The Communication Review" 16:51-60, 2013

!l Routledge
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC I\r. Taylor &. Francls Gro\,lp
ISSN: 1071-4421 print/1547-7487 online
DOI: 10.1080/10714421.2013.757487

R~presenting Audiences: Audience Research,

PublicKnowledge, and Poliq

DAVID BUCKINGHAM
Communication. and Media Studies, Department 01Social Sciences,

Loughbo1"ough Un1versi~ Letcestersh1re, United Kingdorn

This article e:>vplores sorne oftbe dilemmas and difficulties encoun­

tered by acádemic researcbers (and speei.fically those; who work on
medt'a audiences) in presenttng ~beir work in thepublic dornain. Jt
constders sorne exarnples ofmedia coverage ofdebates about ,media
audienees, raising questions ahout academié authority, research
evidenee and publie knowledge. Jt points to tbe limitations of a
view of sucb debates as "moral panics" and proposes a différent
approach' based on social constntcttonist analyses of ''social prob­
lems." Jt concludes, by consídering sorne of the ambivalence o.nd
uneertainty that surro'(J.nds the increasingly common requÚ'eniént
for academics to become engaged with tbe pub1te at 1o.rge.

INTRODUCTION·

In the weeks since 1 began thinking abollt this' artic1e, 1 have received several
requests from journalists for my views on the relations between media and
their a'l1dlences. Apews· report abouttwo 14-year-olds who rríade their own
pornographic video led to an invitation from a mass-drculation daily news­
páper 'to write an opinión piece about I'the sexualisation of childhood." The
murder of 12 people at the screelling of the latest Bo.trnan movie in Autora,
Colorado, promp~ed a request from a -radio ·news channel for my views on
the' effects of media violence. Most recently, I was aSked for my opinions
on whether cell phone apps are makfug '\:lS "lazy and solipsistic" or whether
tbey "open new ávenues of life" and promote "even faster brain process­
ing." Alongside this have be en discussiol;1S with a doc'l1mentary producer

Address correspondence to David Buckingham,' Coinrimriication and Media Stlldies,

Department of Social. Sciences, Loughborough Ul'iiversity, Leicestel'shire LEll 3TU, Uniteq.
KingdolÍ1. E-mail: d.bl.lckingham@lboro.ac.uk .

51

Kopie für Uzenzkunden VOl; subíto eV, geliefert und ausgedruckt für Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED)(SL112X00087E)
 52 D. Buckingbam

about the contribution of media al1d consumer culture to the phenomenon

of "nature deficit disorder," a quely about the effects of reading e-books 011
children's imagination and attention span, and a request for a radio interview
about whether there should be age-based ratings for children's books sl.1ch
as those for apparently more harmful media such as film and video.
1 do not belíeve ·1 aro l.1nusual among academic researchers in receiving
such requests; although the fact that much of my work is concerned with
children and young peopIe obviously plays a part. Nor perhaps am 1 unusual
in so frequently ignoring or declining them.:-and indeed in feeling guilty
and even ashamed about doing so. Of comse, some of these queries are
ones that 1 am m-equipped to answer, and on which ,little useful evidence is .
available-although that does not always appear to be a significant constraint
for S01:ne of tllose who choose to respond to them.
However, my desire to avoid such quedes primarily reflects my impa­
tience with the terms in which the PLlblic debate abol.1t media audiences­
and especial1y about children and the media-"is typically defined: This is
largely an eitherjor debate, abol.1t whether the media are good or bad for ,
children. Ir is a debate that (as in my first two examples) is often prompted ,"
. by rare and spectacular even1:S--:yet tbese events are nevertheless fl'equentIy
seen to be typica.1, or to teH \.lS sómething much more' broadly about the
direction in which our society is heading. And it oft~n leads on to a disells­
sionabout whether we should restríet or control children's access to media
or the media tIlemselves. Framing the debate.in these terms focuses attention
on a narrow range of phenomena and largely forecioses what can possibly
be said about them., Yet, the ways in which this' ~genda is set in the wider,
,public domain inevitabIyexelt a signmcant influenceon the formatíon oí
policy and, by extension,. on the n.mding of further research.
Academics in the United Kingdom-·and 1 suspect .elsewhere-are
increasingly urged to consider the question ol' impacto In applying for gov­
ernment' research grants and in competing for fundfng under the Research'
Excellence Fratnework, we are now required to identify "pathways to impact"
and to próduce "impact nal'ratives" showing how Qur work has inflllenced
policy and practice beyond the academy. We might question whether such
a,n apparently aggressive terín is well chosen: Most of liS wouId probabIy
prefer the 'increasingly popular, and more dialogic, notibn of publíc engage­
mento However, most academics are surely cOllcemed that their work will .
make a difference to 'lhe wider world; and the impact agenda may provide
a useful means of recognizing and rewarding tIlis. '
Nevertheless, achieving, demonstrating and measming impact is bound
to be a complex matter.. One significant difficulty here, is that any such
lri1pact is almost invariably mediated, meaning that the channels through
which it might be attained are often beyond our control. We have only Hm­
ited opportW1ities, and limited power, to determine how our'work will be
. represented ~ the public domain. As such, the relations between research,

Kopie fürLizenzkunden von subit~ e,V., geliefert undausgedruckt für Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED) (SLl12X00087E)
 Representing Audiellces 53

medía coverage" public debate, and policymaking, which are the focus of
, this article, are almost bound to prove dlfficult and troublin'g.

THREE EXHIBITS

The following three brief examp\es, taken fmm recenf D.K. debates about
média audiences, illustrate some of the ways in, which academics are able to
contribute to these discussions. They also polnt to sorne of the formidable
dífficulties we face in generating a more constructive publtc debate.
Susan Greenfield is a professor of synaptic pharmacology at' Oxford
University and a former director of. tbe Royal Institution. She is also a
baroness, an appointed rnember of tbe Rouse of LQrds, the D.K.'s upper
legíslative chamber. Over the past few years, Professor Greenfield has made
a number of high-profile public,statements about the effects of the Internet
and of other digital media on chUdl'én's brain development. The, targets of her
concern are fairly broad; as a sample of her many recent headlines suggests:

• "Facebook Addicts Can't Relate, Says Scientist Susan Greenfield" CSydney

Morning Herald, June 9, 2010) ,
• lfTexting 'Could Increase Attention Dcficit Disordel's,' Says Baroness
Greenfield" CDatly Telegrapb, August 12, 2009)
• "SocialWebSites Harm Children's Brains: Chillillg Warning to Parents From
Top Neuroscientist" (JJaily Mail, Februmy 24, 2009)
• "Susan Greenfield: Computers May Be Altering Our Brains" (Ind,ependent,
August 12, 2011)

Greenfield's claims are partly based on neuroscientmc theories about the

plasticity of the developing human brain; althOl~gh, she also claims that elec- "
tronic media have caused a wider 10ss of "empathy' in contemporary society,
manifested in the apparent rise in víolence, ·addiction, and so on. In 2011,
controversy arose when Professor Greenfield claimed that the Internet was
responsible for the rise in childhood autism-a claim' that clear1y dóes not
stand up to even che bríefest critical interrogation. Greenfield's clajms were
publicly challenged by one of her academic colleagues, Professor Dorothy
Bishop, an expert on autism, and by autism catnpaigners. In trus case, as
in others, Greenfield agreed (when pressed) that the evidence was limited;
although she also asserted that the iasue was so urgent thafthe lack of
definitive evidencedid not mateer, and that actfon should' be taken right
~way.l '

Por nirther details on fbis debate, see http://w~w.gtlt\rdian.co.tlklsoc¡ety!2011/atlgl06/research­

alltism-intemet-susan-grcenfield..

Kopie für Lizenzkunden von subito e,V" geliefert und ausgedruckt für Universidad'Nacional de Educacion a Distanciá (UNED) (SLI12X00087E)
 54 D. BZlckingbam

David Starkey is a former professor of history at· the London School of

Economics and the author of llumerous apparently definitive texts on British
constitutional history. He is also a frequent media commentator. In August
2011, he appeared 011 the .BBC's flagship news magazine program Newsnight
in a discussion of the rioting that had erupted in many D.K. cities earHer that
week. Starkey argued that the dots werea result of the influence of black
. culture on White working-classyoung people, especial1y through media such
as rap music:

What's happened is that a substantial section of the chavs ... have

become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of vio­
lent, dest1"Uctive, nihiHstic, gangster culture hás become the fashion ...
And this 15 why so many of us have this sense of [England as] literalIy a
foreign cOllntry ...2 .

