OSP: Clay Shirky - End of audience

Clay Shirky: End of audience blog tasks

Media Magazine reading

Media Magazine 55 has an overview of technology journalist Bill Thompson’s conference presentation on ‘What has the internet ever done for me?’ It’s an excellent summary of the internet’s brief history and its impact on society. Go to our Media Magazine archive, click on MM55 and scroll to page 13 to read the article ‘What has the internet ever done for me?’ Answer the following questions:

1) Looking over the article as a whole, what are some of the positive developments due to the internet highlighted by Bill Thompson?

The internet has transformed how we connect with others, offering instant communication across the globe. It has become a vast library of knowledge, a platform for political activism and campaigning, and a tool to expose injustice and support human rights. Beyond that, it provides opportunities for education, gaming, and even financial gain, while also enabling friendships and communities to flourish online.

2) What are the negatives or dangers linked to the development of the internet?

However, the internet has its darker sides. It can enable cyberbullying and abuse, spread harmful or illegal content, and provide a space for extremist groups to radicalise others. Fraud, scams, and malware are widespread, while the anonymity of the dark web creates even more dangerous risks.

3) What does ‘open technology’ refer to? Do you agree with the idea of ‘open technology’?

‘Open technology’ refers to systems and platforms designed to be accessible, transparent, and inclusive. The idea is that if society values equality, free speech, and fairness, then the technologies underpinning it must also be open. I agree with this concept, as it ensures diversity of voices online and prevents monopolisation by powerful corporations.

4) Bill Thompson outlines some of the challenges and questions for the future of the internet. What are they?

Thompson highlights key dilemmas: how can we protect privacy while staying connected? How can the internet contribute to fairness and justice worldwide? And, perhaps most urgently, how can journalism survive financially in a digital world where information is often expected to be free?

5) Where do you stand on the use and regulation of the internet? Should there be more control or more openness? Why?

I believe there should be greater regulation online, particularly to shield younger users from harmful material and limit exposure to inappropriate or dangerous content. While openness is important, tighter safeguards could create a safer digital environment for all.

Clay Shirky: Here Comes Everybody

Clay Shirky’s book Here Comes Everybody charts the way social media and connectivity is changing the world. Read Chapter 3 of his book, ‘Everyone is a media outlet’, and answer the following questions:

1) How does Shirky define a ‘profession’ and why does it apply to the traditional newspaper industry?

Shirky defines a profession as something that exists to tackle difficult problems requiring expertise. In traditional journalism, professionals acted as gatekeepers: newspaper editors chose which stories were important enough to publish, especially when information was scarce and access to media limited.

2) What is the question facing the newspaper industry now the internet has created a “new ecosystem”?

Now that anyone can publish online, the scarcity that once justified a professional class has disappeared. The central question for newspapers is: what role do they serve in a world where information is abundant and distribution is free?

3) Why did Trent Lott’s speech in 2002 become news?

Trent Lott’s speech praising segregationist politician Strom Thurmond initially went unnoticed by mainstream media. It only became a political scandal when bloggers and online communities picked it up, showing how digital media could expose issues traditional outlets overlooked.

4) What is ‘mass amateurisation’?

‘Mass amateurisation’ describes the explosion of creative and publishing power in the hands of ordinary people. Just as the printing press allowed widespread literacy and authorship centuries ago, the internet now allows anyone to share their voice or work without professional status.

5) Shirky suggests that: “The same idea, published in dozens or hundreds of places, can have an amplifying effect that outweighs the verdict from the smaller number of professional outlets.” How can this be linked to the current media landscape and particularly ‘fake news’?

When a message is repeated widely across many online platforms, it can appear more credible than information from a small group of professionals. This has fuelled the spread of fake news, as repetition and visibility often outweigh reliability or fact-checking.

6) What does Shirky suggest about the social effects of technological change? Does this mean we are currently in the midst of the internet “revolution” or “chaos” Shirky mentions?

Shirky argues that technology reshapes how societies share and consume information. We are living through a revolution: digital platforms are rapidly altering politics, culture, and communication. Whether this feels like progress or chaos depends on how society adapts.

7) Shirky says that “anyone can be a publisher… [and] anyone can be a journalist”. What does this mean and why is it important?

Social media gives ordinary people the tools to broadcast globally. This means journalism is no longer restricted to professionals, citizens can break stories, share perspectives, and hold power to account. It democratises media, but also blurs the line between fact and opinion.

