Fragmentation to Re-formation

            The idea of fragmentation within the media context can be generally applied across various situations and mediums. Discussed in the chapters of Chris Anderson’s book (The Long Tail, Chapters 10-12) is the chaos of choice overload on consumers and audiences and the resulting fragmented focuses and preferences. The abundance of products are increasingly accessible and available via media technologies. Anderson asserts that the dominance of the digital age on consumer habits, audiences and thus culture is affecting the way that people are categorized into cultures.  

            Dually noted is the portion of this week’s reading assignment, The end of TV as we know it: A future industry perspective (http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/index.wss/ibvstudy/imc/a1023172), and the diagram that features the new divided consumer/audience. This model paints a very clear illustration as to how there are now parallel cultures that are consuming media in their own fashions. This reinforces the idea of fragmentation. Like Anderson says the audience (consumer etc.) is distributing as wide as the choice (2006, p. 176). The IBM article provides a business model affiliated with the changes in the tendencies of the fragmented consumer/audience. This includes the explanation and justification of at least six premises to build from: segmentation, innovation, experimentation, mobilization, openness and reorganization. All of the business premises can be linked to the sentiment and necessity to stay open and super available to the consumer. The more open, comprehensive, accessible and flexible that an entity can be in the digital era, the more inclined toward success the entity becomes. The chart or diagram within the article’s summary features three different types of audiences. They are the traditional (“Massive Passives”), the geekster-type whom drive the control end of media and are all hands on (“Gadgetiers”) and the “Kool Kids” who can be interpreted as the members of the audience who keep themselves very linked and exposed to the content being featured, but they don’t necessarily take the initiative to produce. Unlike the Gadgetiers they chose not to have as much control of the media in production or being consumed. This interpretation is done by translating the very technical and business geared wording of the article summary.

            There is definitely the chance that I personally have misinterpreted what was meant to be conveyed in the diagram. More thoroughly understood (and demonstrated) are the overall underlying issues. Again this being the fragmentation that divides the consumers into categories as the culprit of what the IBM article defines as the generational chasm. This is the prevalence of behavior differences among the three groups “Massive Passives”, “Gadgetiers and Kool Kids collectively designated to be most notably present because of the age differences of the members of each group. The massive passives having matured as an audience in a time of limited means of mass media controls in contrast with the Gadgentiers or the Kool Kids who are a majority of a younger generation highly active within and exposed to the internet boom.

            The arguments in opposition or support of increased consumer/audience determined outcomes weighs the issue of to much choice heavily (Anderson, 2006, p. 170-172). Anderson expresses that he is in support of the increasingly popular niche culture and the transgression away from common mass culture (2006, p.180-182). He offers the observation that people are not pulling away from cultures and commonality entirely they are just identifying more freely within their own selected contexts and specifics. Anderson denotes the habit of individuals to identify and be a part of more than one culture as living amongst parallel cultures (2006, p. 181-184). Repeated multiple times within his writing is his ruling that with infinite choice comes “ultimate fragmentation” (Anderson, 2006, p181). Although some argue (i.e. featured Christine Rosen) that there is an issue with an overly individual and “narrow” selection affiliated with personal choice, Anderson defends the benefits over burden approach to high volume and high accessibility supported by the digital era. He includes in his argument that as long as businesses latch on the positives and produce effort towards complimenting consumer behaviors there can absolutely be capitol success. He exemplifies Google as the picturesque example of the utility of displaying abundant choices in an organized fashion. As corporations and business models cater to the new demands of the consumer it is vital to latch on to the trends but continue to assist in selection of the goods. Make anything and everything available to the user/ consumer/ audience but if someone needs your help jump at the ability to help them search (Anderson, 2006, p. 174, 190-191).

In the opening of Chris Anderson’s Chapter 4 (The Three Forces of  The Long Tail), he discusses his understanding of the changes taking place in the economy based on the transition between the producer and consumer as a more horizontal exchange of power. He faults three aspects affecting the market as primarily responsible for the change; democratization of the tools of production, the cost decrease of consumption by democratization and connecting supply with demand (2006, p. 54-56). He provides an exact example of this in chapter 5 (The New Producers). In the portion of the chapter “Self-Publishing Without Shame”, he mentions the website Lulu.com as an avenue for writers to easily and affordably publish their work. A very abbreviated explanation as to how this works is as follows: The DIY publisher turns the authors piece into a physical paperback or hardcover piece with ISBN number, lists it with online retailers, prints the book in batches (a few dozen), restocks as it is needed and all for roughly $200. According to Anderson, “Once it’s listed, the book will be available to an audience of millions and potentially side by side with Harry Potter, if the winds of the recommendation engines blow that way” (2006, p.75-76).