When questioned, Starkey was unable to name any examptes or rap music,
but hé was by· no means alone· in pointing· to the media as a cau~e of the
riots .. Commentary in. the wake of these events frequent1y laid the blame
on media as diverse as computé!" games, rap music, reality·televisi.on, sodal
. networking sites, and the advel'tising of designer clot11ing. Starkey is we11
known asa controversialist, but he is also an historian. In inviting him to
contribute, the producers of Newsnigbt might have expected him to affer a
considered historical perspective. Yet, this was. not what he provided¡ and
his contribution .raises significant questions about the uses and abuses of
academic aúthority. 3
Dr. Linda Papadopoulos is a child psychologist whQ was cOmnUssiorted
by the U.K. gover111nent to produce an official report on the "sexualisation of,
young people," which was püblished in 2010. The report arose in the con­
text óf a Home Office review of domestic violence against women, instigated
by the then-Labour Home Secretary ]acqui Smith; although conservative
poHticians inc1uding Prime Minister' David Cameron have also complained
about the flcreepy sexualisation" bfgirls 'in music videos, fashion advertising,
teenage magazines and other media .. The incoming conservative govern­
ment subsequent1y comrrUssioned. a further report on this issue from Mr.
Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers' Uníon (a Christian charity);
Bfliley's report,. symptomatically entitléd Letting Children Be Children, rec­
ommended a range of restrictions on media and marketing that are currently
beúig foIlowed through. '
Dr. Papadopolous is a practis:il1g cHnlcal psychologist who is also
employed at íhe University of North London. Her own research has been

2 Starkey's contrlbuÜon is available on YOllTube: http://www.youlllbe.com!watch?v=gU;TcTSa9kk

~ Por a passionate discussion of the issues raised by Starkey's Interventlon, see PhoenIx and Phoenix
(20i2). For a dlsc\.ISsión of media coverage of me
immediate affermath of the riots, ,see Bucklngham
(2011a).

Kopie für Lizenzkunden von subito e.V., geliefert und ausgedruckt für Univ~rsidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED) (SLl12X00087E)
 Representíng Aucliences . 55

primarily in the field of dermatology, However, she is also a glamorous

ce1ebrity; she has appearecl as the resident psychologist on Big Brotber and
is regularly used as an expelt 00 breakfast television. She has also been fea..;
tured on programs suéh as Celebrlty Mastm'mind and Celebrlty Fit Club. Dr.
Linda (as she prefers' to be' known in these cohteXts) also runs a private
beauty consultancy for. women, which markets its OWll range of beauty
products.
Papadopoulos's' repOlt is dominated by psychological theories of media
effects: There is no discussion of research using sociological or Cultural
Studies perspectives, or of themany criticisms of media effects research. 1I
Her statements to journalists typical1y align this account with a pathologíeal
víew of contemporary youog women:

It is a drip, drip effect. Lo'o1<:. at porn stars, ~md look hbw an average'
gir! now looks. It's seeped into evely d.:'ly: fake breasts, fuck-me shoes
" , , We are hypersexuaUsing glrls, teUing them that their desirability
relles on being desired. They want to pIease at any cost eThe Guardian;
February 25, 2011).

As predictable, the Papadopoulos report and the ensuing debate

received wide media eovel'age, not least because it provided a pretext for
the media to featme' examples of the offending material: Perhaps the most
notable was the website of the Daily Mail-a conservative newspaper ,well
known for its mor~l eampáigning-which featured. several raunchy images of
the star Rihanna while simultaneously ealling on the media regulator OfGo~
to ban them. "

CONDITIONS.OF AUTHORITY

As these examples' suggest, debates about media audiences are a constant

concern for the media themselves. Behind the three 1 have discussed stand
a legion of eommentators, pund.its, ap.d eampaigners willing to recite their
views about the harmf111 effects of the media, seemingly at any passing invi­
tation, In the Unifed Kingdom, they would inelude the current Archbishop of
Canterbu1Y, R9wan Williarps, whose views on the "Disnc::yfieátion'" of l'pod­
ero ehUdhood hav~ been widely cited¡ the parenting expert Sue P,almer,
whose bestseller Toxic Cbildhood: HOlu tbe Modero World isDamaging our
Children and What We Can Do About It (2006) has set mueh of the agenda
for contemporary discussion'; and the psyehologist Arie Sigman, whose views

