The Difference between New Media Audiences and Mass Media Audience - Case Study Example

Name Subject & Code: Lecturer: Date: Changing Approaches to ‘Audiences’ The term “audience” has been synonymous with “receivers” within the basic sequential model of the mass communication process, namely channel, source, message, receiver, effect (Livingstone 2b). Like many scholars of the last 4 decades, Ang (15) perceives audiences as an outcome of a social context, as well as a response to certain media provision. Ruddock (147) adds that the overlapping spheres that influence media use are also intensified by factors like availability, time use, lifestyle, and everyday routines. Hence, it is argued that while the term ‘audience’ appears to be clear in its definition, it is actually an unclear concept described by variable and intersecting factors, such as place, media, people, content and time, and political belief. These factors have contributed to the changing concepts of ‘audience’ from live, to passive and ultimately to active audience. This essay examines the changing approaches to ‘audiences.’ In this paper, the issues arising in the reconsideration of audiences as an object of research and the difference between new media audiences and mass media audience are examined. Changing concepts of audience According to Livingstone (1-12b), the audience is a heterogeneous group and, therefore, difficult to identify for analysis. Instead, Ruddock (147) suggests a plurality of audiences, from which he suggests that an audience consists of disparate groups of individuals who are categorized based on their reception of various media and their cultural and social positioning. While such a definition has some conceptual complexities, Livingstone (4-12b) shows this by pointing upon Radway’s (1988) seminal work that summated the origin of the term ‘audience.’ In Livingstone’s (4-12b) view, Radway’s (1988) considers the original definition of “audience” as referring to the act of listening in face-to-face communication, where people share a direct physical space. In a later study, however, Bondad-Brown et al (471-2) states that the contemporary usage of the term is applied to integrate the end-users of electronic mediated messages. Basing on this premise, Livingstone (1-12b) indicates that the audience is dispersed, and, therefore, is increasingly trickier to agree on who or what makes up an audience (p. 359). Livingstone (12-18a) conducted a review of literature published between 1985 and 2000 to examine the changing nature of audiences, specifically from the mass audience to the interactive audience. Livingstone (16) provided a historical background of the concept of audience. In his view, the earliest conceptualization of the term audience in the media studies primarily described a mass of indistinct people who are unknown to the creator of messages before transforming into a community of unstructured individuals focused on the use of a certain media text. This hints to the shift from live audience and mass audience, and later to the active audience (Biocca 54-8). Livingstone (16a) further provides a history of the concept of audience, which provides a highlight of the changes of the concept of audience. In his article of the shift from mass audience to interactive audience, Livingstone (12-18a) explains that the concept has shifted from live audience to mass audience and into new media audience. In his view, the remarkable shift from live theatre audience, political meetings and spectacles to the distributed audience of mass communication happened in regards to the book and the press, than due to the institutional and cultural mass media innovation, as well as mass literacy. While the live audience was distinguished by face-to-face communication among individuals gathered at a point, the audience of the 17th and 18th century was largely receptive than participatory, they were also spread rather than co-locate and privatised rather than public. This concept, Livingstone (16-17a) shows, changed during the mass media era where the audience became more public than privatised. The concept of the audience changed in the 19th century where reception became more interiorized leading to a mass audience. The new mass media audience comprised an individual who sat on a sofa and watched television, and focusing on understanding In a related study, Livingstone (1-12b) examined the challenge of changing audiences and what researchers need to the internet age. He surveyed articles published between 1979 and 2000 and revealed that that earlier scholars suggested that the possibility of a fully active audience, which has been realised during the internet age. An analysis of Livingstone (1-12b) and Livingstone’s (16a) works, on the current concept of audience, shows that the present-day conceptualizations perceives an audience to be a network of people with the capability to interact with the source of the message regarding a certain object of interest in the media. Nevertheless, the concept of audience is studied as community of individuals. On the other hand, when an individual is studied, he is described as a media user or audience member. Livingstone (1-3b) shows that when the group is organized and has the capacity to influence the society or some form of social institution, and, therefore, collectively a society, then the audience would be described as a public. The mass audience is more of a public audience, while the 17th and 18th century live audience was largely a private audience. Nguyen and Mark (1) have echoed such remarks in their study on the relationship between the internet and traditional mass media. Nguyen and Mark (1) conducted secondary data analysis of a national survey of 4270 Australians