Journal Response 3

Jenkin says, “This shift from distribution to circulation signals a movement toward a more participatory model of culture, one which sees the public not simply consumers of preconstructed messages but as people who are shaping, sharing, reframing, and remixing media content in ways which might not have been previously imagined.” This type of “participatory culture”, deals with the way circulation contributes to the composing process for more reasons than not. When composing a piece, the writer needs to focus on how the work will be interpreted, socialized, interacted with, and issued before he/she decides the style in which they plan to write. For instance, if the author is going to post an article on a social media site, they must be sure their account is followed by an appropriate audience, and the use of artwork, photography, hash tags, and mentions highlight the work. Likewise, if the work is going to be published in print, in a newspaper, the author might want to write something that tags along to a major headline, or might want to hold off on the publication until the proper news worthy articles are in the publication they wish to add their work to. I believe that the outlet the work is published in along with the time frame and maximized opportunity for the work to be interacted with is almost as big of a determining factor for success as the actual work itself. When reading Smith’s article about the end of online comment sections, he says, “studies that showed that readers were unconsciously influenced in their judgments of scientific research if they read highly negative comments about it. In other words, comments create bias.” This statement doesn’t surprise me but the fact that it is a determining factor as to why online publishers will cancel the commenting ability, makes me wonder if commentators will found other outlets, possibly more effective ways, to communicate their dismay or approval. Will taking away their outlet of communicating negatively effect the circulation of the articles and works, then effecting the means by which the writers compose their works – straying away from online channels and back to the basics? What’s the point of the high speed internet if sites won’t allow readers to give feedback and opinions to the works? It seems as though the writers will lack feedback, leaving their composition process scattered and a shot in the dark for future articles.