Везде
Modern media landscape: diversity and fragmentation
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Modern media landscape: diversity and fragmentation
Annotation
PII
S013216250000762-1-1
DOI
10.31857/S013216250000762-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Mihail Nazarov 
Occupation: leading researcher
Affiliation: Institute of Socio-Political Research, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Edition
Issue 8
Pages
54-64
Abstract

   The goal of the study is to analyze media diversity and fragmentation as the process of "spreading" audience across multiple smaller channels. Representative samples of Russian TV audiences form the empirical base of analysis. Research suggested that audience fragmentation is characterized by several features. Audience is scattering across numerous thematic sources (each having limited audience). At the same time, there are few high-reach TV channels attracting mass audience. Still, the audiences of small channels are covered by the most popular sources, proportionately to their monthly reach. The research confirms that media diversity and fragmentation correspond to actual social trends. It brings democratization of medialandscape and promoting non-mainstream cultural products. Media diversity and fragmentation mirror information overload and related simplification of media content and change patterns of its understanding. Diversity of media choice does not necessarily bring diversity of media consumption. Commercial imperative focuses media supply and demand on certain media content formats. However, besides fragmentation, there is an ongoing concentration of audience around mass popular channels; this does no t support arguments of "demise" of mass media. Media fragmentation follows the trend towards greater diversity and complexity among postmodern societies. It is accompanied also by social disintegration and fragmentation of the public sphere (universal issues fading out of public attention); ever growing content targeting based on digital algorithms and data couples with evident minimization of private sphere for the sake of widespread transparency.

Keywords
media fragmentation, audience, digitalization, media landscape changes, television, internet
Received
06.10.2018
Date of publication
14.10.2018
Number of purchasers
10
Views
603
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite   Download pdf
1 Для дальнейшей загрузки.

References

1. Anderson K. Dlinnyj khvost. Novaya model' vedeniya biznesa. M.: Vershina, 2008.

2. Bauman 3. Individualizirovannoe obschestvo. M.: Logos, 2002.

3. Kaneman D. Dumaj medlenno ... Reshaj bystro. M.: ACT, 2016.

4. Kolomiets V. P. Sotsiologiya massovoj kommunikatsii v obschestve informatsionnogo izobiliya // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2017. №6. S. 3-12.

5. Markuze G. Odnomernyj chelovek. M.: ACT, 2003.

6. Miroshnikov B.N. Setevoj faktor. Internet i obschestvo. M.: Kuchkovo pole, 2015.

7. Sotsiologicheskij ehntsiklopedicheskij slovar' / Pod red. G.V. Osipova. M.: Infra M, NORMA, 2000.

8. Televidenie glazami telezritelej / Red. Poluehkhtova I.A. M.: Analit. tsentr Video Interneshnl, 2012.

9. Khorkkhajmer M., Adorno T. Dialektika prosvescheniya. Filosofskie fragmenty. M.: Medium, 1997.

10. Shvab K. Chetvertaya promyshlennaya revolyutsiya. M.: «Ehksmo», 2018.

11. Ehriksen T.Kh. Tiraniya momenta. Vremya v ehpokhu informatsii. M.: Ves' Mir, 2003.

12. Anderson S. The Longer Long Tail .N.Y.: Random House Books, 2009.

13. Andrejevic HI. Infoglut. How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know. N.Y.: Routledge, 2013.

14. Chandler D., Hlunday R. (eds). A Dictionary of Media and Communication (2nd ed.) Oxford: Ox ford university press, 2011.

15. Couldry N. Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice. Cambridge: Polity, 2012. P.95-97.

16. Hindman M. What is the online public sphere good for? // Turow J., Tsui L. (eds). The Hyperlinked Society Questioning. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2008. P. 268-288.

17. Hindman D., Wiegand K. The Big Three's Prime-Time Decline: A Technological and Social Context. // Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2008. No. 52:1. P. 119-135.

18. Katz E. ANNALS, AAPSS, 625, September 2009. DOI: 10.1177/0002716209337796

19. LaRose R. The Problem of Media Habits // Communication Theory. 2010. No. 20. P. 194-222.

20. Poster M. The Second Media Age. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.

21. The Nielsen Total Audience Report Q1 2017. URL: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2017/the-nielsen-total-audience-report-q1-2017.html (data obrascheniya: 29.01.2018).

22. Turow J. Niche Envy. Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2006.

23. Turow J. Breaking up America: Advertisers and the new media world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

24. Warncke C. Big Data strategies: Key themes from l-COM 2012. Event Reports. URL: http://www .warc .com/Conte nt/ (data obrascheniya: 29.01.2018).

25. Webster J. Structuring the marketplace of attention / Turow J., Tsui L. (eds). The Hyperlinked Society Questioning. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2008.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate