Top

Published in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

4. ‘The Deal Should Be Fairer!’ Stakeholder Discourses on Intrusive Media Platforms and Interfaces

Authors : David Mathieu, Juliane Finger, Patrícia Dias, Despina Chronaki

Published in: The Future of Audiences

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In this chapter, we argue that stakeholder discourses about emerging media technologies point to a widespread lack of acknowledgment of the pressures and intrusions that affect audiences today. Engaging in a consultation with stakeholders, we identify five discursive positions that characterise the ways stakeholders look upon the issues of media pressures and intrusions. Through these discourses, we observe the widespread adoption of commercial measurements, which remain inadequate for perceiving media pressures and intrusions, as well as the difficulty of keeping up with fast-changing audience habits in a media environment that is overwhelmingly complex. Our findings invite stakeholders to engage in a reflexive and systematic recognition of these issues, which is vital for a change in practice.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Audiences’ Coping Practices with Intrusive Interfaces: Researching Audiences in Algorithmic, Datafied, Platform Societies

next chapter The Co-option of Audience Data and User-Generated Content: Empowerment and Exploitation Amidst Algorithms, Produsage and Crowdsourcing

Abercrombie, N., & Longhurst, B. (1998). Audiences: A sociological theory of performance and imagination. London: Sage. Retrieved from http://rub.ruc.dk/soeg/kviksoeg/?query=9780803989627.

Albury, K. (2017). Just because it’s public doesn’t mean it’s any of your business: Adults’ and children’s sexual rights in digitally mediated spaces. New Media & Society, 19(5), 713–725.CrossRef

Billig, M. (1997). From codes to utterances: Cultural studies, discourse and psychology. In M. Ferguson & P. Golding (Eds.), Cultural studies in question (pp. 205–226). London: Sage.CrossRef

Birkinbine, B., Gómez, R., & Wasko, J. (Eds.). (2016). Global media giants. London: Routledge.

Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, wikipedia, second life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

Buckingham, D. & Bragg, S. (2003). Young people, sex and the media: The facts of life? London: Springer.

Bulger, M., Burton, P., O’Neill, B., & Staksrud, E. (2017). Where policy and practice collide: Comparing United States, South African and European Union approaches to protecting children online. New Media & Society, 19(5), 750–764.CrossRef

Butsch, R. (2008). The citizen audience: Crowds, publics, and individuals. New York: Routledge.

Carpentier, N. (2011). New configurations of the audience? The challenges of user-generated content for audience theory and media participation. In V. Nightingale (Ed.), The handbook of media audiences (pp. 190–212). London: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.molly.ruc.dk/doi/10.1002/9781444340525.ch9/summary.

Chaudron, S., Beutel, M. E., Černikova, M., Donoso Navarette, V., Dreier, M., Fletcher-Watson, B., et al. (2015). Young children (0–8) and digital technology: A qualitative exploratory study across seven countries. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC93239.

Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Contexts, traditions, arguments. Communication Theory, 23, 191–202.CrossRef

Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Das, R., & Ytre-Arne, B. (Eds.). (2017). Audiences, towards 2030. Priorities for audience analysis. Guilford: University of Surrey. Retrieved from http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/842403/7/For%20web%20CEDAR-report.pdf.

Dias, P., & Brito, R. (2016). Crianças (0 a 8 anos) e tecnologias digitais. Lisboa: Centro de Estudos em Comunicação e Cultura, Universidade Católica Portuguesa. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/19160.

Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738.CrossRef

Habermas, J. (1989 [1969]). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hagen, I. (1999). Slaves of the ratings tyranny? Media images of the audience. In P. Alasuutari (Ed.), Rethinking the media audience: The new agenda (pp. 130–150). London: Sage.CrossRef

Helsper, E., & Reisdorf, B. (2013). A quantitative examination of explanations for reasons for internet nonuse. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(2), 94–99.CrossRef

Hughey, M. W., & Daniels, J. (2013). Racist comments at online news sites: A methodological dilemma for discourse analysis. Media, Culture and Society, 35(3), 332–347.CrossRef

Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. Updated and with a new afterword. New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.

Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.CrossRef

Lang, N. (2017). Why teens are leaving Facebook: It’s ‘meaningless’. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/02/21/why-teens-are-leaving-facebook-its-meaningless/?utm_term=.fc4afac54e66.

Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., & Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 79–100.CrossRef

Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediation of everything. ICA Presidential address. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1–18.CrossRef

Livingstone, S., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670.CrossRef

Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–794.CrossRef

Mascheroni, G., & Holloway, D. (2017). The Internet of Toys: A report on media and social discourses around young children and IoToys. DigiLitEY. Retrieved from https://publicatt.unicatt.it/handle/10807/103759.

Mathieu, D. (2015). Audience research beyond the hermeneutics of suspicion. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 11(2), 251–258.CrossRef

McAllister, M. P., & Turow, J. (2002). New media and the commercial sphere: Two intersecting trends, five categories of concern. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(4), 505–514.CrossRef

Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.

Obar, J., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2016). The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Presented at TPRC 44: The 44th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy 2016.

Picone, I. (2017). Conceptualizing media users across media: The case for ‘media user/use’ as analytical concepts. Convergence, 23(4), 378–390.CrossRef

Portwood-Stacer, L. (2012). Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption: The performative and political dimensions of Facebook abstention. New Media and Society, 15(7), 1041–1057.CrossRef

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.

Scannell, P. (1998). Media—Language—World. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schrøder, K. C. (2017). Towards the ‘audiencization’ of mediatization research? Audience dynamics as co-constitutive of mediatization processes. In O. Driessens, G. Bolin, A. Hepp, & S. Hjarvard (Eds.), Dynamics of mediatization. Institutional change and everyday transformations in a digital age. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Swist, T., & Collin, P. (2017). Platforms, data and children’s rights: Introducing a ‘networked capability approach’. New Media & Society, 19, 671–685.CrossRef

van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.

Vorderer, P., Krömer, N., & Schneider, F. M. (2016). Permanently online—Permanently connected: Explorations into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 694–703.CrossRef

Title: ‘The Deal Should Be Fairer!’ Stakeholder Discourses on Intrusive Media Platforms and Interfaces
Authors: David Mathieu
Juliane Finger
Patrícia Dias
Despina Chronaki
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: The Future of Audiences
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75637-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-75638-7

Copyright Year: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75638-7_4