in 2003. They used hypothesis testing for the mean, a linear regression analysis and partial correlations and established that the internet has changed the concept of the audience. In fact, Nguyen and Mark (1) suggested that the new media, through a gradual displacement process, have driven out the traditional concepts. Still, in respect to gaining an insight into mass entertainment media audiences like films, the audience becomes the key focus. This also applies to whether the concern is on establishing the reasons why an audience utilizes the media, or media effects on them. These findings are inconsistent with conclusions made by Orewere (53) in his study to examine the implications of mass media for traditional communication in the Nigerian rural setting. The researcher concluded that despite the changing concept, the traditional media will retain its role in transmitting information, knowledge as well as cultivation of believes. Orewere (51) however failed to show the changing concepts of audience. Many scholars also agree that traditionally, the audience was classified based on their demographic features. Such processes of segmenting the audience are prompted traditionally by two factors: the need for better persuasion of the audience, and the objective for better protection of the vulnerable (Nguyen and Mark 1; Orewere 53; Livingstone 1-3b). Rosa (145) studied transition from mass communication to new media resulting to a new concept of participatory culture. Using document analysis, Rosa (145) clarified that the participatory culture brought about by the new technologies, specifically the social media platforms, have transformed communication among the audience, resulting to an active audience from the initially passive audience. The social media, Rosa (145) suggests, brought about an open-content distribution platform where the source of the content and the audience or recipients communicate. Similar trends of research have pointed at the features of potential audiences that are highly vulnerable to the persuasive elements of the media. Originating from effects of media concerns during the late 1800s and towards the early 1900s, the unique populations were initially studied by media effects scholars prompted be the need to establish the implications of the new mass media on them. Studies on media tend to consider the aspects of people a media can influence as well as impact of the media on them. Traditionally, young person have been studied with the view of avoiding negative behaviours while simultaneously encouraging socially acceptable ones. A new body of research currently continues segmenting the prospective audience based on demography, including age, gender, ethnicity, and class (Bondad-Brown et al 471-2). The reason for this is to understand blatantly the boundaries that may explain the differences of the media effects. The historical polarization between active and passive audience also explains the changes in the concept of ‘audience’. The all-powerful direct effects or "hypodermic” model was promoted, based on the assumptions on traditional media effects that were first conceived nearly a century ago. The model considered an audience as a body of passive individuals. Boicca (54-8) explains that this kind of audience was viewed to be keen recipients of the messages of media. On the other hand, their willingness implied that they were highly vulnerable to influence. Still, during the mid-20th Century, the uses-and-gratifications approach challenged the model. The new approach showed that the active audience, comprised people who differed in their attention to, selection of as well as interpretation of the messages passed by the media. Since then, studies on media effects have mostly shifted to conditional model, which takes account of all variables factors that shape media impacts on the audience. Despite the changes in the concept of change, the audience remains important for analysis of the modern-day communication environment. Livingstone (12-16b) reviewed the challenges of the changing audiences due to the new media. Following his review of past literature online audience, Livingstone (1-12b) established that discovering the challenges of the changing audience remains a methodological challenge, particularly discovering what they are feeling and thinking while engaging with the new media, current research evidence shows that without the physical presence of people as well as their visible participation in the communication process, there may be no reception. This therefore implies that while the concept of 'audience" has surely changed, the audience still remains important for analysis of the modern-day communication environment. Difference between Mass Media and New Media Over the last 5 decades of theory construction and research on the concept of media, it is clear that a form of theoretical contest has existed between the active audience and the passive audience. The active audience, Livingstone (1-12b) argues, is individualistic in nature, selective, rational and impervious to influence. On the other hand, the passive audience is conformist, victims, vulnerable, gullible. Biocca’s (51-52) based his research on underlying theories of media studies. This authenticated his view of concerning passive and active massive media. Relying on Mass Communication theory, Biocca (52) pointed out that the theory provides explanation regarding the media’s sociopolitical role, the audience's cognitions of reality and self in addition to the real-time cognitive processes that the audience interprets media content. Most importantly, Biocca (51) applied the theory to create and examine the theoretical elements of the concepts of "active audience" and their activity. What can be concluded from Biocca’s analysis is that the mass media audience was typically a ‘passive audience.’ On the other hand, the new media audience is an “active” audience. Within this regard, it could be argued that to Biocca (51-54), the idea of an “active audience” is a key player in shaping the form of media content that the source has to make. In fact, some theorists have explained that the active audience and audience activity are basic tenets and are both crucial for the study of mass communication effects. For some commentators such as Biocca, active audience theory is in itself an overriding concept in effects research. According to (51-52) the new media audience has new media consumption behaviour where activity exists before use of media (pre-activity), during the use of media (dura-activity), and after the use of the media (post-activity). In his review, Livingston (11a) suggested that the active audiences are required to take part physically and audibly, even as their activities are easy to observe. For instance, the users, or the audience, click on hypertext links to create and sustain a continual flow of information on the internet. They also type to construct the messages. Additionally, they accumulate auditable references to the content they select using 'history files,' 'folders', favourites, and 'bookmarks' and downloads. It is therefore clear that Biocca’s work gave birth to a changeable and considerably flexible meta-construct that is unquestionably intricate and multidimensional in nature. Critically, each facet seeks to describe an intangible process called "activity." Indeed, a review of earlier literature on active audience, such as Rubin’s (293) works, shows that while the concept of audience has been used expansively in the mass communication research and mass communication theory during the last three decades, some theorists still tend to avoid undertaking a relatively adequate theoretical exposition of the idea of “activity,” and instead say that idea of ‘activity” is ambiguous and therefore not easy to define. Compared to the traditional media, audience activity is intrinsically selective in the new media. Basing his assumptions on the concepts of selective attention, selective perception, and selective retention, Biocca (55) attempts to portray audience activity as the filtering activity of media content and program selection. In this regard, it is possible to conclude that the new media provides the audience with a choice to select what media programs to watch or media content to consume. Earlier researchers on the idea of audience activity attempted some explanations regarding the idea of ‘selectivity.” In his review of literature to conceptualise and determine the impacts of an active audience, Levy (110) suggested that the idea of selectivity is usually applied to imply denote selective exposure. Considering these perspectives, it is possible to reason that the concept of the ‘audience’ has changed depending on the changing forms of media over the past four decades since Biocca (55) and Levy (110) made their review of the concept of ‘active audience.” In fact, the traditional mass media that relied on TV had limited exposure to options, this limited ‘selectivity” in the mass media audience. In turn, passive audience prevailed. On the other hand, the new media forms such as social media have led to the emergence of an active audience. The active audience has greater exposure to media content and forms, which provides them with better selectivity by just clicking on a hypertext link. In the new media, audience activity signifies "utilitarianism.” Biocca (55-57) points to the idea of utilitarianism in his review of the changing concepts of audience. While extending his view on the idea of selectivity, Biocca (51) shows that theorists who tend to use the idea of utilitarianism attempt to underscore the utility of the process of selectivity or choice. Critically, the audience or use of new media represents a self-interested consumer. Indeed, the new media audience has tended to be more self-interested than the mass media audience. Yet, more than just selectivity that in some instances the audience shows a particular tendency for defensiveness, the utilitarian account of the concept of a active audience suggests a particular level of rational choice in satisfying clear audience member needs and motives. In fact, this is what characterises the new media, where the audience members only select content they can use, which leaves the source or creator of the content to put extra efforts to tailor the content to each particular need of the audience member. This is typical in the social media, where contents on blog are targeted for a particular audience. This shows a divergence from the traditional mass media audience where the audience members were forced to use any content on television, rather than select content based on their interests. The concept of audience has changed with the shift in ‘intentionality’ of the audience activity. Based on document analysis of literature on the idea of changing ‘intentionality’ of the audience, Tomasello and Carpenter (122-4) arrived at a conclusion that audience activity in the new media shows more indications of ‘intentionality” compared to the traditional mass media. In his view, the idea of intentionality shows the cognitive elements of activity. Simply put, it indicates the schematic processing and configuration of received content or message. Smit (5) clearly showed that media attention and consumption has become more schemas driven. In fact, Biocca (54-58) relates the changing concept of audience to the changing patterns of memory and consumption that depict the personality, motivation, as well as