Interruption, Disruption or Intervention? A Stakeholder Analysis of Small Acts of Engagement in Content Flows

  • Jannie Møller Hartley
  • Bojana Romic
  • Ike Picone
  • Sander De Ridder
  • Tereza Pavlíčková
  • Jelena Kleut


This chapter builds upon central findings arising from consultations with stakeholders about audiences’ engagement in the content flows, defined as an ever evolving ecology of online and offline content produced by a number of more and less institutionalised content producers, ranging from news organisations to YouTubers. First, we note that increasing use of audience analytics tends to fragment the monolithic audience into tangible sub-communities. Second, we discuss how production routines of legacy media change in response to small acts of engagement via digital interfaces. Third, audience creativity enters economic relations and amateur production struggles with a tension between being creative and economic logic of production. Fourth, we look at transformations related to (dis)trust as a mutual dynamic that not only concerns audiences’ trust or mistrust in legacy media, but which is increasingly significant in regard to media’s trust in content produced by audiences as well, making it more difficult for audiences to engage with the content produced by media institutions.


  1. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  2. Bruns, A. (2008). The future is user-led: The path towards widespread produsage. Fibreculture Journal, 11. Retrieved from
  3. Cherubini, F., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Editorial analytics: How news media are developing and using audience data and metrics. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.Google Scholar
  4. Dojčinović, S. (2017, November 15). Hey, Mark Zuckerberg: My democracy isn’t your laboratory. New York Times. Retrieved from
  5. Gillmor, D. (2004). We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goode, L. (2009). Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1287–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Langlois, G. (2011). Meaning, semiotechnologies and participatory media. Culture Machine, 12. Retrieved from
  11. Nip, J. Y. M. (2006). Exploring the second phase of public journalism. Journalism, 7(2), 212–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosen, J. (2006, June 27). The people formerly known as the audience [Blog post]. Retrieved from
  13. Rushkoff, D. (2017). Throwing rocks at the Google bus: How growth became the enemy of prosperity. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Schrøder, K. (2011). Audiences are inherently cross-media: Audience studies and the cross-media challenge. Communication Management Quarterly, 18(6), 5–27.Google Scholar
  15. Singer, J. B., Hermida, A., Domingo, D., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Quandt, T., et al. (2011). Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture: Politics for the information age. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  17. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  18. van Dijck, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: A critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jannie Møller Hartley
    • 1
  • Bojana Romic
    • 2
  • Ike Picone
    • 3
  • Sander De Ridder
    • 4
  • Tereza Pavlíčková
    • 5
  • Jelena Kleut
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Communication and ArtsRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Malmö UniversitySoeborgDenmark
  3. 3.imec-SMIT, Department of Communication SciencesVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.Vakgroep CommunicatiewetenschappenUniversiteit GhentGhentBelgium
  5. 5.Charles UniversityPrague 1Czech Republic
  6. 6.Department of Media StudiesUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations