Digital visibility and the role of mutual interaction expectations: Reframing the journalist–audience relationship through the lens of interpersonal communication

Wilhelm, Claudia; Stehle, Helena; Detel, Hanne

doi:10.1177/1461444820907023

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Lee et al, 2018;Piercy & Underhill, 2021; Gustia, 2022 Perkembangan aplikasi teori pelanggaran harapan dalam berbagai konteks komunikasi: tinjauan pustaka sistematis Tao, 2018) dan hubungan romantis (DelGreco & Denes, 2020;Kelly et al, 2017;Niehuis et al, 2019Niehuis et al, , 2020. Konteks lain yang cukup banyak ditemukan adalah jurnalisme (Waddell, 2018(Waddell, , 2019Wilhelm et al, 2021), media baru (Carr et al, 2018;Hong et al, 2021;Kalman et al, 2021), komunikasi politik (Bullock & Hubner, 2020;Cassese & Holman, 2018;E.-J. Lee et al, 2018), media sosial (Brody, 2021;Grant et al, 2018;J.…”

Section: Diskusiunclassified

Perkembangan aplikasi teori pelanggaran harapan dalam berbagai konteks komunikasi: tinjauan pustaka sistematis

Gustia

Irwansyah²

2022

JKP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Departing from interpersonal relationships that focus on nonverbal communication, it is interesting to see the use of expectancy violation theory (EVT) to analyze the wider context of communication in today's conditions, especially with the presence of new media and sophisticated technology. This study uses a systematic literature review method to explain the development of expectancy violation theory usage in the communication context over the last five years. After screening the articles, there were 31 articles using expectancy violation theory as one of the main theories. Based on the analysis of journal articles, most of the expectancy violation theory research was conducted in 2018 in the United States and discusses the concept of expectancy violation in general. In its development, until now, EVT is still relevant for various contexts, although the results are diverse because there are studies that reject the assumption of EVT. However, on the other hand, there is still a lot of research in EVT whose conceptual results vary but still support the theory.

show abstract

Section: Diskusiunclassified

Perkembangan aplikasi teori pelanggaran harapan dalam berbagai konteks komunikasi: tinjauan pustaka sistematis

Gustia

Irwansyah²

2022

JKP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the last years, these changes have gradually highlighted at least three arenas in which the relationship between journalism and audiences has also affected how journalism and audiences negotiate the premises on which their discourse is increasingly built. Driven by mutual expectations (Wilhelm et al, 2021), this negotiation has thus yielded a rebalancing of expectations between journalism and its surroundings in the arenas of the journalistic profession, the media market, and the public sphere as a whole.…”

Section: Journalism and Audiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, job titles and task responsibilities calling for audience engagement or analytics optimization have journalism revisiting norms within the journalistic profession -weighting clicks against importance or balancing anticipated engagement with expected political impact (Haim, 2019). In addition, journalistic verification practices online are increasingly geared to strengthen the visibility (transparency) of the editorial process to the audience (Koliska & Chadha, 2018) and the audience's participation in it (Aitamurto, 2016), thereby more closely aligning expectations between both sides (Karlsson, 2011;Wilhelm et al, 2021).…”

Section: Full Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To audiences, gaining knowledge about audiences previously meant to draw conclusions from common knowledge about ratings or circulation metrics whereas algorithms and big data strongly contribute to more transparency in the form of popularity cues and engagement metrics, ranking mechanisms and socialmedia recommendations, open-ended user feedback and public outlet reputation (e.g., Chen & Pain, 2019;Craft et al, 2016;Haim et al, 2018;Lee & Tandoc, 2017). Users are also better informed about journalism through greater transparency of editorial processes and expanded possibilities of audience participation in such processes (Karlsson, 2011;Wilhelm et al, 2021). As such, in today's online media environment, both audiences and journalism are increasingly capable of accumulating both more and more differentiated knowledge about the respective other side.…”

Section: The Paradox Of Knowing More and Lessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The paradox of knowing more and less: Audience metrics and the erosion of epistemic standards on the internet

Haim¹,

Neuberger²

2022

SCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journalism is crucial to modern democracies in that it provides valid knowledge about current events in the form of news. Through shared epistemic standards and the professional norm of objectivity, journalism helps to generate societal knowledge and to make informed decisions. Yet, this surveillance function is also driven by knowledge about audiences. Knowledge about audiences informs both journalism’s and mutual recipients’ expectations toward anticipated audiences. It allows to gauge shared epistemic standards and thus to reduce risks of criticism when participating in public discourse. Online, changes in possibilities and necessities to monitor audiences, however, have paved the way to engage in a mode of addressing more tailored standards of anticipated audiences. Such epistemic tribalism contrasts widely shared epistemic standards of professional journalism and has yielded a paradox in which an increase in knowledge about audiences possibly leads to less common knowledge about current events because epistemic standards are no longer shared across the public. Based on this diagnose, we offer two potential pathways for the future of epistemic standards on the internet. A negative one where polarization will benefit from an intensified identification with epistemic tribes and a positive one where discursive spaces will allow for an institutionalized rebalancing of epistemic standards between journalism and audiences.

show abstract

“…It is also evident, for example, when studies look at whether and how actors (e. g., journalists, scientists, politicians, teachers, media outlets, corporations, political institutions, etc.) seek -intentionally or unintentionally -visibility or invisibility or become potentially recognizable (e.g., Bock & Probst, 2018;Cruz, 2017;Flyverbom, Leonardi, Stohl, & Stohl, 2016;Karlsson, 2011;Wilhelm, Stehle, & Detel, 2021). Stohl, Stohl, and Leonardi (2016, p. 125) shed light on actors' (strategic) handling of visibility by analyzing it as "(1) the availability of information, (2) approval to share information, and (3) the accessibility of information to third parties".…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visibility in the digital age: Introduction

Brantner

Stehle

2021

SComS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the digital age, calls for transparency and openness as well as for privacy and confidentiality prevail: Struggles for visibility occur simultaneously with conflicts regarding invisibility and hidden battles for power and privileges of interpretation. Concerns about a loss of digital self-determination exist, just like those regarding the “right to be forgotten” or the right to become invisible and unseen. While the idea of a “transparent user” – as the ultimate notion of (in)voluntary visibility – has caused a broad outcry in society and in scientific debates a few years ago (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008), the discussion has shifted toward considerations of Internet governance and regulation (Camenisch, Fischer-Hübner, & Hansen, 2015). Brighenti (2010, p. 109) has pointed out that visibility has long been one of the key aspects “associated with the public sphere” and that in today’s digitized publics, the “project of democracy can no longer be imagined without taking into account visibility and its outcomes” (Brighenti, 2010, p. 189). Visibility and invisibility, along with their societal outcomes, are increasingly being discussed and analyzed, as they are becoming important dimensions in the accurate description and explanation of digital communication.

show abstract

Digital visibility and the role of mutual interaction expectations: Reframing the journalist–audience relationship through the lens of interpersonal communication

Cited by 13 publications

References 71 publications

Perkembangan aplikasi teori pelanggaran harapan dalam berbagai konteks komunikasi: tinjauan pustaka sistematis

Perkembangan aplikasi teori pelanggaran harapan dalam berbagai konteks komunikasi: tinjauan pustaka sistematis

The paradox of knowing more and less: Audience metrics and the erosion of epistemic standards on the internet

Visibility in the digital age: Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About