8) What does Shirky suggest regarding the hundred years following the printing press revolution? Is there any evidence of this “intellectual and political chaos” in recent global events following the internet revolution?

After the printing press, society experienced a century of upheaval before stability returned. Shirky suggests we may be in a similar stage now: the internet has created enormous disruption, and recent events such as political polarisation or misinformation; mirror the “chaos” that follows technological revolutions.

9) Why is photography a good example of ‘mass amateurisation’?

Online platforms like iStockPhoto gave amateurs the chance to sell their work, challenging the monopoly of professional photographers. The internet allowed ordinary people to bypass traditional gatekeepers and reach audiences directly.

10) What do you think of Shirky’s ideas on the ‘End of audience’? Is this era of ‘mass amateurisation’ a positive thing? Or are we in a period of “intellectual and political chaos” where things are more broken than fixed? 

I agree with Shirky’s claim that the audience-producer divide is collapsing. People no longer passively consume; they actively create, share, and curate media. This has many benefits, new voices, creativity, and participation but also risks disorder, as unverified or harmful content circulates freely. We are in both revolution and chaos: the power shift is exciting, but also destabilising.

A/A* extension work: Read Chapter 1 ‘It takes a village to find a phone’ and Chapter 4 ‘Publish, then filter’ to further understand Shirky’s ideas concerning the ‘End of audience’.

Chapter 1 ‘It takes a village to find a phone’

Core Story

In 2006, a woman named Ivanna lost her phone in New York.

Another woman, Sasha, found it and refused to return it.

Ivanna’s friend Evan built a website to publicise the theft.

The story spread online (blogs, MySpace, media) → massive public attention.

Eventually, legal pressure forced Sasha to return the phone.

Power of Online Coordination: Ordinary people can now organise collective action on a scale that was previously only possible for governments, media, or corporations.

Social Tools Enable Collaboration: Blogs, forums, and social networks let people share information quickly, gather support, and apply pressure.

Shift from Passive to Active Audiences: The internet turns audiences into participants: people don’t just consume stories, they act on them.

No Central Authority Needed: Coordination happens “bottom-up.” Evan didn’t need official institutions, the community itself spread the story.

Implications for Power & Institutions: Traditional institutions (courts, media, police) are slower than online networks. This creates new opportunities but also challenges established authority.

Why It Matters (Shirky’s argument)

The “Stolen Sidekick” case is a symbolic example:

Shows how social media reshapes organisation and activism.

Demonstrates a new era of collective action where ordinary people can coordinate without formal organisations.

In short: Shirky uses the stolen phone story to show how the internet enables new forms of social organisation, lowering the barriers for collective action and challenging traditional institutions.

Chapter 4 ‘Publish, then filter’

Key Ideas

Shift from “filter, then publish” to “publish, then filter”:

Traditional media filtered content before publication due to costs and scarcity. Now, digital platforms allow anyone to publish instantly, and filtering happens afterward, socially.

User-generated content (UGC): UGC isn’t just making something on your computer, it’s about sharing with others on platforms like YouTube, MySpace, Flickr, or blogs. It’s amateur, group-based, and primarily about social exchange rather than professional media production.

Small groups vs. audiences: Most UGC isn’t meant for a mass audience, it’s like overhearing teenagers chatting at a mall. Posts may look trivial to outsiders, but they’re for friends, not the public. Blogging and social networks often function as community communication, not broadcasting.

Blurred boundaries: The old divide between broadcast media (one-to-many, e.g. TV) and communications media (one-to-one, e.g. phone) has broken down. The internet supports many-to-many interaction, groups conversing publicly, sometimes scaling into audiences.
Fame and scale:

Interactivity works at small scale, but once someone attracts thousands or millions of readers, interaction breaks down. Fame arises naturally because human attention is limited—popular figures cannot respond to everyone. Scale, not just technology, creates this imbalance.
Filtering challenges:

Traditional filtering relied on high publishing costs and professional gatekeepers (editors, producers). Now, mass amateurisation floods the system with content, making professional filtering impossible. Instead, social filtering (recommendations, sharing, links) is necessary.
Overall change:

Media is now an ecosystem where small conversations, communities, and mass audiences coexist. Communication and broadcasting blur together, and filtering happens after the fact—by communities deciding what matters.

In short: Digital media collapses the old divide between conversation and broadcasting, shifting us to a world where everyone can publish, filtering happens later, and fame naturally emerges from scale and attention limits.