Why Are Audiences Such an Important Topic of Discussion and Research for Those Interested in the Media?Essay Preview: Why Are Audiences Such an Important Topic of Discussion and Research for Those Interested in the Media?Report this essayWhy are audiences such an important topic of discussion and research for those interested in the media? Why is this discussion and research often controversial?
Without audiences media consumption, media and its industry will cease to exist. Audience research is therefore one of the most essential studies to analyse and understand. In fact, Webster (1998) declares that “it is hard to imagine any form of media studies that is not, on some level, about audiences”. In the past, the media themselves have largely controlled the terms of the audiences social participation; nowadays, the role of audience has completely changed. As Turnbull (2009, 67) states, “The shift from thinking about media audiences in terms of their reception and consumption of specific media to thinking about those audience in terms of what they do with the media is by no recent”. The essay aims to discuss and discover the importance of discussing and research media audiences for those interested in the media and why it is often controversial.
There are different reasons why people are interested in audience research, and this depends on how media audience research benefits them. These particular interests include industries such as media producers, public and government, and academics (Turnbull 2009, 69). A great example is when media producers of Big Brother are particularly interested in audience research as the function of commercial media is to deliver audiences to advertisers and therefore knowing who their audiences are and exactly what will attract and hold their attention is crucial (Turnbull 2009, 69). The industry requires this information in order to run a successful show, hence achieve profit gain (Turnbull 2009, 70). The many media platforms and technologies that were involved in the show of Big Brother illustrate the ways in which consumers can participate and interact as media audiences.
Turnbull (2009, 72) states that, the public and government interests in audience research due to concern about the media and its audiences and the fact that they are frequently responsible for what effects media may have on their audiences. In addition, it is crucial for academics to obtain information in regards to the audience in order to further understand the relationship between media and media audience (Mosco and Kaye 2000, 38). Public and government and academics concern tend to involve a specific audience groups, specific content and particular media forms (Turnbull 2009, 72), and these study subjects are usually untaken and perceived in mass, passive audiences. Government and academics concern over video games and its affect on young people and their violent behaviours demonstrates why audience research is important to them (Livingstone 2005, 22). Researchers examined the effects of media exposure on behaviour and attitudes and concluded that as youth consumes media that portrays violent behaviour, they will have violent behaviour (Livingstone 2005, 24). Although the approaches of this audience research can be controversial, the example demonstrates the importance of this research.
It is evident that audience research is important to the industries, public and government, and academics. However, the ways of their research in regards to audience research and measurement and effects media have on people are rather controversial. According to Webster (1998), in conventional audience research, such as Big Brother, people are typically sorted into a small number of categories and treated as if one person is the functional equivalent of everyone else in the category. In the case of Big Brother, audiences are sorted into watchers and non-watchers of the show. Being fans of the show, they are portrayed as audience who advertisers manipulate in order to gain profit. As Livingstone (2005) declares that, “audience research requires empirical investigation rather than a priori assumptions about audience”. Researchers should
[Page 2]
be clear as to the true value of what they are doing, and where the research is taking viewers. The goal is to discover the mechanisms of a specific relationship (e.g. socialization, audience manipulation, etc.) that might be the primary reason this would take place.
The audience research is much more complex than one might think. One will encounter it when interviewing a viewer who is a regular attendee of a program. For most of the people with whom we were to meet (people with whom to interview) we had them tell us about their own experience with advertising and the socialization, information sources, social media, and the people who were having any kind of influence on them, what was going on in their lives, and where they were from. However, the biggest issue in the audience research is what our socialization would have been had we met the people with whom we had an intimate and ongoing relationship.
The study of how our own socializing affected people’s experience with ad networks is a unique experience, as is the study of research conducted to assess the relationships between our socializing and advertising industry and the industry and people around it. It is a different study to study socializing, but it has its pitfalls, and the potential hazards they pose. (See also p. 18).
[Page 3]
Advertisers and Advertising-Industry Researchers: A Cultural Perspective. I began my professional career as a journalist, journalist, and broadcaster, at an early age (1970-1976) as a producer and analyst for television broadcasters in the United States. While in the 1970s, my initial position as a writer and a reporter was as a writer-and-columnist (as well as being a researcher) for the New York Times. Between 1970 and 1982, I published numerous books and two books on the subject (one on the United States and abroad, another in China, and “The World’s Great Foreign Language” which was also published in China). In this role, my work exposed media and public policy as corrupt, biased, and dangerous to the human condition.
In 1970, I became aware of the problems this research was asking. I was aware then that the United States was a “world-leader in advertising.” As reported in the New York Herald Tribune in March 1991, and as reported here in the New York Times (1991), as part of my research, I conducted research in the United States that demonstrated the effects marketing could have on government, corporations., and various government agencies. Through my research I also met and talked with public policy officials in both the National Association of Public Policy (ANPAC) and the Office of the Vice President for Policy, the National Commission on American Economic Competitiveness (COA). I also met with and worked closely with a senior adviser and a former CIA officer, Bob Mays, who was chairman of the Commission’s board of directors and held the post of assistant national security advisor. In 1980, I attended an annual meeting where I was joined by Robert M. Fergusson, an anthropologist with the Hoover Institution (then, the American Anthropological Institute), and colleagues and staff from various academic institutions (Hornes and Miller 1985: 3–8).
In our research we had a number of opportunities to learn more about how public policy and public relations work during and immediately after the