Noted also, are Anderson’s sentiments that the book industry is admittedly, popularity wise, on the fritz. He argues that the mass-market for book sales requires a profiteering author to write in a conversational manner and to pick topics that are general. According to him, many authors (niche authors) refuse to succumb to the demands of mass appeal. In that case, if an author wants to move a boulder but can only lift stones, then the idea of Lulu.com is the perfect chance for the altruistic author to hit it big (Anderson, 2006, p. 76-77). Anderson’s research reveals that in 2004 the CEO of Barnes and Noble agreed with him on his self publishing findings. Steve Riggio (Barnes and Noble CEO) equates the effects of non-mainstream authors and their work within the book industry as follows; “(1) the efficiencies of print-on-demand, which keeps more books in print, (2) the increase in the number of smaller and independent publishers; and (3) self publishing” (Anderson, 2006, p.77). The reported 20% increase of unique titles on Barnes and Noble Shelves is a testament to Anderson and Riggio’s statements. The power has shifted by the democratization process, into the consumer’s hands as to whom they want on the shelves of their bookstores. An author or producer can do all things possible to put themselves at the pique of the Long Tail, but the niche artists will still prosper, at their own pace and their own place.

(Is it possible to fuse these two together; Chris Anderson and Jon Stuart Mill? It’s worth a shot….)

In Mill’s book On Liberty, Mill argues among a few other things, for the importance of the will of the people within a society as opposed to the tyranny or threat of the majority (1978, p.4). The translation means a praise of liberty of individual independence verses the restrictions and blinding tendencies of society associated with social control. In the case of arguments presented in Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail, there is discussion of the historical events associated with the dissolution of American Pop Culture. Anderson uses America’s legacy of Music chart topping “hits”, as an example of a source of culture, controlled by media corporations (perpetuated by the affiliated technologies) and the limitations of exposure associated with “New Media” from the 1950’s to around 1998 ( 2006, p. 1,21 & 29). To grant acceptance to Anderson’s observation that American culture as heavily influenced by media and it’s massive “popularity contest”, is an understatement. So then, obviously agreed upon is custom and culture defined by the” connective tissue of our common experience” (Anderson, 2006, p. 1). Mill argues that it is not by choice that people are born into their identifiable society. Opinions are held by societal members as a result of time and place, and usually unquestioned and adopted as customary (1978, p. 17 & 56). Anderson argues that as a result of the internet era, the restricted majority of American society at the mercy of capitalistic and monopolistic media marketers exists no longer. He enunciates his points in Chapter 2 of his book headed as “The Rise and Fall of the Hit” (2006, p. 27-40). As a result of the dissolution of the common market of “hits” he presents the observation of the market and society adapting to be “niche oriented” and the new “economics of abundance” (Anderson, 2006, p. 6-10 & 24). In favor of what Mill argues as optimized society than, is the right and diversity of individual opinions, the niches (1978, p. 43). As international cultures are allowed to blend by technology and the internet, there is no longer a majority but a plurality of numerous niches of personal hits (Anderson, 2006, p. 50). (Mill would be so pleased).

WANNA PLAY? CLICK ON THE “LAUNCH STANDALONE PLAYER” BELOW……C’mon we live in a really bad ass time right???? Sooo cool.

Dan Gillmor

            The majority of the content in these chapters reflected the issues of open-ended questions regarding internet regulation, or the lack there of. The thing that Gillmor impresses on the reader is that the Government is doing a poor job of providing protection to citizens, and leaving them to be at the mercy of Big Business.  For example (and there are plenty more within Gillmor’s book), the 2003 policy granted in favor of phone companies to control access to new high-speed data pipes (2006, p.225-226). Not only do these companies monopolize how people have to squeeze out their cash in order to access the internet, but now they are trying to filter and monitor people’s “internet fingerprints”, for more on this refer to the January 8,2008 article in the NY Times; http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/att-and-other-isps-may-be-getting-ready-to-filter/ . Gillmor made mention of the impending practices of filtering in chapter 11 of his book. He commented on the threat as follows;

            “ …it is currently illegal to copy a snippet of video directly from a DVD to use as part of another work. But you can do this with a piece of text, though the e-book industry is working to prevent even a small cut and paste unless authorized by the copyright holder. If we need permission or have to pay, simply to quote from other works, scholarship will be only one casualty” (2006, p. 218).

