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?

I’ve been thinking about Alan McKee’s ideas on ‘interpretation’ on a broader scale. While he was talking in the context of ’text’, it can easily be applied to ideas in general.

The current culture has a seriously problem of conflating morals with ideas. Since they consider morality to be absolute, they use this to judge notions from a ‘right vs wrong’ standpoint. Reducing a conversation to a simple ‘yes or no’ answer prevents any type of discourse to be had.

Purely in the context of ‘texts’, many forget that a ‘text’ is usually art, and art is exempt from morality. Criticism is separate entity, but when your criticisms come from a moral place, well, you are the one who is wrong.

Nothing is sacred.

My brain doesn’t respond to ideas that are vague, tautological and lacking in purpose. Unfortunately, this weeks readings by David Gauntlett were exactly that. And if you’re thinking “oh, he must be one of those people who have to ‘relate’ to everything in order to respond” – I’m not. I just believe the readings by Gauntlett didn’t reveal anything new or interesting.

To me, ideas such as “learn with media, rather than about” and “move forward, not back” are quite generic and ultimately meaningless. “Look at media as triggers for experience” – okay? Now what?

This is not an attack on Mr. Gauntlett; I’m sure these ideas are properly explored in his book. However, watching a video and reading a few articles as an exercise did nothing for me.

The Video:

Has anybody actually ever ‘changed their life’ because of a motivational speech? I feel like its purpose has a very temporary effect, rather than the intended permanent one.

I’ll admit, unlike most ‘inspirational speakers’, Cal Newport raised some very interesting points. He offered a refreshing approach towards the ‘do what you love’ concept, which has become increasingly unrealistic and outdated. However, I will inevitably forget what he said due to the temporary nature of the ‘motivational speech’.

These speeches play into our imagination, which is separate from reality. It can be linked to escapism, a concept that is temporary in its practice. They only work if they are constantly revisited. And as we process thousands of pieces of information each day, we will soon forget about the notion of something like “deep work”.