Third Blog Entry

The purpose of this blog is to reflect on the two main aspects on the media. The writer attempts to elaborate on firstly, the purpose of studying media audiences then secondly, the purpose of studying media institutions. Works from various distinguished authors are employed in order to address these two aspects on the media.

a. The purpose of studying media audiences

In order to address the topic, one’s point of departure must be defining what audience is.  Hartley (2011:16) indicates that; originating as a collective noun for those within earshot, who can ‘audit’ a dramatic performance or hear the words of a monarch or pope, the term audience is now used to describe a large number of individually unidentifiable and mutually anonymous people, usually united by their participation in the media. He further points out that; given the varying demographics of this group, not to mention variations between nations, the concept itself is a means by which such an essentially unknowable group can be imagined. With the aid of Hartley (2011) observations, one may strongly assert that, indeed, the media audiences may be equated to an abstract to the media institutions. In simpler terms, it may be put that; the media institutions are perpetually delivering their content to the large number of people who are unknown to such institutions, one may argue.

In an attempt to answer his question “Why audience research?”, Mytton (1999:14) establishes that, the questions “Who is listening?” or “Who is watching?” are surely not unwarranted or even remarkable questions to ask. He suggests that; certainly the broadcasters need to know something about the people who are watching or listening. This indicates that as the media audience are as Hartley (2011) described, ‘the unknowable group that is imagined’.

While admitting that audience research is more than a matter of knowing if anyone is listening or watching, Mytton (1999:15) indicates that; by audience research we mean the various methods and techniques used to find out about audience. He goes on to point out that it covers a wide range of information gathering exercises.

According to Mytton (1999:16); broadcasters in the early days of radio in Europe and the United States knew remarkably little about their listeners. He further indicates that what they thought they knew was based on very unreliable and misleading methods. One may strongly argue that such unreliable methods were resulting from the lack of proper study of the audience, hence a need for audience research. With Mytton (1999) view on the nature of broadcasting in the early days of radio in the United States, an indication is that there was no systematic audience research. Mytton (1999:16) observes that most United States broadcasting was and is paid for by advertising which determined what went on air. But he further makes a point that the advertisers soon began to realise that they needed information that was independent of their views and opinions or those of the owners of the radio stations. The latter hints to the need for audience research that arose from the observations of the advertisers, one may argue.

According to Mytton (1999:19) audience research can be used as a means of maximising the effectiveness of public advocacy campaigns, and of improving and enhancing education and information for effective democracy and good governance. On the other side of the discourse Hartley (2011:17) indicates that audience enable media organisations to sell advertising or to fulfil their public and statutory obligations, whether for television, radio, magazines or the press. In his view, Hartley (2011) emphasises that it is important to know the size, quality (demographic composition) and characteristics of audiences for this purpose these data relate directly to revenue.

It now becomes clear to one that the audience is the most vital part of the media organisations to be able to survive in doing their business, one may point out. As Hartley (2011:17) puts it; “for media organisations, the concept of audience allows the exchange of information and entertainment to become commodified”.

b. The purpose of studying media institutions

According to McQuail (2010:282) “most organisations have mixed goals, and rarely are they all openly stated”. He points out that mass media are no exception, and they may even be particularly ambiguous in this respect. One may suggest that Dennis McQuail puts the media institutions in par with any other organisations that exist globally but most importantly hints that they may have different purposes. Indeed the media institutions would not function in a same manner as any others; they do have their own unique qualities. In his argument, McQuail (2010) indicates that most media are run as businesses but often with some ‘ideal’ goals, and some media are run primarily for ‘idealistic’ social or cultural purposes, without seeking profit.

Jensen (2012) work gives a more clear detail on the purpose of studying media institutions. In summary, according to Jensen (2012: 73-78) the internal environment and external context within which the media institutions operate informs their final product. One may point out that these internal functions of the media are subject to research, hence the need to study the media institutions.

According to Jensen (2012:72) the production of particular media artefacts within specific industrial systems obviously takes place within more general context. He indicates that one level of analysis that may be used when studying the media institutions is what he termed ‘national and international political economy and policy’. With this unit of analysis, Jensen (2012) attempted to explain how the media institutions and their functioning are affected by such factor afore mentioned. One may argue that; in order to understand a certain media institutions what appears to be of most importance is the degree of the effect put on the media institutions by the political sphere. In this regard, one may be able to understand the functioning of a specific media institution, one may put it.

Secondly Jansen (2012:73) speaks of the second level of analysis; specific industrial contexts and practices. He indicates that; historical approaches have also been prominent in research examining the institutional configuration of media industries, but further indicates that this level of analysis focuses precisely on specific industrial practices. One may put it that; this level of analysis focuses on the production norms the specific industry follows. Simply put, one may refer to those norms as the operational tradition. Jensen (2012:73) make notes of what researchers may make use of when applying this level of analysis on media institutions. According to Jansen (2012) researchers rely heavily on primary historical records- contracts, inter-office memoranda and among others things, production manuals.

In conclusion one may indicate that the purpose of studying media institutions lies on the understanding of how such institutions functions, what production do they follow, their stance in the political economy and in most cases for different countries, their position in relation to the government policies on the media. One may point out that policies on media vary from country to country and thus difference in the functioning of media institutions respectively.

 LIST OF SOURCES

Hartley, J. 2011. Communication, cultural and media studies. 4th edition. London: Routledge.

Jensen, KB. 2012. A handbook of media and communication research: qualitative and quantitative methodologies. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.

Mytton, G. 2007. Handbook on Radio and Television Audience Research. (web edition). Paris: UNICEF and UNESCO.

McQuail, D. 2010. McQuail’s mass communication theory. 6th edition. London: Sage.