individual cognitive processing structure of the audience member. The concept of audience has also changed with the shift in the level of ‘involvement’ of the audience members. Domingo (342-6) also conducted a study on participatory journalism. His ideas on on the changing participatory levels of the audience and Biocca’s (54-58)review of literature on changing concepts of the media show that "cognitive effort" is at the centre of theoretical and methodological debate on the changing concepts of audience. Biocca (57) applies the term involvement to show the level of arousing the audience and the degree of cognitive information organisation and structuring. Basing on this premise, it could be reasoned that the term ‘involvement’ has marked the changes in the concept of the audience. In the traditional mass media, the audience has limited involvement or participation in the communication process, except for ‘parasocial involvement’ where one talks back to the TV. With the new media, the audience has higher levels of involvement, as they can communicate back to the creators of the message or content. An example includes commenting directly on an advertiser’s Facebook wall or blog, and receives immediate feedback. The concept of audience has also changed with the rise in the audience’s power to influence the media effects on them. Biocca (54-8) terms such a tendency "imperviousness to influence.” Biocca, in his document analysis, shows that "imperviousness to influence" is basically a socio-political "outcome" of the concept. It is, therefore, for many scholars like Livingstone (16a), the effect of the audience in the process of mass communication that makes them "imperviousness to influence.” To some theorists "impervious to influence" is a form of the audience’s goal of activity, through which they limit influences of the media and seek control of the media effects. Such an activity, according to Livingstone (16a), is usually depicted as challenging the goals and intentions of the communicator of creator. Conclusion In conclusion, although the term ‘audience’ appears to be clear in its definition, it is actually an unclear concept described by variable and intersecting factors such as place, media, people, content and time, and political belief. These factors have contributed to the changing concepts of ‘audience’ from live, to passive and ultimately to active audience This concept of audience changed during from live audience to the passive audience mass media era where the audience became more public than privatised. Participatory culture brought about by the new technologies such as internet and social also transformed communication among the audience, resulting to an active audience from the passive audience. New media audience (active) and mass media audience (passive) are significantly different. The new media audience activity is intrinsically selective in the new media. The concept of audience has changed with the shift in ‘intentionality’ of the audience activity, the level of ‘involvement’ of the audience members and the rise in the audience’s power to influence the media effects on them. Works Cited Ang, Ien. “Living Room Wars: Rethinking Media Audiences.” Routledge: New York, 2006, pp15-71 Biocca, Frank. “Opposing Conceptions of the Audience: The Active and Passive Hemispheres of Mass Communication Theory.” Communication Yearbook II, pp. 51-80 Bondad-Brown, Beverly, Ronald Rice, and Katy Pearce. "Influences on TV Viewing and Online User-shared Video Use: Demographics, Generations, Contextual Age, Media Use, Motivations, and Audience Activity." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56.4, 471–493 Domingo, David, Thorsten Quandt, Ari Heinonen, Steve Paulussen, Jane B. Singer, and Marina Vujnovic. "Participatory Journalism Practices In The Media And Beyond." Journalism Practice 3.2 (2008): 326-342 Haridakis, Paul and Whitmore, Evonne. Understanding Electronic Media Audiences: The Pioneering Research of Alan M. Rubin. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 50, No. 4 , December 2006 Levy, M. (1983). Conceptualizing and measuring aspects of audience "activity." Journalism Quarterly. 60, 109-115. Livingstone, S. “The Changing Nature of Audiences: from the Mass Audience to the Interactive Media User.” Blackwell Publishing: London, 2003 Livingstone, S. "The Challenge of Changing Audiences: or What is the Researchers to do in the Age of the Internet." Journal of Communication 19.1 (2004b): 75-86 Nguyen, An & Western, Mark. "The complementary relationship between the Internet and traditional mass media: the case of online news and information." Information Research 11.3 (2006): 1-12 Orewere, Ben. "Possible Implications of Modern Mass Media for Traditional Communication in a Nigerian Rural Setting." Africa Media Review 5.3 (1991): 53-65 Rosa, Antonio. "From mass communication to new media: a network perspective." Observatorio Journal, 6.3 (2012): 145-176 Rubin, A. M. (1986). “Uses, gratifications, and media effects research.” In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Perspectiveso n media effects( pp. 281-302). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Stefanone, Michael, Derek Lackaff, and Devan Rosen. "The Relationship between Traditional Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 54(3), 2010, pp. 508–525Mass Media and ‘‘Social Media’’: Reality Television as a Model for Social Network Site Behavior." Ruddock, Andy. “Understanding Audiences: Theory and Method.” SAGE: New York, 2000 pp147 Smit, Edith. "Mass Media Advertising: Information Or Wallpaper?" Het Spinhuis: Amsterdam, 1999 Tomasello, Michael and Carpenter, Malinda. "Blackwell Publishing Ltd Shared intentionality." Developmental Science 10.1 (2007): 121–125 Read More