Found in the introduction section of the article, the purpose of the study was to determine the specific patterns in regards to the journalist-audience interaction on a familiar social network app, Twitter. In the introduction, the purpose of the study was also to identify the types of relationships that could emerge if both groups were to utilize the service, in reference to the use of Twitter. Therefore, the introduction emphasizes that the article would then pinpoint its focus on Twitter activities, in relation to a particular Swedish talk show known as Hubinette, which premiered on Swedish public television during the fall of 2011. It was in the introduction of the article where it became clear the type of research used within this study, and that is quantitative research. The study uses quantitative research because in the introduction of the article, it states that for the purpose of the study, Twitter messages (tweets) which were pertinent for the show were composed throughout the whole season, in which an all-inclusive essential examination of the online communicative patterns took place amongst the staff and audience members. For one to understand how quantitative research was used in the study, it's essential to know what quantitative research is. Quantitative research is research that generates numerical data or information that can be converted into numbers. Towards the end of the introduction, it is mentioned that a total of 2,314 messages were collected and analyzed for the purpose of the study. Thus, the act of gathering this information (messages) can be accurately defined as quantitative research. The next section of the article pertains to the literature review, where the relationship between journalists and audiences online is described. In the beginning of the review, a brief clarification of both sides of the relationship is provided, based on recent assessments. On the one hand, the review notes that audiences and their ingestion of news suggested that "online news consumers have not behaved radically different from traditional media audiences,  whereas other research shows that media practitioners have been utterly sluggish and often wary when it comes to the features the internet makes accessible. The review goes on to explain in further detail the differences in results in regards to messages relative to the Swedish show, Hubinette. At first, it talks about the style of the messages received, and how they were generally classified according to a dichotomous heuristic. The review talks about when a woman named Singer did an interview of U.S. newspaper journalists and editors, and how she found that most all of her respondents observed what was known as the gatekeeping role, containing less of a selection and more of a recommendation for content. The review explains that the size of a metaphorical wave, such as audience generated content, can prove difficult for journalists to handle. One thing I noticed done well throughout this review is that when explaining the relationship between journalists and audiences, it provides credible references such as quoting the author, providing the author, year and page number of a reference used in the review and most of all, being unbiased. In providing an understanding and clarification of both sides of the relationship, the review successfully steers clear of bias and provides the reader the opportunity to evaluate each side of the relationship. This is vital in any form of research, because bias stems from a direct line of opinionated information, and in research, facts are what make the research credible, not one's personal feelings or thoughts on the subject. This literature review also delivers dependable examples that relate to the specific research at hand, such as other researchers and the methods they employed in their own study, which allows the reader justification in what the review states. Whilst reading this article,