Wednesday, September 23, 2009

readers becoming more than just readers

This week's reading, "It Takes a Village to Find a Phone," a great example of how digital journalism has readers become more than just readers. Their involvement in the story doesn't just stop the second they stop reading the post. The readers became activists, detectives, commentors, and participants to the story. They helped shape the ending of the story by the work they did.

While there were various reasons why they became so affected by the story that they had to participate in some way, the reason they were able to do that was from the digital format of the story. I got to thinking about what would have happened had it simply been a newspaper story. A reader may have been just as affected by it as on the internet. But the difference is that the most the reader would have probably done is write to the editor or Evan. Or perhaps discuss is with a friend, co-worker, or family member. But I think the interest would die down after that.

But with the system Evan set up people were able to fuel the fire. Discussion boards brought thousands and more people together instead of just a handful. They fueled each other with their online discussions and ability to track down new information through the internet. The ability to email the story to others helped others who had the ability to help the cause get involved. The internet gave people the freedom to post things they would not have probably written in to a newspaper about. They wouldn't tried to post pics off of Sasha's myspace or get into so many other related topics like the military or police duty.

Like mentioned in the reading, Evan created an army through his website. I don't believe it would have gone the same route had it just been in a newspaper.

2 comments:

  1. This story gives us an ideal example of the key differences between the legacy and emergent form--immediacy and many-to-many. What's exciting to see here is what people do now that they have these tools. On to world piece;->

    ReplyDelete