Very interesting article, but it does miss a serious consequence of Obama’s internet-savvy presidency: the lack of transparency when it comes to the media. Obama promised to usher in the most transparent administration in history, but it turned out to be one of the most opaque. Former NY Times Exec Editor Jill Abramson called the administration “the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering.” USA Today’s Susan Page said the administration was “more restrictive” and “more dangerous” to the media than any other in history. The Washington Post hasn’t been granted a one-on-one interview with the president since 2009.

This is partly because the administration doesn’t have to rely on the media to get its message out. The White House instead uses its website and social media to release carefully crafted statements, pictures, and videos to supplement traditional news coverage. And after 7.5 years, many news orgs appear to be well-trained, appropriating these cookie-cutter bits into their own publications.

Ultimately, you’re right — “the way we consume news changed, as did…the way we look [at] 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.” In part because we had Obama “in our pocket” — but also because he had us in his.