The document discusses the structural transformation of the public sphere influenced by technological convergence, globalization, and social networked individualism. It highlights research at the Hans-Bredow Institute focusing on changing roles of audiences, the interplay between professional and participatory media, and the emergence of personal publics. Additionally, it critiques journalism's ability to include audiences in the digital age, emphasizing the need for new concepts and theories to understand evolving public spheres.

1. Another structural transformation of the public sphere? On recent challenges and current research projects Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt Senior Researcher for digital interactive media and political communication Ume å , January 2011

2. Agenda Introducing my background Structural transformation of the public sphere? Current research projects at the Hans-Bredow-Institute Personal public Rediscovering audience Discussion

3. The Hans-Bredow-Institute

4. The Hans-Bredow-Institute Founded in 1950 – leading independent media research institute in Germany, funded by City of Hamburg and various other public institutions (e.g. Federal Media Authorities) as well as by competitive research grants Named after Hans Bredow (1879-1959) – originally a broadcast technician; Commissioner for Broadcasting in the Ministry of Posts in the Weimar Republic; banned from work after the Nazis got into power; central figure in building public broadcasting system after 1945 Scope of Research: Focussing on the structure of mediated public communication - understanding the underlying determinants, assessing future opportunities and risks, and providing orientation for the actors involved Interdisciplinary perspective : combining social sciences and legal studies within various research programmes

5. Research Programmes „ Foundations of societal information“ – how does society keep itself informed? e.g. project on the media repertoires of the german population „ Types of public communication“ – how is the changing media system structured? e.g. study on „ Leitmedium Internet?“ for German Parliament „ Between reception, interaction, and production“ – how do users‘s roles change? e.g. study on adolescents and Web 2.0 „ Long-term media effects “ – are there any, and if yes: which and how? z.B. the role of television in forming images, attitudes & beliefs about the Holocaust

6. Agenda Introducing my background Structural transformation of the public sphere? Current research projects at the Hans-Bredow-Institute Personal public Rediscovering audience Discussion

7. Another structural transformation of the public sphere? CC-BY-SA-3.0, Wolfram Huke - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JuergenHabermas_crop2.jpg CC-BY-SA-3.0, Takk, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Televison_Hungarian_ORION_1957.jpg

8. The context (in brief) Basic trends contributing to structural changes in the public sphere today: The Technological Convergence / Digitization The Political-Economical Globalization, „marketization“ The Social Networked Individualism  Not only the social contexts, but also the internal structures of mediated spaces are changing Governing / Regulating mediated spaces Producing public spheres

9. Governing mediated spaces Governing / regulating convergent digital media / mediated spaces Law e.g. free speech; media concentration laws Social Norms e.g. news factors; personal authenticity; community standards Contracts e.g. personal data  service, transferring ownership rights Software Code e.g. default settings of visibility or filtering; aggregation, the „app“ model more universal more contextual ? Interplay of these factors

10. Producing the Public Sphere Producing the Public Sphere in Digital Media Co-produced by professional, participatory & technical intermediation (Neuberger 2009) Changes within professional intermediation: Shifting balance between public and private media re-organization of journalistic practices in convergent media (e.g. newsrooms; transmedia news reporting) Growing importance of participatory intermediation lowered barriers for "making information public" (publishing - filtering – distributing) new entrants / new voices – but not per se democratic/inclusive/emancipatory Technical intermediation – the „hidden gatekeepers“ Algorithms and software code are providing deep structure of public sphere Only seemingly neutral – but designed with (implicit or explicit) interests and assumptions

11. Agenda Introducing my background Structural transformation of the public sphere? Current research projects at the Hans-Bredow-Institute Personal publics Rediscovering audience Discussion

12. Starting point: Social Web Practices Social Web lowers barriers for … www.flickr.com/photos/44029537@N00/12760664/ Identity Management (Presenting individual interests, opinions, experiences, skills, etc.) http://flickr.com/photos/mylesdgrant/495698908/ Relationship Management (Maintaining existing and building new relationships) http://www.flickr.com/photos/axels_bilder/1267008046/ Information Management (co-creating, filtering and re-distributing relevant information / knowledge / content)

13. Identity management Persistent Myth: The Internet as „cyberspace“, where people leave their bodies behind to create new identites http://themiddleeastinterest.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/matrix.jpg

14. Identity management

15. Articulated social networks 12-24-year-old Germans using SNS (in 2008) had … … an average: 130 friends … of which they have personally met: most of them: 85 percent less than half: 5 percent … considered close friends: most of them: 15 percent less than half: 62 percent Quelle: Schmidt/Paus-Hasebrink/Hasebrink 2009

16. Identity Management for articulated social networks Statements on self-disclosure online (2008; 12-24-year-olds; agree/fully agree in %) Source: Schmidt/Paus-Hasebrink/Hasebrink 2009

17. Structure of personal publics Personal Publics emerge when and where users make available/filter information which is… (a) personally relevant to them , [instead of being selected according to news factors / news values] (b) directed to an (intended) audience of strong and weak ties , [instead of a disperse and unknown audience] (c) presented to engage in conversation . [instead of to publicise]  Personal publics are public in the sense of „accessible“, but not necessarily in the sense „of general interest“

18. Structure of personal publics Blurring of communicative roles - „sender“ and „receiver“ becomes „produser“ (A. Bruns) Twitter and Facebook have popularized the idea of the „stream“ – the more or less constant flow of information about your social network instead of rather static text

19. Journalistic Publics & Personal Publics Within the personal publics, Anschlusskommunikation (=„follow-up communication“) of the former audience is becoming visible:  Users comenting, linking, bookmarking, (re-)tweeting, digging, sharing or liking content provided by mainstream media Online-platforms of established media outlets get a lot of attention within these new publics  Personal publics and the „traditional“ public sphere are complementing each other „ Twittercharts“ nach Verweisen

20. Structure of personal publics Personal publics (being a subtype of networked publics) have a specific communicative architecture (boyd 2008), being… Persistent Replicable Scalable Searchable    

21. Architektur netzbasierter Öffentlichkeiten These technological characteristics not only afford the emergence of personal publics, but also change the balance between self-disclosure and privacy – via the concept of „audience“     Intended audience: What is my general idea of an audience when using a specific tool or service? Addressed audience: Which people do I address in a specific situation? Empirical audience: Which people do actually read/view any given information? Potential audience: What is the „technological reach“ – who might possibly read/ view any given information?

22. Agenda Introducing my background Structural transformation of the public sphere? Current research projects at the Hans-Bredow-Institute Personal publics Rediscovering audience Discussion

23. Journalism and Audience: a Complicated Relationship Journalism as a practice is still rooted in the “condition of mass communication” journalists’ knowledge about and attitudes toward the audience used to be formed without direct experiences and interactions Research on the journalism-/audience-relationship used to be based on mass-media-assumptions: asymmetry between journalism and audience Sociological inclusion theory (and its application to journalism) has considered the audience as being included into journalism by “merely” accepting communication offers, by being the necessary counterpart to acts of publishing

24. Problems of Inclusion in Journalism Journalism has to deal with two factors: the restriction of journalism’s ability to include the audience, and increasing demands for inclusion of the audience. The ability of journalism to include the audience is decreasing (indicators: e. g. decreasing faith in the mainstream media, declining audiences as to the news, ‘journalistic’ activities of the audience within their personal publics) Through their own engagement with journalism within networked publics, the “people formerly known as the audience” (Jay Rosen) not only become an active part of the public sphere, but also form expectations about journalism and its inclusionary practices

25. Heuristic Research Model (proposed research) audience inclusion performance participatory practices degree of community orientation inclusion expectations motives for participation evaluation of the own influence inclusion performance forms of audience participation journalistic products/output work processes/routines inclusion expectations attitudes towards the audience journalistic role perception strategic relevance of audience participation journalism inclusion level inclusion divergence

26. Conclusion / Summary The public sphere is changing – and our concepts and theories have to change, too. Analyzing, explaining and understanding public spheres within digital, converging media has to take new agents into account the former audience and their personal publics the architecture of technical mediation – software code and its affordances as well as the underlying interests and power structures There have been times where being a media sociologist has been less interesting! :-)

27. Thank you! Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt Hans-Bredow-Institut Warburgstr. 8-10, 20354 Hamburg [email_address] www.hans-bredow-institut.de www.schmidtmitdete.de www.dasneuenetz.de

28. Relevant Literature Benkler, Yochai (2006): The Wealth of Networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven/London. boyd, danah (2008): Taken out of context. American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics. Berkely. Online: http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf. Bruns, Axel (2008): Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond. From production to produsage. New York. Jenkins, Henry (2006): Convergence Culture. Where old and new media collide. New York. Neuberger, Christoph/Christian Nuernbergk/Melanie Rischke (Hg.) (2009): Journalismus im Internet. Profession – Partizipation – Technisierung. Wiesbaden. Papacharissi, Zizi (2010): A private sphere. Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge. Schmidt, Jan (2009): Das neue Netz. Merkmale, Praktiken und Konsequenzen des Web 2.0. Konstanz. Schmidt, Jan/Ingrid Paus-Hasebrink/Uwe Hasebrink (Hrsg.) (2009): Heranwachsen mit dem Social Web. Berlin .