. Thc l'eport itSelf 15 pubJished ns Home Office (2010), For discussion of academic responses to the
, .report, see Smith and Attwoocl (2011). Attwood and o,thers (2012) discU5S the uses of blogglng as a means
af Intervening'in slÍch debates, ,Papacfopoulos's own'siteili www,drlinda,cam,

Kopie für lizenzkunden von s'ubito ~,V., geliefert und ausgedruckt f(ir Universidad Nacional de E'ducacion a DistanGia (UNED) (SLl12XOb087E)
 56 D. Buckingbam

veer towards the lúnatic fringe of antitelevisíon campaigners represented by

groups ~uch as the White Dot Society. .
However, my three aforementioned exámples are all academics.
Of course, they might be disparaged as media celebrities: Despite their
readiness to blame the media, they are all exceptional1y media~friendly.
Nevertheless, the first two at lease are undoubtedly distinguished in their
respective fields. They carry a degree of academic authority and gravitas,
which is strongly endorsed by offidal bodies (the Royal Institution, rhe BBe,
the government). Théy purport to present scientificevidence, and to embody
the wisdom of disciplined scholarship.
The fact that none of them has any experience whatsoever in media
research may be seen as al1 advantage: 1'hey all come from academic disci­
plines that are generally seen as more sedous and legitima te thanmedia
sttldies-a flele). whose claims tú authority are still widely vilifled in the
·mainstream media. As media researchers, we are of course inured to the phe­
·nomenonof "blaming the media". In· different ways, my three examples aU·
reflect the familiar trapes of this appraach: The media are regarded as a pri~ .
mary, if not exclusive, cause of very braad (and frequel1tly ill~defined) social
phenomena; they are See¡l to operate accordíng to a simple cause-and~ffect
. logic, in which audiences are merely passive vi<;tims of media manipulation;
ánd, in a version of the "third person effect," these effects are routinely dis­
placed onto other people (especial1y youhg people) who are deemed to be
incompetent ordysfunctional consumers. As media researchers, we ·know
that: generations of scholars have shown the role of the media in sociéty
to be significantly more diverse and complex than this.Yet,· in the public
debate, the persistence of medía-blaming and of simplistic assertions about
media effects is undeniable. Howevel' much we may wearily insist that "it's
much more complícated than that," the debate continues to be framed in
terms of assertions that, on the contrary, it is actually simple.

BEYOND MEDIA PANlCS

In ou'r attempts to explain the persistence of these arguments, researchers

have tended to resort to the 11otion of <!meclia panic"-an applieation of the
broade! concept of l/moral panic" to concerns about the harmful effects of
'media. As 1 have argued elsewhere, the concept of media panie is undoubt­
· edly useful and relevant in sorne ínstances, but as a general account of publie
beliefs about media, it has sevetallimitations (see Buckingham & ]ensen,
2012). There are difficulties hére in identifying what is to count as a "panic,"
as.oppósed to a measured or rational response; and in so me accounts, there
1s also an implic'ation of polítical manipulation-a suggestion that panics are
· always necessarily about something other than they appear to be. Popular
uses of this idea can also reflect a degree of ahistoricism-"it was ever thus

Kopie für Lizenzkunden von subito eY, geliefert und ausgedruckt für Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED) (S1I12X00087E)
 Repmsenting Audlences 57

