I first read Jay Rosen’s ‘The People Formerly Known as the Audience‘ two years ago in a Journalism course. Its relevance seems to grow each day; todays audiences are no longer the passive observers of yesterday. And this seems to be a positive; the audience is now involved in the conversation. But what does this really mean?

“Now we understand that met with ringing statements like these many media people want to cry out in the name of reason herself: If all would speak who shall be left to listen? Can you at least tell us that. The people formerly known as the audience do not believe this problem—too many speakers!—is our problem” – In the words of Heisenberg, you’re goddamn right. And this is a serious problem. Everybody has a voice, and its very annoying. Largely because this culture rewards the stupid and gives them a platform to preach their stupidity. And if you criticise them for perfectly legitimate reasons, this is often taken out of context. If you think this is anti-free speech, it’s not. Let them speak. But don’t demand that I respect them.

“You were once (exclusively) the editors of the news, choosing what ran on the front page. Now we can edit the news, and our choices send items to our own front pages.” – Because this isn’t an issue at all…. Today there has never been a bigger problem with the authenticity of news. Every secondary news organisation has an agenda and their content is highly politicised.

“The people formerly known as the audience are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable.” – Not sure about this. The shift to a more ‘active’ audience allows for greater flexibility when users are consciously constructing their ‘perfect’ image. Less predictable, sure, but why is that a good thing?