![\"DanielDayLewis\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.richmond.edu\/greetingsfromrichmond\/files\/2016\/04\/DanielDayLewis.png?ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>When onlooker Michael Phillips decided to capture and share a photo of Academy-Award winning actor Daniel Day-Lewis eating at a Richmond restaurant via Twitter he contributed to the ever-growing repository of user-generated content that is the substance of social media. Currently, consumers of media are also producers of media in a way that blurs the <\/span>lines of distinction<\/span><\/a> between mass and folk cultural production. Objects produced for and by small, localized groups of people, such as a photo for a modest number of Twitter followers, have the potential to reach and appeal to a wider audience. In the case of the photo snapped by Philips, the picture ended serving as the <\/span>go-to photo<\/span><\/a> of Day-Lewis in Richmond for a number of news outlets. Whether intentional or not, Phillips had clandestinely provided content that reached an audience beyond the realm of his social media following. Snapshots like the one that Phillips captured contextualize a cultural phenomenon wherein anyone from the masses has the authority to create and disseminate content for the masses in a way that democratizes media and how it functions in our society. As the boundaries between consumption and production collapse on social media, it becomes increasingly important to consider how that collapse contributes to both the defiance and replication of the hierarchies present in traditional media.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>While the shift toward more equitable media production is promising to those who desire to break down the unbalanced power dynamic between producers and consumers, others foresee the danger in this breakdown. Vanguards of traditional media, who are weary of the shift, fear the possibility of sharing the same stage with those who are not knowledgeable about the content they are producing. When the highly informed and the less informed have the potential to reach similarly sized audiences, the potential for the masses to be misled is increased. However, the potential for misleading has always been a factor in the collection, presentation, and dissemination of materials and ideas. The difference was that those who held the reigns of media were the only ones who had the potential to mislead and now <\/span>the door is open<\/span><\/a> to anyone with a smartphone and a high-speed Internet connection. The fear of potential deceit should be tempered in a way that does not close the gate to cultural production and dissemination to everyday citizens.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Someone who happened to be sitting in the same restaurant as the actor captured the Day-Lewis photo. Phillips was not affiliated with the news media in any capacity but what he took ended up in a newspaper nonetheless. Phillips shared the photo with his Twitter followers in an act that opened his cultural product up to the rest of the world. The existence of social media allowed Phillips to create a product that was instantly available to his hundreds of followers. Twitter users are individual <\/span>consumers who make reflective decisions<\/span><\/a> on what information they want coming up on the Twitter feeds.<\/span> Although they are referred to as \u201cfollowers,\u201d the relationship between a Twitter user and their followers is different from the relationship between traditional media outlets and their consumers. On Twitter and other social media sites the barrier of interaction between leader and follower is lower. In the social media arena, one is both able and encouraged to directly interact and react to other people\u2019s content in real time. All of those floating out in the social media space have the same forums of creation. For example, everyone on Twitter has access to 140 characters and the use of photos and GIFs to create their content. In contrast, producers of a television show have way more access to equipment, networks, and advertisers than the average person. Thus, their ability to reach the masses is greater than that of the average person. Social media levels the playing field of access and allows everyday people to contribute significantly to mass media.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>Although social media does a lot to democratize cultural production, it still replicates the existing hierarchical distinctions in society. Often, celebrities and other noteworthy individuals are given a blue checkmark next to their name on Twitter. The checkmark signifies that their account is verified and they are who they say they are. The mark of distinction essentially separates the ordinary from the extraordinary. Although this mark exists, and users understand its significance, the mark does not significantly determine your ability to reach a wide audience. Even as social media replicates the existing social structures it inherently undermines them as well. In fact, someone on Twitter does not need to have a lot of followers to have their content be widespread. All they need is for consumers of their content to enjoy it enough to like and retweet it. In that way users just like them legitimize content. In contrast, content often goes through multiple levels of legitimization by tastemakers whose job it is to decide whether something makes the cut within traditional mass media. Whatever makes the cut is then broadcasted to an audience that only gets to give their stamp of approval after the fact and often do not directly give their feedback on the content to the tastemakers.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>When the tastemakers at the <\/span>Richmond Times-Dispatch<\/span><\/i> decided to use the shot snapped by an enthusiastic fan, they effectually placed their endorsement upon the user generated content. Instead of using a photo captured by someone on staff, the editors looked to social media for their shot. They chose to go through the trouble of contacting Phillips and getting his permission to use the photograph. The explosion of mobile technology and social media is making it easier for citizens and non-professionals to capture and share images. This trend has allowed traditional media to rely less often on professional photographers. The combination of budget cuts hitting newsrooms and the prevalence of user-generated content has had photographers feeling the <\/span>brunt of job cuts<\/span><\/a>. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The image that Phillips captured of Day-Lewis is so arresting because it is so simple and candid. It has the power of being both intimate and not overly intrusive. It circulated beyond the Richmond news sphere and made it into national publications like the <\/span>Hollywood Reporter<\/span><\/i><\/a> , <\/span>US Magazine<\/span><\/i><\/a> , and <\/span>CBS News<\/span><\/a>. Often using the word \u201cspotted\u201d in the headline, the publications pointed to the surreptitious context of the photograph. Day-Lewis is known for his relative reclusivity so for a candid image of him to appear in the news media was remarkable. Although it is simply an image of him sitting down in a restaurant, the opportunity to gaze into the \u201creal\u201d life of a celebrity is a coveted prize within our cultural context. <\/span><\/p>\n Everyday billions of bytes worth of information is uploaded onto the Internet. Everyday people around the world produce and share that information. In this way, everyone is the curator of news and everyone is also a curator of the kind of information they receive by nature of whom they chose to follow on social media. As the gap between social and mass media narrows it becomes increasingly important for cultural critics to note the <\/span>implications of that breakdown<\/span><\/a>. We must consider what it means when consumers are also producers of mass media. The scale of cultural hegemony tilts as content increasingly becomes user generated. The masses create cultural products and the masses also consume those same cultural products. Although traditional media still occupies a stronghold of legitimacy, they are increasingly losing their grip on the monopoly of legitimacy. People are looking toward their peers to give them \u201cthe real.\u201d Social media allows the veil of production to be drawn back. People today are attracted to what they feel is a more authentic version of reality than what is presented in the mass media.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Further Reading<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Deborah Lupton, <\/span>Digital Sociology<\/span><\/i>. New York: Routledge, 2015<\/span><\/p>\n Graham Meikle, <\/span>Social Media: Communication, Sharing and Visibility<\/span><\/i>. New York: Routledge, 2016.<\/span><\/p>\n Susan Greenfield, <\/span>Mind Change: How Digital Technologies are Leaving Their Mark on our Brains<\/span><\/i>. New York: Random House, 2015.<\/span><\/p>\n Zeynep Tufekci, “Social Media\u2019s Small, Positive Role in Human Relationships.” [http:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/technology\/archive\/2012\/04\/social-medias-small-positive-role-in-human-relationships\/256346\/]<\/span>The Atlantic<\/span><\/i>, April 25, 2012. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"