             The most disappointing thing about the issues at hand, is that the government that WE the American people live under, enacted regulations that now need undoing (they have needed undoing for years). Gillmor includes in his argument, commentary from David P. Reed’s sentiments about the FCC. Reed (former chief scientist at Lotus Development and Software Arts) feels that with new technology, equipment facilitates overlapping signals by sorting them out. Reed defined Software as the evolution to achieve the freedom from the hypothetical airwave scarcity that is harboring the corporate monopoly over the waves (Gillmor, 2006, p. 234). Obviously, historically American corporations lack social corporate responsibility and ignore the long-term effects of pure capitalism. People need to exercise their freedom of speech not only in grassroots journalism, but also by writing good old-fashioned letters. As corporate America should always allow room to be included in the democratization process, not control it. People who are unable to write or endorse policies to protect their security and freedom then need to VOTE for GOOD and capable governmental representatives.

For the most part, I felt that these chapters reiterated the main messages of chapter 4 and 6. Not that this information was not interesting, but it lacked the substance that the previous chapters had. I thought Gillmor could have more succinct in covering the theories that predict where grassroots journalism and citizen media will go next or further in the future. I understand that it is risky for anyone to make a poor prediction, but the essence of a prediction is that it is just a guess. He could have included more breadth and research on this front. Because my interest was not as peaked as in the previous chapters, I have listed the most personally compelling components of the readings as follows: (a.) Chris Allbritton, (b.) Technorati and (c.) Gillmor’s (and the public) consensus concerning the “element of trickery” in news programs.

(a.)  In chapter 7 under New Business Models: The Tip Jar, Gillmor discussed the accomplishments of Chris Allbritton. Allbritton was a blogger that requested from his readers a grant of money in order to fun a trip to Turkey and Iraq in 2002. Upon accomplishing that goal, he again raised money in 2003 via his blogging efforts and the assistance of other media organizations promoting his work. He picked the topic of the conflict in Iraq and maintained that focus. Allbritton serves of an example of someone who made money from the premise of his grassroots efforts. Also, Gillmor expresses Allbritton’s success resulted from his dedication to having expertise on a topic that he chose to blog about. Allbritton’s focus was coverage of the conflicts in the Middle East and he relentlessly pursued communicating his obtained knowledge with his readers (2006, p. 155-156).

(b.)  Gillmor explained Technorati as a service that assists people in obtaining and sifting through webblogs, news and anything that is a popular topic in conversation.   The algorithms used to make this search engine unique are formatted such that when users rank blogs not just by their popularity alone, but the “…number of blogs linking to something-but by weighted popularity, determined by the popularity of the linking blogs” (2006, p.168). This sort of selection process eliminates the classic “seniority rules” stature associated with a majority of big media sources.

(c.)  In 1999 CBS aired Dan Rather’s newscast in Times Square with the background including digitally created ads that were actually not there. Gillmor felt that this is deceptive to viewers and should in no way ever be practiced by Big Media. He further explains that in the new era of digitally enhanced images, it is hard to tell fact from fiction. This presents a challenge to all Internet grassroots media movement because of the tendency of mistruths to spread like wildfire. As Gillmor argues, this perpetuates the necessity of Copyright regulations (2006, p.177-178) . The regulations would surely slow the speediness of citizen media that are currently in place.

 *Below is video clip of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales regarding internet cencorship.

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0suY1pMJN08&hl=en”></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0suY1pMJN08&hl=en” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>

In chapter 4 there is a sections titled “ Some Rules for New-World PR and Marketing”. I felt that Gillmor’s observations of the most successful practices of online activism in tandem with blogging efforts were the platform for chapters 5 and 6 (politics and online citizen journalism). The list included the following rules for making the most on “tomorrow’s media”. In short, to optimize tomorrow’s public relations one must “Listen hard, talk openly, ask questions, create RSS feeds, always offer to the audience/customer more, not less, link 360 degrees of information concerning what people say about you (the company or organization) and what you (the company or organization) say publicly, aim at people who really care, correct mistakes openly, honestly and promptly, thank people who teach you new lessons AND experiment constantly (2006, p.85-87). In idea number ten Dan Gillmor makes references to Esther Dyson’s words, “Experiment constantly, because risk is a part of growth. This is the new medium we’re all learning. As Esther Dyson says, “Always make new mistakes”” (2006, p. 87). I really admire his PR communication model. Everything about it was tangible and comprehensible.

In chapter 5, the message that he most vehemently conveys in this chapter is captured within the following quote, “ The issues of our times are too complex, too nuaunced, for the major media to cover properly, given the economic realities of modern corporate journalism. Typical, even good newspapers devote at most two or three stories to candidates’ views on specific issues. Television news operations especially at local stations, tend to ignore the issues and politics outright” (2006, p.103). This opens the door to his arguments in chapter 6, but first it is crucial to comment on a couple things. Gillmor portrays the Howard Dean campaign of 2004 as the “tipping point” for the new era of online campaigning (2006, p. 93). He notes that Dean’s campaign was obviously not victorious, but much of his success was attributed to his campaign manager’s (Joe Trippi) persistence in utilizing the web as a communication medium (2006, p. 94-97). Gillmor supports the ideology that the internet’s capacity is replacing talk radio. The issue portrayed as jeopardizing net politics refers to the right wing wash that has resulted in biased airwaves. The question presented is, whether or not the same will occur with the net? Arguably, Gillmor claims that the Democratic party nurtured net politics because of the inclination towards party disunion. Hence, left wing blogs serve as open forum to mull through the arguments and constantly dialogue and work on the issues at hand (2006, p.99).

Chapter 6 is laden with enchanting altruism. The moral is that the public as a whole is more intuitive and intelligent than a single professional journalist, so why not take advantage of the knowledge of the masses? (2006, p. 111). The chapter is a very optimistic account of the endless potentials of “open source journalism”. This is the extension of journalists to utilize the web to create non-hierarchical journalism that includes the community or the normal audience, to partake in the writing of the news. Gillmor makes use of multiple examples of web news-sources and blogs that utilize the model of “grassroots journalism” or the bottom up approach. In the era of newer media usage and journalism, the tables are turning and the common person is empowering their right to know the scoop (2006, p. 113-119).

    Oh, how obvious it seems that this weeks post/ blog assignment brings to mind yet another crazy analogy. That of talking parrots. Let me back-up first to set the stage for the birds. We The Media by Dan Gillmor, mimics yet again the transformation of mass media, in particular journalism, in today’s society. The transformation expressed as tied to internet usage and the open source movement (Okay, stage is set, the curtain is being drawn). Gillmor justifies that culture is moving away from purely subscription to sources of journalism and adopting themselves as inscribers public democratizers of truth seeking. He presents in mild detail the evolution and changing image and identity that journalism has carried with it throughout history. He asserts, in common with many of the other pieces that I have commented on, September 11, 2001 as the tipping point for citizen media activism (2006,p.18). Think now of the talking parrots, historically these birds were thought of as possessing incredible intelligence. As science and inquiry revealed, these birds don’t necessarily fully understand the breadth of what they are “saying”.  Like society for some time, people credited the news as being intelligent and wise. People repeated and valued the news at is was communicated to them;

        ”Parrots are taught to speak without understanding the words. The method is to place a mirror between the parrot and the trainer. The trainer, hidden by the mirror, utters the words, and the parrot, seeing his own reflection in the mirror, fancies another parrot is speaking, and imitates all that is said by the trainer behind the mirror.” (http://askville.amazon.com/parrots-speak-mimic/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7222240)

Do we se the similarities between the historical argument of the viewer of TV news here? Parrots actually talk by blowing air across the changing shape and size of their tracheas, attempting to sound like their trainers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot#Sound_imitation_and_speech). Okay,okay I am not inferring here that people are as unintelligent as parrots. We are currently demonstrating that we are so far the opposite. Gillmor portrays the power of “Internet “Broadcasting”" as solidifying the pinnacle of consumer intelligence and productivity. Among numerous examples he provides various technologies such as weblogs, Wikis, short message services, RSS, and more, as simplifying the doability of consuming and producing journalism. He confirms that Big Media is being horizontalized to merge with the gift economy (2006, p.29) by societies quest to find truth in the media. Finally, we are the media and we are questioning more and more everything and everyone.