; .."-or a form of "presentism," that j\.ldges the mistakes of the past from
the apparently enlightened perspective of the preserit.
One of the most significant problems with the media panics apptoach is
that popular argurnents about media effects are by no rneans only negative.
Having spent rnuch of my academic career wrestling with what 1 regard as
simplistic arguments about harrnful effects, 1 seem to have spent much of
the past .decade struggling witb the opposite-with what 1 see as a superfi­
·cíal technologically determinist celebraríon of the wopders of digital media,
especially as regards the so-called e/digital natives:" At present, such utopian
arguments dOmipate both academic and popular discussions about the polit- .
.ka! effect of social media (as in the "Facebook revolutions" of me Middle
· Bast), and about the apparently transformative power of digital technology
in education. Su<;:h views are strongly promoted by s9me academics, but
· they are also enthusiastically adopted by technology marketers-and in s.ome
instances, it can be hard to teH the difference between them .
.In seeking to 'undérstand .the nuances aric1 complexities of public dis­
courses about media audiences, we need to move beyond tlle limited notíon
of "media panics." 'In my own work, 1 have increasingly tumed to the social
constructionist approach developed by sociologists such as Joe! Best and
Karen Sternheirner in their analysis of "socialproblems" (see Buckingham, .
2011b, Chapte!' 1. Best [2008] offers a definitive overviewof this approach¡
Sternheimer· [2009] applies it to studyíng young people and media). Trus
. approach begs some' epistemological questlons, but it do~s provide sorne
useful tooIs and fl'ameworks with which toanalyse public controversies
about media audiences. Por example, the familiar concept of framing can
be usefully applied ·to the ways in which particular issues are nominated
and defined; and we can explore how particular individuals oc organisations
seek to establish ownersbip .ofa given issue, and to regulate the boundaries
of legitimate discussion about it. Such an approa,ch can be used to illuminate
the processes through which an issue .such as "sexualisation" comes to be
·identified, in the tirst place, how evidence about it is compiled and presented,
how'opinions on the issue are asserted, circulated and marketed, and how
the authority to speak abollt it ís daimed and established. .
However, one of the limitations of this kind of~'producer-centred"
account (as of "media panics" the01Y) 15 that it tells us very little about
" how ordinary people come to knowabollt socíal problems or issues, and
how theyengage with them. In this respect" chis approach can usefully be
extended thl'ough the analysis of public knowledge-a m.ore· familiar theme
in studies of media audíences that has been addressed in vaiious ways by
researchers such as John Comer and Peter Dahlgren. BUen Seiter's work·on
"lay theories" of media effects, 01' my own earlier· wOl'k on parents~ discourses
about television,provide sorne indications of how these issues might be·
addressed in tllis area (e.g., see Buckingham, 1993; Comer, 1995;, Dahigren,
~995; Gripsrud¡ 2000; Selte!', 1999). . . .

Kopie für Lizenzkunden von subito e.V .• geliefert und ausgedruckt lur Univé~idad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED) (SLí12X00087E)
 58 D. Bucktnghmn

TERMSOFENGAGEMENT

Given the ways' in which sllch topies are typically framed and defined it J

is often hard to imagine how academic work might make a more effective
contribution to publíc knowledge. Yet J this ls surely a vital question-not
least because the publíc debate itself plays a significant role in setting the
agenda for policy and (whether we like it 01' not) for academic work itself.
In the field of science communication, there has beena significant shíft in
recent years from the notion of "public understanding of science" tú that
of "public engagement with science": According to its a dvocates , this new
perspective moves beyond the deficit model of a passive, ignorartt public that
is in need of being informed by sciéntific experts, toward a more dialogic
approach (see Bucchi & Trench, 2008).
Howevel', . ihere has been relatively little attention to this issue in the
field of social science ,Cfor a useful empirical study, see Fenton, Bryman, &
Deacon, 1998). Here, it seem,s logical to expeet that the relatlons between .
public knowledge, evidence and policy are likely to be more eomplex: and
contested. Compal'ed with thát of natural scientists, the authority of social sd­
entific expelts is inevitably more open to qu~stion, both within and beyond
their own disciplines. Furthermore, the topies 011 which social scientists wórk
tehd to be much closer to people's everyday experience. lt is arguable that .
we are not all equal1y entitled to express an opinion about quantum mechan­
ks or global warming, 01' at least judged to be equal1y credible if we attempt .
tb do SOj whereas it would. seem that anybody-from the Archbishop of
.Canterbury to your local taxi drlver-is equal1y entitled to hold a view about
whether television or computer games are good or bad fol' children.
This can l'esult in a widespread suspicion amongst academics about
the value of such media engagement.,....;a suspicion most notably manifested
in Pierre Bourdieu's stathing critique of television CBordieu, 1999). Such
engagement i5 often perceived to entail a form of "popularization or even ll

"Vulgarization"; and those colleagues who do pursue it are sometimes con-'

