Media such as the radio, television, newspaper, and movies are referred to as broadcast media since it acts as a megaphone that ‘broadcasts’ to the rest of the world – one sender to many receivers. Other kinds of media such as the phone, cell phone, or fax are communications media where it is like a tube that connects one end to the other – a two way conversation. The new media or the internet web2.0 is a combination of the two where a group conversation can happen between many senders or receivers, which is called many-to-many. This new many-to-many media changes the ways of media filtering by allowing more audience/users to participate in filtering things that are published. It also encourages people to share their works by the feedbacks, suggestions or advices they get from others.
The traditional media filtering is mostly controlled by professional publishers that decide what should/should not be published. Since broadcasting on television, radio, and newspaper are expensive, there are limits to what can be published. Therefore, the “good work has to be sorted from the mediocre in advance of publication” (97). I think this strategy of filtering before publishing does not give much choice to the audience since they would have to rely on the judgment/choice of the publisher for the best quality of work. The viewers don’t get to participate in the filtering so it sometimes creates some bias since television companies may think a show would not be popular/liked by the public. Television programs may cancel or censor a show from being broadcasted, which may cause disappointment in audiences that want to watch it. The internet on the other hand can now ‘replace’ the television since websites allow people to find shows or programs they want to see such as on Megavideo, TVlinks, Veoh TV, or YouTube. Now the audience is able to control and filter what they want to see with these open platforms.
Today, mass amateurization where anyone can publish anything makes filteration by professionals impossible with the large amount of material posted everyday on the internet. Filtering in new media production changed from being ‘filter, then publish’ into ‘publish, then filter’. When a video is posted on a site such as YouTube, people can rate, favorite, comment, or flag the video. Ratings help the audience know whether the video is interesting or not and can encourage people to watch it. Flaging a video would let the audience know that some content in the video might be offensive or inappropriate for certain ages of people. These actions of using such tools like ratings and flaging show how the public has been able to take part in filtering media that gets posted. Comments on videos allows viewers to ask questions or discuss the issues or content in the videos, whether if it’s something that interests people; cultural differences/misunderstandings; advices on certain topics; or even ‘how did you do that’ questions. These “conversations that forms around shared photos, videos, weblog posts and the like” (99) allow people to critique works, share information, give suggestions…etc. After posting my food instructable on the Instructables site, I was surprised by how much feedback I got from other users. Some people even suggested different ingredients to put while others asked questions or gave encouraging comments. This shows how open platforms can “offer the kind of advice, feedback, and encouragement that characterizes communities of practice” (102).
