Eli Pariser touches on and tries to analyze a very interesting modern issue, which is the shift of news from newspapers to the internet. His idea that the user is the content today is phenomenal, but I detest how he overlooks the idea of information quality and how it limits most people from becoming the most popular news spreaders.
I like that Eli Pariser touches a very interesting and currently important topic. Most people of the world constantly use and are influenced by the internet. Previously, most of our information obtained was circulated by the newspapers. Today, the focus switches towards the media represented by the internet. Anyone with internet access can become a star today. All a person needs to become popular is a laptop and a good idea. In such a way, the user becomes the content. The majority of people are no longer dependent on newspapers in the same way as before.
However, it is not obvious that the change of the way we receive information has led to a significant change of the content. Eli Pariser mentions that the “people-powered news” brought a more democratic, participatory form of cultural storytelling. According to the text, blogs and the internet have changed the game of journalism. The author states, that the great virtue of the internet is that it erodes power, sucking it out of the center and taking it to the periphery. However, the switch of attention from newspapers to the people is not the same as eroding power. The equal opportunities for thousands and even millions of people in connecting to the internet does not mean they are capable of creating qualitative news. While almost anyone can upload a post to the internet, only a few become popular and attract a regular audience. I did not like that this detail is overlooked by the author.
Indeed, journalism in its previous form has almost become a relic. However, Eli Pariser does not mention one important aspect of the topic. Good journalists, as well as good professionals of any sphere, usually adapt to new circumstances. At the very least, journalists also have access to the global net. People may not widely use newspapers, but information still has to be interesting in order to draw attention. Thus, education and intelligence remain to be predominant driving forces of creating content. Undoubtedly, some users of the internet can manage to upload urgent news faster than anyone else. Although, one has to produce quality content constantly in order to have at least a little prolonged influence in the internet.
I adore that the author deepens into the topic of change of the modern world within the sphere of spreading information. However, I feel as that his analysis seems to be rather superficial. Personalization in the internet itself does not mean that the topic which interest people will totally change. The matter is who will be able to associate the content and the way of its presentation in the most qualitative manner. Even Eli Pariser mentions that 99 percent of the stories linked to blog posts come from newspapers and broadcast networks. The New York Times and Washington Post alone account for nearly 50 percent of all blog links, so they remain to be large influential sources of information. The modern epoch dictates the new terms of spreading information, making the user to be a subject matter. However, still some sensation and distinctive features are crucially needed for the author in order to be heard in a plethora of information.
The author’s interest to the world of modern technologies and the current tendencies within it shaping agenda is appealing to me. However, I detest that the evaluation is not very far-reaching. The general layout of the tendency to switch our attention from newspapers towards news in the internet is noted. The significance of the information quality factor is left behind.