.demned as media whores. This condemnation also extends to academics
who are busily ~lSing social media: Academic twittering and social network-.
ing are often condemned as merely forms of self-promotion. These com­
plaints are not without justification iri sorne cases: Academic self-publicists
rlsk fatally undermining their own leginmacy, to the point where even main­
stream media may come to see them ·as unworthy of being taken seriously. '
Yet, it is irornc that this .whole process might itself be subjected to
a Boul'dieuian .analysis, as a competition between contrasting forms of
legitimation operating within overlapping but distinct social and cultural
, fields .. Perhaps Bourdieu's problem,with appearing on TV was that he wás
uncomfortable about openjng himse1f to the different criteria of judgment
applied by the popul~f cl,asses; or perhaps he was worried about the pos­
sibility that his peers might pe watching him, and might denounce him for

Kopie fGr Lízenzkunden von subito e.V., geliefert únd ausgedrucktfGr Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED) (SLl12X00087E)
 Representíng Audíences 59

academic oversimplification. To take aOQther theoretical tack, ir seerns sorne­

, what utopian to expect ~hat the media might ever function as a Habermasian
public sphere, a realm of pure communicarion in which scientific evidence
could be transparently represented. As media académics, we should know
. better than to expect that nuanced, qualified accounts of the com¡:)lex,
multifactorial narure of media influence are somehow going ro make the
headlines. '
Furthermore, we need to 'i-ecognize the politica! economy of aca­
demic work itself: The imperatives br impact and other forms of acadernic
reputaríon-building reflecr the increasingly competitive nature of individual
academics and of the institutions within which they work. However much
we may distrust shnpHstic media coverage, our managers and employers
may' feel that there is rarely such a thing as bad publícity. Ther~ are cer-: '
tainly instances where university press offices' attempts to pubUcise particular
instances of research have resulted in inaccurate forms of media "spin," in
. which academics themselves have been complicit. 5
. Last, there is the question of how su eh debates feed into policy: The
technocratic notíon of uevidence-based policy" assumes ,that evidence i5 an
unproblematicphenomenon, and that it can simply be accumulated, such
as picking appIes from a tree; and it beHes the. fact that policymaking has
its own dynamits, which are subject to much wider forces, and indeecl to
forms of serendipity. The debate arou~d the "sexualisaríon of childhood"
(discussed earHer) provides many instances of this, as did my bwn experi­
enee ofleading a parallel nI(. government review of "the iinpact ofthe com­
merdal world 011 ehildren's wellbeing."6 Far from pursuing "evidence-based
poliey," my abiding impression was that politidans were themseIves highly.
subject to the vicÍ8situdes of media coverage: Rather than setting the terms
bf debate, they were often improvising in response to ernerging expre5sions
of "public opinion," asruticulated by the right wing press-a situation that is .
p~adoxical ID light of the continuing decline in riewspaper circulation.
l. wrote this article partIy as a provocation to further debate among the
research cbmmunity, although it is probably clea!' that 1 aro having sorne
kind of debate with myseIf. As medía researcl)ers (and perhaps· particularly
. as .audience researchers), we shoulddo a better job communicating our
research to the wider publico Yet, 1 am weary 9fworl<:ing in a situaríon where
the terms ofdebate are predefined in ways that are exasperatingly narrow
and whei-e there are sl.lch powerful constraints on wh:it can possibly be said.
1 ain also increasinglyaware of how the parameters of our own research are
being set in ways. that simpIy repIay a gl'eat many of thoseframe~which

1", late; 201l 1 llpptr.u·ed, alungside Pl'llfessor Susan llreenfield, In an cdltlun of BBe Radio 4's
7be Media Sbow, which discussed some interesUng instan,ces of Ú'lis: This progrrunme (Ix. December 28,
2011) 16 stlll avallable at wWW.bbc.co.uk!programmes/b018gqzy.
~ Thi5 report was publíshed as Deparunent of Children, SCh90ls ancl Families and Department of.
Culture, Media and Sport (2009). ..

Kopiefür Lizenzkunden von subitoeV, geliefert uncÍ ausgedr\Jckt für univer~ldad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED) (SLl12X00087E)
 60 D. Buckingham

in turn makes it hardér to questioll them, and to move beyond them. In an

age of participatOlY media, we might expect this to be getting easier, as we
are able to exercise greater control over the channels ando means of commu­
nication that we use-althoúgh as we become merely another voice amid
the babble of online discussion, it seeIl;lS much more likely that academic
authority and credibility will be further u'ndermined. .

