Week 11 - Conclusion: Audience Agency in New Contexts
Welcome back and for the last time this time!
How we define audiences has changed throughout the years. Audience members are not only consuming anymore, we are also producing, as shown last week. Sullivan (2013) has helped us to explore the concept of media audiences from multiple perspectives: as objects, as active users, as fans, as subcultures, and as media producers. Sullivan (2013) believes that ‘’by now it should be clear that the definition of term ‘audience’ has been contested throughout its history’’ (p.239). Even I, as I grew up and gained knowledge on the topic, understands that I have been an audience members in so many different contexts. One of the audience shifts that Sullivan (2013) discusses is mobile platform audience experiences. Going from the printing press which allowed people to take the content that they read, to consuming and producing content on mobile phones at any time, in any place. He also discusses transmedia audience experiences. By this he refers to ‘’the coordinated use of multiple media platforms (or technologies) to craft a narrative’’ (Sullivan, 2013, p.241). This phenomenon demonstrates the role of technology in media audience. An example of this could be how the movement Me Too used multiple media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, news broadcasting, etc., in order to raise awareness to a social issue.
This is closely related to paratexts. Paratexts refer to ‘’textual material that surrounds media narratives and informs us about them’’ (Sullivan, 2013, p.241). An example of this could be the movie the Simpsons. It is not part of the main series, but it surrounds the same narrative of this dysfunctional family and gives us extra information on these characters.
Sullivan (2013) also talks about content on demand. The long tail represents this well and it ‘’demonstrates the result of fragmentation. Most audiences focus their viewing on a few very popular media products or hit programs (the head), but the rest of viewer attention is spread across a larger group of much smaller, niche content options (the tail)’’ (p.243). Examples of the head could be shows such as the Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, The Big Bang Theory, etc. Examples of the tail could be shows such as American Pickers, Iron Chef, etc.
These changes mean that the power dynamic between media institutions and audience members has shifted in the direction of the audience. Sullivan (2013) argues that ‘’the concept (of the audience) is more important than ever but that scholars should pay careful attention to the shifting boundaries between media texts and the audience’’ (p.245).
In her article ‘’Audiences in an age of datafication: Critical questions for media research’’, Livingstone (2019) explains the shift in power for audiences. We understand this going from her article discussing interviews and how they give power to audience members in 2010, to audience research in the digital age as a focus. She explains that ‘’in today’s heavy climate of media panics – over so-called fake news, election hacking, Internet and smartphone addiction, the algorithmic amplification of hate speech, viral scams, filter bubbles and echo chambers, discriminatory data profiling and data breaches, the crisis in quality journalism, the demise of face-to-face conversion, and a host of digital anxieties about youth – fears about audience gullibility, ignorance, and exploitation are again heightened in popular and academic debate’’ (Livingstone, 2019, p.171). She explains that this is happening because of this phenomenon called datafication, which is ‘’the quantification, recording, and analysis of a phenomenon or, more ambitiously, the world and the human activity it includes (Mayer-Schonberger and Cukier, 2013, as cited in Livingstone, 2019, p.171). This phenomenon now gives power to people researching and gaining audience members’ data. But Livingstone (2019) insists on the fact that we should not assume we know the trajectory result of audience trends because of technology and datafication. This is a direction connection and opposing point to Athique’s argument seen last week. Livingstone (2019) explains this to be ‘’an invitation to attend to the conditions of meaning-making, to amplify audiences’ voices in the interests of social justice, and to imagine with them alternative futures.’’ (Livingstone, 2019, p.175). The synthesis of Livingstone’s article can be understood as her encouragement for us to stop seeing this debate as a media power versus audience power.
This was your blogger Comm King, and this time it is not a joke, this is good bye. Hope you enjoyed these two seasons of Audience Studies with me! See you later!
-Comm King

















