Skip to main content

Alternative Forms of Participation in Media Organizations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cultural Intermediaries

Abstract

In this chapter, the book will redirect its focus on the participation and co-creation that has been enabled through new media practices and social media platforms. However, participation exists and has done so in organizations in many forms historically. From early forms of talkback radio and letters to the editor, scholars have explored the passive and active role of media and audiences as they participate in the production of content in various forms through hands-on participation and towards more soft forms of enacting media content through the lived-in experience. Regardless of the format of participation, audiences have been engaged in vernacular creativity for some time as a form of cultural intermediation. This final case study draws on empirical data from the ABC’s Double J, a recently launched digital radio service that is targeted at 25–45 year olds, and has been launched as an alternative to the very successful Triple J radio network that is aimed at 16–24-year-old listeners. During 2015, Double J, as part of its J Files programme that showcases artists, undertook a participatory project that chose fans of an international rock act, The Black Keys, to curate and produce an episode of the J Files. This case study provides a clear example of how expertise in different areas is brought together and exchanged between stakeholders to produce a programme that is extremely niche and tailored in regards to content, whilst marketable to the broad Double J audience. This demonstrates much of the cultural intermediation framework that will have been described in this book so far, whilst featuring another variation of co-creation within media organizations. This case study highlights that the knowledge and expertise exchange between the co-creative stakeholders is key to any form of participation within media organizations that seek to bolster interest from their audience. Further engaging with the market agent aspect of cultural intermediation, the Double J example demonstrates co-creative management is crucial to ensure cultural production aligns with market factors and audience trends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 2016. ‘Revolution School’. Retrieved 24 April 2017, from http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/revolution-school.

  • Abidin, C. 2016. ‘Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online?: Influencer selfies as subversive frivolity’. Social Media + Society 2 (23): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S. 2015. ‘Who’s afraid of media pluralism? Corporate power, concentration and ownership in the digital era’. Paper presented at the Sydney Ideas, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brevini, B. 2013. Public service broadcasting online: A comparative European policy study of PSB 2.0. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A. 2005. Gatewatching: Collaborative online news Production. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., and A. Matamoros-Fernández. 2016. ‘Mapping sociocultural controversies across digital media platforms: One week of #gamergate on Twitter, YouTube and Tumblr’. Communication, Research & Practice 2 (1): 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. 2007. The power of identity: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. ‘A network theory of power’. International Journal of Communication 5: 773–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croteau, D., W. Hoynes, and S. Milan. 2012. ‘Media and the social world’. In Media/Society: Industries, images, and audiences, ed. D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, and S. Milan. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferdinands, B. 2016. ‘Drink this tea and look like me’. BA(Hons) thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flew, T. 2014. New Media. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. 1977. ‘A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness’. Sociometry 40 (1): 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, M. 2011. Work’s intimacy. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, G., and F. Martin. 2013. The value of public service media. Göteborg: Nordicom.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, R. (Writer), and J. Hutchinson (Director). 2016. What is ethical social media? [Coursera interview]. New York: Coursera.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C.W. 1959. The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • musical.ly. 2016. Website. https://musical.ly.

  • Papacharissi, Z. 2015. Affective publics and structures of storytelling: sentiment, events and mediality.Information Communication & Society 1–18. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109697.

  • Ries, E. 2009. ‘Vanity metrics vs actionable metrics’. Retrieved 20 December 2016, from http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/05/19/vanity-metrics-vs-actionable-metrics.

  • Robinson, M. 2016. ‘This 15-year-old social media star has millions of fans who follow her crazy lip-syncing videos’. Business Insider, 22 June. Retrieved 24 April 2017, from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/who-is-baby-ariel-2016-6.

  • Rogers, R. 2015. ‘Digital methods for web research’. In Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences, ed. R. Scott and S. Kosslyn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. 2016. ‘Otherwise engaged: From vanity to critical analytics’. Paper presented at the Digital Methods and Social Development, Chinese University Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonfeld, E. 2011. ‘Don’t be fooled by vanity metrics’. Retrieved 20 November 2016, from https://techcrunch.com/2011/07/30/vanity-metrics.

  • Senft, T.M. 2013. ‘Microcelebrity and the branded self’. In A companion to new media dynamics, ed. J. Hartley and A. Bruns. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stargrove, S. 2015. The morality of online issue publics: Exploratory research into the online network of vaccine choice (“Anti-Vaccine”) advocates. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. 1989. Raymond Williams on television: Selected writings, Preface by R. Williams, ed. A. O’Connor. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. 2012. ‘New Beginnings’. Retrieved from http://pool.abc.net.au/projects/new-beginnings.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathon Hutchinson .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hutchinson, J. (2017). Alternative Forms of Participation in Media Organizations. In: Cultural Intermediaries. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66287-9_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics