourselves to blame if content does not have quality.

Blank and Reisdorf’s article, The Participatory Web, confirmed several theories we’ve already discussed in class about the internet’s audience: that those in a higher economic class are more likely to use the internet, those in retirement are not, and those with “willingness to learn new aspects of a technology” will utilize it more (2012). It also closed with that all important question, what will happen to those on the other side of the digital divide?

Correa and Jeong did provide fresh information with their piece on minorities on the web. Information was presented that showed that minority groups are more likely to supply online content. The connectedness that the internet can provide to reach out to other niche groups could be a driving factor. However, it was surprising that this wasn’t necessarily true for those of Asian descent. As presented in the article, they are more likely to use the internet as a form of “personal record” than connecting or exposition of their work than other groups (Correa and Jeong, 2010)

Chapter 2 of Marshall’s New Media Cultures, summarized and confirmed my own theory of what new media actually is in conjunction with their explanation of interactivity. According to Marshall, “Interactivity thus expressed the breakdown of the broadcast model of the delivery of information” (2004). He describes how interactivity has created a back and forth exchange between the broadcaster as opposed to the indirect interaction that used to take place between the listener and the radio or television. Chapter 4 goes on to describe new media, paraphrasing Chesher, “new media invokes you to respond, while older media forms attempt to evoke sentiments” (1996). I particularly enjoyed chapter’s fours section on “The complex role of capital” of the internet. It recounts the internet’s long inability to profit from the “library patrons and pirates” of the internet. Documenting the bust of the dot com era, the article lead me to reflect on Facebook’s recent decision to force “pay to promote” on all of us. This could be potentially crippling for higher ed. and small businesses. If those entities pull out of Facebook because it no longer serves a marketing function for them, will that have an effect on Facebook’s usage by its average subscriber? Will Facebook alienate a sub-set of its own audience and send the rest packing as a result?