‘The Deal Should Be Fairer!’ Stakeholder Discourses on Intrusive Media Platforms and Interfaces

  • David Mathieu
  • Juliane Finger
  • Patrícia Dias
  • Despina Chronaki


In this chapter, we argue that stakeholder discourses about emerging media technologies point to a widespread lack of acknowledgment of the pressures and intrusions that affect audiences today. Engaging in a consultation with stakeholders, we identify five discursive positions that characterise the ways stakeholders look upon the issues of media pressures and intrusions. Through these discourses, we observe the widespread adoption of commercial measurements, which remain inadequate for perceiving media pressures and intrusions, as well as the difficulty of keeping up with fast-changing audience habits in a media environment that is overwhelmingly complex. Our findings invite stakeholders to engage in a reflexive and systematic recognition of these issues, which is vital for a change in practice.


  1. Abercrombie, N., & Longhurst, B. (1998). Audiences: A sociological theory of performance and imagination. London: Sage. Retrieved from
  2. Albury, K. (2017). Just because it’s public doesn’t mean it’s any of your business: Adults’ and children’s sexual rights in digitally mediated spaces. New Media & Society, 19(5), 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Billig, M. (1997). From codes to utterances: Cultural studies, discourse and psychology. In M. Ferguson & P. Golding (Eds.), Cultural studies in question (pp. 205–226). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkinbine, B., Gómez, R., & Wasko, J. (Eds.). (2016). Global media giants. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, wikipedia, second life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Buckingham, D. & Bragg, S. (2003). Young people, sex and the media: The facts of life? London: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bulger, M., Burton, P., O’Neill, B., & Staksrud, E. (2017). Where policy and practice collide: Comparing United States, South African and European Union approaches to protecting children online. New Media & Society, 19(5), 750–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butsch, R. (2008). The citizen audience: Crowds, publics, and individuals. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Carpentier, N. (2011). New configurations of the audience? The challenges of user-generated content for audience theory and media participation. In V. Nightingale (Ed.), The handbook of media audiences (pp. 190–212). London: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from
  10. Chaudron, S., Beutel, M. E., Černikova, M., Donoso Navarette, V., Dreier, M., Fletcher-Watson, B., et al. (2015). Young children (0–8) and digital technology: A qualitative exploratory study across seven countries. Retrieved from
  11. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Contexts, traditions, arguments. Communication Theory, 23, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Das, R., & Ytre-Arne, B. (Eds.). (2017). Audiences, towards 2030. Priorities for audience analysis. Guilford: University of Surrey. Retrieved from
  14. Dias, P., & Brito, R. (2016). Crianças (0 a 8 anos) e tecnologias digitais. Lisboa: Centro de Estudos em Comunicação e Cultura, Universidade Católica Portuguesa. Retrieved from
  15. Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. (1989 [1969]). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hagen, I. (1999). Slaves of the ratings tyranny? Media images of the audience. In P. Alasuutari (Ed.), Rethinking the media audience: The new agenda (pp. 130–150). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helsper, E., & Reisdorf, B. (2013). A quantitative examination of explanations for reasons for internet nonuse. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(2), 94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughey, M. W., & Daniels, J. (2013). Racist comments at online news sites: A methodological dilemma for discourse analysis. Media, Culture and Society, 35(3), 332–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. Updated and with a new afterword. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lang, N. (2017). Why teens are leaving Facebook: It’s ‘meaningless’. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
  24. Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., & Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediation of everything. ICA Presidential address. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Livingstone, S., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mascheroni, G., & Holloway, D. (2017). The Internet of Toys: A report on media and social discourses around young children and IoToys. DigiLitEY. Retrieved from
  29. Mathieu, D. (2015). Audience research beyond the hermeneutics of suspicion. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 11(2), 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McAllister, M. P., & Turow, J. (2002). New media and the commercial sphere: Two intersecting trends, five categories of concern. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(4), 505–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Obar, J., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2016). The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Presented at TPRC 44: The 44th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy 2016.Google Scholar
  33. Picone, I. (2017). Conceptualizing media users across media: The case for ‘media user/use’ as analytical concepts. Convergence, 23(4), 378–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Portwood-Stacer, L. (2012). Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption: The performative and political dimensions of Facebook abstention. New Media and Society, 15(7), 1041–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Scannell, P. (1998). Media—Language—World. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Schrøder, K. C. (2017). Towards the ‘audiencization’ of mediatization research? Audience dynamics as co-constitutive of mediatization processes. In O. Driessens, G. Bolin, A. Hepp, & S. Hjarvard (Eds.), Dynamics of mediatization. Institutional change and everyday transformations in a digital age. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Swist, T., & Collin, P. (2017). Platforms, data and children’s rights: Introducing a ‘networked capability approach’. New Media & Society, 19, 671–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  40. Vorderer, P., Krömer, N., & Schneider, F. M. (2016). Permanently online—Permanently connected: Explorations into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 694–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Mathieu
    • 1
  • Juliane Finger
    • 2
  • Patrícia Dias
    • 3
  • Despina Chronaki
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Communication and ArtsRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Independent ResearcherHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Universidade Católica PortuguesaLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.National University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations