Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

'Public connection' and the uncertain norms of media consumption

By Nick Couldry, Sonia Livingstone and Tim Markham
Topics: HC Economic History and Conditions
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:4038
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2000). (eds) Disaffected Democracies doi
  2. (2000). Bowling Alone doi
  3. (2000). Can We Live Together? doi
  4. Central reservations’,
  5. (1999). cf Z.Bauman, In Search of Politics
  6. (2003). Citizens and Consumers: Discursive debates during and after the Communications Act doi
  7. (2004). Citizenship in Britain : values, participation and democracy doi
  8. (2006). Collective Campaign for Real Politics’, Times Higher Education Supplement.
  9. (1989). Communication as Culture doi
  10. Communicative Entitlements and Democracy: the Future of the Digital Divide Debate’ doi
  11. Consuming Technologies, Silverstone, Television and Everyday Life. doi
  12. (1999). Distant Suffering doi
  13. (1999). Finding About the World from Television News: some Difficulties’,
  14. following our earlier discussion of the term ‘public’, we distinguish between ‘public’ action (actions in relation to potentially contentious issues) and civic action (where nothing contentious need be involved).
  15. (2004). For an extension of these ideas to media research, see N. Couldry, ‘Theorising Media as Practice’, doi
  16. For details of our diary and survey samples, see Couldry, Livingstone and Markham, Media Consumption and Public Engagement, appendices 1A and 2B.
  17. For more detail, see Couldry,
  18. (2006). For more detailed analysis of Kylie’s situation as an example of the contradictions of the mediated public sphere, see
  19. For the ambiguities of the hyphenated ‘citizen-consumer’ couplet in current UK debates on media and communications regulation, see Livingstone, Lunt and Miller, ‘Citizens and Consumers’.
  20. (2001). For the class-based distribution of opportunities to do voluntary work see
  21. (2003). funded under the ESRC/ AHRC Cultures of Consumption programme (grant number RES-143-25-0011), whose financial support is gratefully acknowledged.
  22. (2006). In our survey we found that social expectation to keep up to date with ‘what’s going on in the world’ was important in predicting news engagement, itself a factor in predicting political interest : see
  23. Internet use and access still remains highly socially stratified according to our survey (and indeed most other research).
  24. (1987). Material Culture and Mass Consumption
  25. (2001). Material Politics: an introduction’,
  26. (2003). Media and the Restyling of Politics (London, doi
  27. (2005). Media Consumption and Public Connection: Towards a Typology of the Dispersed Citizen’, doi
  28. Media Consumption and Public Engagement, chapter 8. doi
  29. (2004). Modern Social Imaginaries doi
  30. Of those 60%, 86% said they accessed the internet at home, suggesting a lower figure for home internet access.
  31. (2001). Ordinary consumption and Personal identity: Radio and the Middle classes in the North West of England’,
  32. (2005). Our survey was conducted in 3-5
  33. (2001). Public Goods Private Goods (Princeton, doi
  34. (1996). Radio Television and Modern Life
  35. (2003). Reconfiguring Civic Culture in the New Media Milieu’, doi
  36. (2002). Social Consequences of the Internet doi
  37. (1996). Social Practices: A Wittgenstinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social (Cambridge, doi
  38. (1994). Television and Everyday Life doi
  39. (1997). The basic threshold of deliberative democracy is that ‘each citizen [is] able to initiate deliberation and participate effectively in it’
  40. (1963). The Civic Culture doi
  41. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation’, doi
  42. (2006). The latter including an exercise in citizen involvement in budget-setting (Power Report, The Report of Power: An independent Inquiry into Britain’s Democracy (London,
  43. (1961). The Long Revolution (Harmondsworth,
  44. (1997). The Market and the Forum’, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds) Deliberative Democracy
  45. (2002). The Real Digital Divide: Citizens Versus Consumers’,
  46. The Report of Power: An independent Inquiry into Britain’s Democracy (London,
  47. (1995). The Sociology of Consumption’,
  48. (1998). The Uncivic Culture: Communication, Identity, and the Rise of Lifestyle Politics.’ doi
  49. (1994). The Virtual Community (London,
  50. (1997). The word ‘public’ is notoriously difficult, since it has a range of conflicting meanings
  51. (2005). This contrasts with a recent US survey in which 24% of people name the internet as a principal news source. See Pew report “Public More Critical of Press, But Goodwill Persists”,
  52. This point is fully argued in
  53. This requires a link between discussion and effective decision-making(J. Cohen, ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’
  54. (1991). Though this is a difficult distinction to maintain: see Corner’s distinction between the scholarly analysis of ‘public knowledge and that of popular culture’
  55. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices,’ doi
  56. Toward a Theory of Social Practices’, doi
  57. which discussed domestic information and communication technologies.
  58. Yet the grounds for regulatory intervention in this market are often framed in terms of citizen interests – universal service obligation, broadcasting codes, journalists ethics, and so forth (S.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.