Response to Benkler: Five Prominent Points of Discussion How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom

            Yochai Benkler presents arguments that echo those of the late implications of newer media theory. At the pinnacle of his argument is the diversification of the locust of power within the transactions among users of communication technology and it’s resulting economy. The changes in the distribution of power have transitioned from predominantly market and proprietary advantages to production by individuals and large group efforts among them. The transfer of power from “one” to “many”, motivates individuals to become more involved with the exchange of information. The particulars of the exchanges are theorized to produce, as Benkler and many feel to be, “a more critical and self-reflective culture” (2006,p.2). Social production and the increase of nonmarket production is said to be highly associated with the Internet. This is because of the influx of networks and production that are sustained by cheap processors linked together and capable of high computation (Benkler, 2006, p.3).

            Benkler expressed that there are three observations emerging on behalf of the new democratized information production system. He mentions the (a.) influx of nonproprietary strategies being very important to productivity. This increases the likelihood for the fusion of traditionally less prioritized components of capitalistic economy as permeating the evolving market value system. He stresses education, arts, sciences, political debate and theological disputation among the ideologies that have become more illusive within the transactions of information exchange. (b.)The coordinating effects of networked users stresses the availability of access and usage to copious amounts of people, verses controlled access present in the past. The diffusion of the exchanges has resulted in a wide span of  (c.) cooperative work and peer production of information; Thus, the broadening of knowledge and enrichment of culture. 

            Internet usage is the epitome of user driven innovations. In chapter 3 of Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks, the author hones in on examples of peer production and sharing. At the heart of each example is the notion of asymmetrical allotment of power; Democratized usage, resulting in users of network systems allowed to be creators or abolitionists of content and exchangeable information. Benkler stresses the importance of open-source software and the sharing of production power to enrich the capacity of culture to share their knowledge freely with one another. He weighs to issues of the eager yet cautious transition from economy prided on capitalism to one that incorporates tweaks to accommodate open contribution and consumption (2006, p. 2-5). He talks about Amazon, Wikipedia, Second Life, Open Directory Project and Slashdot as just a few, but popular examples of the successes of many users being allowed power to interact with the information technology environment.

            Benkler feels that the impact of the information exchange economy influences the culture in two very obvious ways. He explains that culture becomes more transparent and malleable. I interpreted this upon his usage of a folk culture analogous to the pre industrial era as a transgression towards a more uninhibited culture, one that thrives on interaction and broadening of views and values. The openness resulting in what Benkler mentions as “more self-reflective and critical”, of the cultures that people are within (2006, p.10).

            As International interactions among cultural norms and practices increases, the observation of cultures external to one’s own equates to the contemplation of a variety of ways of doing things. The exposure to diversified cultural practices optimizes a weighing of morals and the status quo. Benkler does not support technological determinism as much as he feels that the value that human agency places on the organizations, communities and external structures to the human itself is “for better or worse” carried out by humanity. Benkler’s argument screams that today’s human agency allots power to the user because of the braided usage style. “User”-no longer meaning strictly consumer of goods, but producer as well and more importantly sustainer and official as well (2006, p. 13-14). 

I felt as though I was really handicapped in understanding what exactly the Articles were expressing. O’Reilly went into detail about his theory that open source is an “expression of three deep, long-term trends” (2004): commoditization of software, network-enabled collaboration and software customizability. In my rudimentary vocabulary I understood this as the following:

a.)   Commoditization as the interchangeable part of the web building world. The Internet hinges on shared protocols. Web servers are swappable because them implement HTTP protocol and HTML data format. The public drives the standardization in defense of the threat of monopoly that is codependent on big corporations that must keep up with public input into rewriting, adding and altering code. O’Reilly concludes software itself as no longer the centerfold of value in the computer industry. He illustrates that the commodization of software as being the driver of the value of services bustled by the software.

b.)   Collaboration: HTML opened civic participation to anyone having access to the web. Software developers were not the only key to the explosion of the web, public usage and input was. O’Reilly pointed to Ebay, Amazon, Google and Mapquest as the prime examples of participatory media and the massive network effects.

c.)   Customizability: Fusion and the meshing of boundaries between various communication technology and consumer devices relies on software that is not rooted in one spot. It is so obvious that in the new era of participatory media and the web is demonstrating an evolution of value. O’Reilly says, “…things that were once kept for private advantage are now shared freely, and things that were once thought incidental become the locus of enormous value” (2004). Open source advocates view sharing of code with all as a strengthener of the communications technology industry and obviously beneficial to all.

 The paradigm expressed in each article as similar and more and more like that of a science. A science of Internet usage, that is evolutionary in history and birthing new creations and abilities daily. That which the Internet has developed into, is reason for both authors to note the pitfalls on not learning from the history of Internet to its contemporary evolution. Kelly features so many ideas in his article that capture the essence of the lessons here; bottom-up, participant media, the audience, open source software movement and linking. All referencing to the power invested in the Internet nourished by the user or the participant. Kelly concludes his article with a reflection on what the future of the Internet may hold. He calls Internet users “prosumers”, people who produce and use information or products synonymously. He feels that the Web is the prime candidate of reaching artificial intelligence and is gaining the faculties from human input that will allow it to become an Anticipation Machine.

Google Gets Big[ger]

            I personally don’t recall the first time someone told me to “Google it”. Prior to studying communications I was always a later adopter of new media technology. I still consider myself as lagging behind my peers in the thorough understanding of cutting edge technology and trends in the communications/media market. Lately, I can’t make it through the day without Googling something. In fact, moments ago, I Googled “number of Google searches 2007”. Unfortunately to no avail, I was not successful in finding a specific number. In Battelle’s book, published in 2006, he discusses the discrepancy among what the company reports and what actually is fact. In the Playboy featured interview of Brin and Page (Google’s founders) released in August 2003, there were reports that the Google site was a host to 65 million visitors daily (later that was corrected by the interviewees as being 65 million monthly) (Battelle, 2006, p.224). I had difficulty grasping the number so I tried visualizing what 65 million people would look like. The population of Illinois in 2005 was 12,763,371 (Factmonster.com). Then again, what does a million people look like? A standard school bus seats 66 kids (3 kids per seat). Many of us can relate to jamming into a school bus seat 3 across and 22 benches deep in grade school. Even at around 4’ give or take a few inches tall, we felt crowded. There you were among 65 kids traveling to your school, visualize that for a second. Multiply that by about 15,151 and that is how many busses it would take to facilitate one million kids. Google boasts 65 million, that’s roughly 984,848 school busses loaded to the maximum with passengers. Humor me one more time on this; Soldier Field holds a max capacity of 61,500. If each visit to Google represented one seat, it would take nearly 1057 soldier fields to house all of those site visits. 

            The big deal about 65 million Google site visits is that all of those people are curious about something or perhaps multiple things. Therefore, the inquiries accrue from site taps to a number far greater. In 2001, what once was this specialized and unpopular search tool became the curiosity cure for Americans in a time of catastrophe. As Battelle explains it, the servers for television news websites simply could not facilitate the swarms of people inquiring about September 11.  And thus, people more than ever before Googled. People tailored their search to result in personalized news (2006, p.143). The search results that were returned to the user were controlled by the algorithmic style that catapulted Google to contemporary notoriety. The basis of citation rank underlying it and described as, “…given [a] paper’s [web page’s (including any form or content)] importance can be ascertained by noting how many other papers [web pages] link through to that paper [web page] through citation” (Battelle, 2006, p. 71). Seven years ago, Google was bolstered to superiority and today it is going further with its capacity to bring people customized news.

As today’s Topix weblog “Welcome to the Neighborhood, Google” appropriately acknowledges, Google is embarking on Zip code level targeted news. As Google has proven a capacity to capitalize on and be the ringleader of the internet market, Topix should undoubtedly feel threatened. The affiliate and writer of the blog (tolles) of the company, asserts that Topix is ignoring the buzz about a potential bully. Topix claims that to date, citizen media strengthens its capacities. Loyal visitors to the site lend themselves to the larger scale services provided by Topix with the option, and self-administered responsibility of adding to the news. Topix provides the latest news information from mainstream press, government sources, weather sources, industry sources and blogs. Two years ago, in response to a mass overflow of information administered to Topix via feedback forms, Topix forums were created. These forums are the holding pen for citizen posts, the essence of citizen media and local news. These forums now comprise 60% of the articles deemed as original news sources. Uniquely associated with various news articles, is the ongoing commentary that Topix facilitates for its site users.  People openly express their ideas and thoughts on the stories featured on the site. Tolles, on behalf of Topix, closes the blog with confidence in saying, “ And hey Google- if you ever decide that you’d like to add more content around localities (since we feel your pain around the lack of news in small towns), we have a couple of ideas for you…” (http://blog.topix.com/archives/000193.html).