Journal Response #3

Circulation affects the composing process because the audience and format of a text are dependent on how it is written. Without any consideration to circulation, different texts would be found difficult to discern in communities that are substantially different. Circulation allows writers to use their text to create value and meaning that can be purposefully distributed among one or several communities. As Jenkin notes, though, it is important to differentiate circulation from distribution, which is the movement of media that are controlled by commercial interests, namely production and sales. According to Jenkin, circulation is more participatory than distribution and views the public as active, engaging members instead of just customers. Part of the composing process that is affected by circulation is the technology that we use to compose our texts. Online communication tools have arisen to facilitate informal and instantaneous sharing, according to Jenkin. This change can be seen in our tools of everyday communication, which have shifted from postcards and written letters to text message and e-mail. Since this switch to a more computer-based communication platform, the quality of media was expected to improve as a result of the increased audience size and participatory culture. Conversely, instead of the increasingly intellectual online communication that was expected to occur as a result of the online tools, online communication (specifically in comment sections) has caused increased skepticism of factually accurate information, mostly as a result of negative comments (Smith 1). When texts are circulating online, potential anonymity invites the risk of senseless hatred being spewed throughout the comment sections. This was not the original expectation of comment sections, though. Ideally, comment sections could be made useful by educated readers who are willing to constructively engage in meaningful discourse. The peer-to-peer sharing of information seems to be an enticing prospect for writers, though. As Smith suggests, the appeal of Twitter is that it allows collaborative conversation among writers instead of those writers having information fed to them by a handful of insiders.