REFERENCES

Attwood, F., Barker, M., Bragg,' S., Egan, D., Evans, A., Halvey, L., ... van Zoonen, L.
(2012). Engaglng with the Bailey Review: Blogging, academia and authenticity.
p$ychology and Sexuality, 3. 69-94.
Best,]. (2008). Social problems. New York, NY: NOlton.

Bourdieu, P. (1999). On televfslon. New York, NY: New Press.

Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook. olpublic communication 01

sctence and technology. Lendon, England: Routledge. . .

Buckihgham, p. (l99~). Cbildren talki.ng televis{on. Lóndon, Englal?-d: Falmer.
Buckingham¡ D. (2011a). There's a riot going.Oll. The Media Magazine.• 38, 5-12.
Buckingham, D. (2011b). The material child. Cambridge, England: Polity.
Buckíngham, D., &, Jensen, H. S. (2012). Beyond media panies: ReconceptuaHsing
. public débates about children and media. 1om'na! 01 ChiJdren and Media, 6, .
413-'429.
Comer, J. (1995)~ Television form andpublic addl'ess. Londan, England: Hodder.
Dahlgren, P. (1995). Telévision and the public sphere.· London, England: Sage.
Department of Children, Schools and Families andDepartment of CultUre, Media
and Sport. (20.09). Tbe impact 01 the commercial world on children ~ well-being.
. . London, England: Author. . .
Penton, N., Bryman, A., & Deaeon, D. (1998). Mediating social science. London,
England: Sage. .
Gripsrud, J. (Ed.). (20.0.0). Television and common knowledge. London,· England:
Routledge. '. . ' .
Home Oftke. (2010). Repon: on the sexttttl1sation ofyoungpeople. London, England:
Author.· . .
Palmel', S. (2006). Toxic childhood.. London, England: Olion.
Phoenix, A., & Phoenix, A. (20.12). RaciaHsation, relationality and riota: Intersections
and inteipellations. Femin1st Review, 100, 52.. .71.
Seiter, E. (999). Television and netO media audiences. Oxford, England~ Oxford
University Press.
Smith, C., & Attwood,'F: (20Ú). Lamenting sexualisatioÍ1: Reseal'ch, rhetorle and me
story' of yO\.1ng people's "sexualisation" in Che UK Home Office review. Sex
Educatton, 11, 327-337. .
Sternheimer, Ié. (2009). Connecting social problems and popular culture. Boulder,
Co: Westvit~w.

('

Kopie für Lizenzkúnden von subilo'e.V., geliefert und ausgedruckl für Universidad Nacional de.Educacion a Distancia (UNED) (SLl12X00087E)
 Representing Audiences 59

aeademic oversimplification. To take another theoretical tack, it seems some­

. what utopían to expect that the media might ever function as a Habermasian
pÍlblic sphere, a realm of pure eommunication in whieh scientific evidence
, could be transparently represented. As media academics, we should know
, better than to expect that nuanced, qualified aeeounts of the complex,
multifaetorial nature of media influence are somehow going to make the
headlines. '
Furthermore, we need to 'recogníze' the políticaI economy of aca­
demic work itself: The imperatives bf impaet and other forms of academic
reputation-building reflect the inereasingly competitive nature of individual
aeademics and of the ínstitutions within which they work. However much
we may distmst simplistic media c0verage, our managers and empIoyers
may feel that there is rarely su eh a thing as bad publicity. Ther~ are cer- ,
tainly instances where university press Qffices' attempts to pl.lblicise particular
instances oí research have resulted in inaeclu'ate forms of media "spin," in
which academics themselves llave been complicit. 5
. Last, there is the question of how SllCh debates feed into policy; The
technocratic notion of "evidenee-based poliey" assumes that evidence is an
unproblematic phenomenon, and thar it can simply be accumulated, such
as picking apples from a tree; and it belies the. fact that policyp:¡aking has
its own dynamics, which are subject to much wider forces, and indeed. to
forms of serendipity. 111edebate around the "sexualisation of childhood"
Cdiscussed earlier) provides many instances of this, as did my own experi­
ence of leading a parallel nI<. government l'eview of "the iinpact ofthe com­
mercial world on children's wellbeing."6 Far from pursuing "evidence-based
policy," my abiding impression was that politkians were themseIves highly
subject to the vicissitudes of media coverage: Rather than settíng the terms .
bf debate, they were often improvising in response toemerging expressions
of "public bpinion," as alticulated by the l'ight wing press-a situatíon that is '
paradoxical in light of the continuing decline in riewspaper circulation.
1, wrote this article partIy as a provocation to further debate among the
research community, although it is probably clear that 1 am having $ome
kind of debate with myself. As media researehers (and perhaps' párticular1y
as, audience researchers), we shoulddo a better job comrnunicating our
résearch to the wider publico Yet, 1 am weary 9f worlcing in a situation where
the tenns of' debate are predefin~d in ways that are exasperatingly narrow
and whei:e there are such powerful constraints on wh?-t can possibly be said.
1 am also mcreasingly aware of how the parameters of our own research are
beíng set in ways that simply repIay a great many of those frame~-,wruch

