Grady-hosted panel discusses the importance of the internet to the world of television

After apologizing for his tardiness, Dr. Horace Newcomb of the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communications smiles as he looks out at the small crowd of University of Georgia faculty and students that sit before him.

"How many of you have seen the Susan Boyle video?" he asks over a low hum of chattering voices. Silently replying, nearly everyone in the audience raises their hand.

"How many of you have seen it more than once?" he then questions. 

Again, almost every hand goes up, and Dr. Horace Newcomb has just made his first point of the evening's panel: "viral videos" are now more "viral" (and powerful) than ever before. In the words of Dr. Newcomb, they are "blowing up."

Appearing live on Britain's Got Talent last Saturday night, 47-year-old Susan Boyle wowed a whopping 10 million British viewers as she sang I Dreamed a Dream from Les Miserables. Moments after the broadcast, a video of her astounding performace appeared on YouTube; having garnered nearly 16 million views worldwide since then, this 3-minutes-and-45-second-long stream has transformed the humble churchgoer into an international singing sensation, as well as increased the viewership of Britain's Got Talent.

Having this such dual effect, then, the "Susan Boyle story" speaks volumes for the changing relationship between television and the computer. Specifically, it demonstrates how the internet has become a place for audience interaction in the world of television through user-created online content.

One place where such interaction occurs is on online blogging and networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogspot.com. Aaron Barnhart, writer for the Kansas City Star newspaper and creator of the blog TVBarn, takes hold of the microphone and comments that the internet has the capability of making TV criticism more sophisticated. "There are many more channels to monitor now, and lots more content," he finishes. 

TV critic and author of "The Watcher" blog for ChicagoTribune, Maureen Ryan clears her throat and adds to Barnhart's comment with the following statement: "There is different discussion among different audiences. Some people talk about what happened, speculate and theorize. Some provide responses to what other people think."

Some people, Ryan continues, also like to comment about what Ryan herself thinks. 

"It's a two-way street," she says. "It's very edifying to get a wake-up call about what people actually care about vs. what I think they care about." 

Considering herself to be an "advocate for good TV," Ryan states that her first duty is to provide an analysis of what should be watched, and her second, to serve as a go-between for creators and consumers.

"I think it's important to try to absorb and reflect the intellifence of fans. Sometimes, I relate the comments of fans to produceers of shows," Ryan goes on to say. "Peoples' passionate responses can produce actual changes in their favorite TV shows."

In addition to providing a forum for discussion among fans (and critics), as well as possibly having some influence over what happens in episodes of shows, the web is also capabale of generating greater viewership of television programs.

"Social networking sites are a way for TV to be reinvigorated," states Alisa Perren, a professor at Georgia State University in Atlanta. "People see stuff online that makes them think 'must watch now!'" 

Additionaly, the web provides viewers with access to large amounts of information about television. 

The only issue with user-created online content, then, is money. 

According to Barnhart, an hour of scripted programming on a broadcast network during Prime Time television makes the network roughly $2 million. "There's no money in user-generated content," he continues. 

Amanda Lotz, a professor at the University of Michigan, who has remained relatively quiet until now, agrees: "Ad dollars make everything on television possible," she says. "I'd love it if the internet could be monitized...we need to come up with a value proposition that appeals to both sides." 

Though the attempt of the panel is to address just that question, as well as how the relationship between television and the internet will change in the coming years (and what that means in a larger context), no one, it seems, can provide a definitive answer; the answer lies in the future. 

In his closing statement, Dr. Newcomb says almost those words exactly: "We don't have anyanswers about anything," he says. "We only know that we're in a moment of transition now that is more intense than the transition from radio to television."