Audience Fragmentation and Journalism in the U.S. Context

Angela M. Lee
{"title":"Audience Fragmentation and Journalism in the U.S. Context","authors":"Angela M. Lee","doi":"10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228613.013.782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The association between audience fragmentation and journalism is an intricate one. On the one hand, the word “audience” refers to an assembly of a group of consumers, such as book or magazine readers, moviegoers, radio or podcast listeners, television viewers, and website visitors, and they are primarily distinguished by the particular media product, genre, or outlet that they choose to consume. Webster stated in 2016 that oftentimes the purpose and consequence of audience research are financial—i.e., book publishers tend to break down their market by readers of different genres, which allows them to better tailor their content and promotions to relevant audiences in order to maximize book sales—and thus the goal of audience research in such contexts lies in finding the balance between capturing the largest number of media users who share similar consumption patterns and the narrowest content clusters—i.e., those separated by topic or genres.\n On the other hand, whereas the purpose of audience conceptualization fundamentally revolves around fragmentation, the motivation for journalism in democratic societies is arguably the opposite. That is, if one were to believe, as Kovach and Rosenstiel posited in 2007, that the purpose of journalism is to inform and educate the people so they can self-govern and make better civil decisions in democratic societies, then it follows that the primary objective of journalism lies in serving as many citizens with the same information as possible. In short, the purpose of audience fragmentation and journalism is—in many ways—ontologically contradictory, with the former being more pluralistic in nature.\n The topic of audience fragmentation is approached primarily from a commercial perspective, and in the context of the US market. It should be acknowledged, however, that this topic can and has been approached differently, via critical studies and across other markets. The end of this article offers a cursory comparative analysis between the USA and other Western countries to help contextualize findings from the USA in a global context. For those with deeper interest in such other inquiries, the recommended readings provided at the end of this article may offer a good starting point.\n It should be noted that one of the biggest obstacles in the study of audience fragmentation, at least in the USA, lies in the fact that large-scale media reports of such data (e.g., those published by the Pew Research Center) often compare apples and oranges (e.g., either using survey questions with different operationalizations as the basis for comparison or reporting on different facets of audience fragmentation in its longitudinal studies, as this article will explain). To this end, this article is a first step in offering a baseline cross-sectional overview of how American audiences are consuming the news in 2018 via analysis of select Pew data files with comparable sampling method and survey instruments.","PeriodicalId":307235,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228613.013.782","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The association between audience fragmentation and journalism is an intricate one. On the one hand, the word “audience” refers to an assembly of a group of consumers, such as book or magazine readers, moviegoers, radio or podcast listeners, television viewers, and website visitors, and they are primarily distinguished by the particular media product, genre, or outlet that they choose to consume. Webster stated in 2016 that oftentimes the purpose and consequence of audience research are financial—i.e., book publishers tend to break down their market by readers of different genres, which allows them to better tailor their content and promotions to relevant audiences in order to maximize book sales—and thus the goal of audience research in such contexts lies in finding the balance between capturing the largest number of media users who share similar consumption patterns and the narrowest content clusters—i.e., those separated by topic or genres. On the other hand, whereas the purpose of audience conceptualization fundamentally revolves around fragmentation, the motivation for journalism in democratic societies is arguably the opposite. That is, if one were to believe, as Kovach and Rosenstiel posited in 2007, that the purpose of journalism is to inform and educate the people so they can self-govern and make better civil decisions in democratic societies, then it follows that the primary objective of journalism lies in serving as many citizens with the same information as possible. In short, the purpose of audience fragmentation and journalism is—in many ways—ontologically contradictory, with the former being more pluralistic in nature. The topic of audience fragmentation is approached primarily from a commercial perspective, and in the context of the US market. It should be acknowledged, however, that this topic can and has been approached differently, via critical studies and across other markets. The end of this article offers a cursory comparative analysis between the USA and other Western countries to help contextualize findings from the USA in a global context. For those with deeper interest in such other inquiries, the recommended readings provided at the end of this article may offer a good starting point. It should be noted that one of the biggest obstacles in the study of audience fragmentation, at least in the USA, lies in the fact that large-scale media reports of such data (e.g., those published by the Pew Research Center) often compare apples and oranges (e.g., either using survey questions with different operationalizations as the basis for comparison or reporting on different facets of audience fragmentation in its longitudinal studies, as this article will explain). To this end, this article is a first step in offering a baseline cross-sectional overview of how American audiences are consuming the news in 2018 via analysis of select Pew data files with comparable sampling method and survey instruments.
美国语境下的受众分化与新闻业
受众分化与新闻业之间的联系错综复杂。一方面,“观众”一词指的是一群消费者的集合,如书籍或杂志读者、电影观众、广播或播客听众、电视观众和网站访问者,他们主要通过他们选择消费的特定媒体产品、类型或出口来区分。韦伯斯特在2016年表示,受众研究的目的和结果通常是财务方面的。在美国,图书出版商倾向于按不同类型的读者细分市场,这使他们能够更好地为相关受众量身定制内容和促销活动,以最大限度地提高图书销量。因此,在这种情况下,受众研究的目标在于找到抓住最大量具有相似消费模式的媒体用户和最狭窄的内容集群之间的平衡。即按主题或体裁分类的书籍。另一方面,受众概念化的目的基本上围绕着碎片化,而民主社会中新闻的动机可以说是相反的。也就是说,如果一个人相信,正如Kovach和Rosenstiel在2007年提出的那样,新闻的目的是告知和教育人民,以便他们能够在民主社会中自治并做出更好的公民决策,那么新闻的主要目标就在于为尽可能多的公民提供相同的信息。简而言之,受众碎片化的目的和新闻业的目的在很多方面都存在本体论上的矛盾,前者在本质上更多元化。我们主要是从商业角度出发,并以美国市场为背景来探讨用户碎片化这一话题。然而,应该承认的是,这个主题可以并且已经通过批判性研究和其他市场进行不同的处理。本文的最后对美国和其他西方国家进行了粗略的比较分析,以帮助将美国的研究结果置于全球背景下。对于那些对此类其他问题有更深兴趣的人,本文末尾提供的推荐阅读材料可能是一个很好的起点。应该指出的是,至少在美国,受众碎片化研究的最大障碍之一在于,大型媒体对此类数据的报道(例如,皮尤研究中心发布的数据)经常将苹果和橘子进行比较(例如,要么使用不同操作的调查问题作为比较的基础,要么在其纵向研究中报道受众碎片化的不同方面,本文将解释)。为此,本文是第一步,通过分析选定的皮尤数据文件,采用可比较的抽样方法和调查工具,对2018年美国受众如何消费新闻进行基线横断面概述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信