In, lat~ 201l I llppc::ul'ed, .llongskle Pl'Otessor Susan Greentield, In ¡m cditlon of B13C Ruello 4'8
Tbo Media Sbow, which discussed same lllterestlng insta~ces of Ihis: Thls prograrnme (tx. December 28,
2011) is stlU avallable at www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018gqzy.
, This repon wall publlshed as Deparlmellt of Children, Schools and Families and Deparunent of.
Culture, Media and Sport (2009). '

Kopiefür Lizenzkunden von subito aV., geliefert und ausgedr\1ckt fü'r Unive~idad Nacional de Eeucaclon a Distancia (UNED) (SLl12X00087E)
 60 D. Buckingbam

in turn makes it harder to q1..1estiol1 them, and to move beyond them. In an

age of participatory media, we might expect this to be getting easier, as we
are able to exeréise greater control over the channels ando means of commu­
nication that we use-althoúgh as we become merely ánother voice amid
the babble of onlille discussion, it seel11S much more Hkely that academic
authority and credibility will be furi:her u'ndennined. .

REFERENCES

Attwood, F., Barker, M., Bragg,' S., Egan, D., Evans, A., Halvey, L., ... van Zoonen, L.
(2012). Engaging with the Bniley Review: Blogging, academia and authenticity.
P$Jchology and Sexuality, 3, 69-94.
Best, J. (2008). Social problems. New York, NY: NOlton.

Bourdieu, P. (999). On televi.sion. New York, NY: New Press.

Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eeis.). (2008). Handbook 01 public communication 01

science and technologjJ. tondon, England: Routledge. ' '

Buckmgham, ,D. (199~). Cbildren talking televtsion. Landon, England: Falmer.
Buckingham; D. (2011a). There's a liot going.on. TbeMediaMagazine, 38, 5-12.
Buckingham, D. (2011b). The mateliaÍ child. Cambridge, England: Polity.
Buckingham, D., &. ]ensen, H. S. (2012). Beyond media panics: Reconceptualis,ing
. public débates about children and media. jOUl"nal 01 Cbildren and Media} 6, '
413-429.
Corner,]. (1995), Televisionform andpublic address. London, England: Rodder.
Dahlgren, P. (1995). Television and tbe public spbere. London, England: Sage.
Department of Children, Schools and Families anc1 Department of Culture, Media
and Sport. (2009). Tbe impact ofthe commercicil world on children~ well-being.
, ' London, England: A u t h o r . · · ,
Penton, N., Bryman, A., & Deacon, D, (1998). Mediating social science. London,
England: Sage. '
Gripsrud, J. CEd,), (2000). Television and common knowledge. Lendon,. England:
Routledge. .. '. '
Hom'e Office. (2010). Repon' on tbe séXUalisation ofyoungpeople. Lendon, England:
Author. . .
Paltnel', S. (2006). Toxic childhood.. London, England: Olion.
Phoenix, A., & Phoenix, A. (2012), Racialisation, relationaUty and riots: Intersections
and interpellations. Feminist Review, 100, 52~71.
Seiter, E. (999). Television and new media audiences. Oxford, England! Oxford
University Press.
Smith, C., & Attwood,'P: (2011). Lamenting sexualisation: Reseal'ch, rheto1'lc and the
story' of yOllng people's "sexualisation" in the UK Home Office review. Sex
Education, 11,327-337. .
Sternhe~mer, I( (2009). C01mecting social problems and popular culture. Boulder,
CO: Westview.

Kopie für Lizenzkiinden von subitoe.v., geliefert und ausgedruckt fOr Universidad Nacional de.Educacion a Distancia (UNED) (SLl12X00087E)