Converging forms of
communication? Interpersonal
and mass mediated
expressions in digital
environments
Until the second half of the 1990s, the differences between mass mediated and
interpersonally mediated communication were relatively clear, and mass
communication was the main analytical focus within studies of media and
communication. Studies of mediated interpersonal communication such as letters and
phone-calls gained less attention (although there were exceptions such as (Aronson,
[1971] 1979; Fischer, 1988; Pool, 1977). E-mail and interpersonal, dyadic instant
messages, sms/mms and phone-calls remain forms of media that support private
communication between people (i.e. content is not generally accessible). However,
the implementation of digital and network technology has increased possibilities to
construct and publish content, available to anyone with access to the Internet: the
individual has become a potential mass communicator. Similarly, mass media
increasingly develop arenas where readers/users can express themselves. Letters to
editors and call-ins have traditionally been of great importance (McNair et al., 2002),
but digital technology opens up for more audience-generated content within the mass
media. People are encouraged to share their thoughts and points of views:
commenting online articles; texting strong opinions to TV-debates; and texting and
sending camphone-photos to sms-based television shows (Beyer et al., in press).
Personal expressions (text, photos, videos or other creative content) are
abundantly available online. In addition, collective arenas of communication, such as
MetaFilter and Wikipedia have become popular. In a broader perspective, the totality
of the Internet can be seen as a collective product: a gigantic arena of collaboration,
1
which to a large degree is a result of non-institutional and non-professional
contributions (a central argument of web 2.0 and long tail-discussions).
The above-described blurred boundaries between forms of communication and
forms of media constitute the point of departure for this article. Are different forms of
communication converging? Is the distinction between interpersonal and mass
mediated communication still useful?
In the first part of the article I discuss the significance of media materialities
as well as social negotiation for the transformation of communication forms. I also
explicate the concept of communication by investigating practices of interaction,
participation and integration. The development and public appropriation of digital
technology has increased the visibility of the social significance of mediated
interpersonal communication (e.g. the amount of attention given to computermediated communication as compared to previous research of letter-writing and
phone-calls), and blurred the differences between interpersonal and mass-mediated
communication (e.g. complicating Thompson’s differentiation between mediated and
quasi-mediated interaction).
In the second part of the article, I analyse examples of
conversations/discourses within personal and private weblogs, Underskog (a
geographically specific social calendar combined web log for people in different cities
in Norway), MetaFilter and reader-discussions following articles published in the
online version of the Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet (db.no). I discuss the character of
the specific communication processes concerning aspects of interaction, participation
and social integration.
The concluding part summarises the analysis, and pinpoints the nuances of the
research questions presented above. The concept of convergence is initially of value
in discussing the development of forms of communication such as the practice of
private individuals functioning as potential mass communicators, and the increasing
use of audience-generated content within mass media. However, the conversations,
discourses and networks that are supported are very different despite an apparent
blurring of boundaries of practices. The article illustrates how conceptualising forms
of communication has become increasingly complex, yet still of central importance.
While initially useful, the concept and meaning of convergence can easily disguise the
very different character and social functions of discourses within for instance a
2
private weblog, MetaFilter and audience-generated content within a mass media
setting.
Methodological approach
The analyses of the four chosen examples are relatively brief and cannot be connected
to either quantitative content analysis or qualitative text analysis, but comes closer to
a structural analysis of the characteristics of threads regarding interaction,
participation and integration. These concepts are discussed theoretically in the next
part and operationalised in the analytical section of the article. Four cases were
chosen as representing (yet not representative of) digital environments of personal,
collaborative and mass media kinds. Data from qualitative interviews with 15 young
Norwegians form an additional empirical basis in order to defend a focus on
interaction in personal weblogs, as recent research indicates that commenting is not
necessarily a significant part of weblogging practices.
Media materialities and social
practices of communication
In the following part I discuss the significance and social appropriation of media
technologies. I further look into social practices of interpersonal and mass mediated
communication by theoretically expounding on the three variables of interaction,
participation and integration. These qualities are employed in the subsequent
empirical analysis aiming to elucidate if and how forms of communication are
converging. As Scott E. Caplan illustrates, a number of scholars have already
suggested that distinctions between interpersonal and mass communication are
converging and that boundaries have become blurred as a result of emerging forms of
computer-mediated communication (Caplan, 2001). Caplan suggests that a new
system of hyperpersonal communication has materialized, which cannot be analysed
with reference to either interpersonal or mass communication theories. According to
Caplan, hyperpersonal communication systems are fundamentally different when it
comes to the characteristics of message receivers (access only to restricted verbal and
nonverbal cues), message senders (highly controlled self-presentations), and the
message exchange process (un-constrained by time and space).
3
I have three objections to Caplan’s suggested third system of communication.
Firstly, Walther’s original concept of hyperpersonal, a very useful concept per se, is
hardly apt to describe a third system of communication, as it rather describes qualityaspects of communication (Walther, 1996). A distinction between mediated
interpersonal communication and hyperpersonal communication is a fuzzy one, as
mediated interpersonal communication often has hyperpersonal characteristics.
Secondly, proposing a third system of communication seems to be an easy and unnecessary option instead of explaining the complex relationships that exists between
forms of communication. Thirdly, a distinction between three separate systems of
communication implies a danger of working against fruitful theoretical links between
different disciplines of media and communication. As Patrick O’Sullivan argues, the
dichotomy that exists between interpersonal and mass communication research is
artificial and detrimental to the advancement of communication research as a whole
(O'Sullivan, 1999). My approach in the following theoretical discussion cannot be
limited to a specific research tradition. The intention is to focus on relevant aspects of
theories that consider the mediated relationship between interacting parties as well as
the social significance of various forms of communication (whether mass or
interpersonally mediated).
Media materialities and social negotiation
One fundamental question that needs to be taken into account in a discussion of
possible convergence-tendencies between forms of communication concerns the
specific role of (media) technologies. Friedrich Kittler was an early proponent of the
convergence-thesis, claiming that digital technologies erase the differences among
individual media as any medium can be translated into any other thanks to the binary
code structure of digital technologies (Kittler, [1986] 1999). There is clearly a media
determinist premise in this argument. Suggesting that communication forms are
converging is a logical next step and equally media determinist. Whether or not
communication forms are converging, it is of vital importance to acknowledge the
significance of media materialities in the development of communication practices.
Media materialities are essentially determining for the semantic and social aspects of
communication (Gane, 2005; Hutchby, 2001; Innis, 1951; Kittler, [1986] 1999;
McLuhan, [1964] 1997). As Robert Cathcart and Gary Gumbert show, the role of the
medium has especially been an ignored aspect of interpersonal communication:
4
“It is difficult to find an interpersonal communication text or resource book which treats
the subject of the media as a significant factor. The role of the media in personal
communication has, by and large, been overlooked” (Cathcart and Gumpert, 1986: 27).
Since then, the exponential growth of the Internet has had theoretical consequences
for media studies overall, resulting in an increased focus on medium theory and the
role of specific media technologies in communication processes (Holmes, 2005).
Recognising the importance of the materiality of (media) technologies does
not automatically imply a technological determinist position if combined with a more
hermeneutic model of technological development: technology develops in social,
political, engineering and economic environments and derives its full meaning from
our appropriation, interpretations and experience of it [e.g.] (Barnet, 2003; Feenberg,
1999; Holmes, 2005; Lüders, 2006b). A combined socio-technical approach has
become common and conceivably normative for constructivist sociology of
technology. A fundamental theoretical contribution comes from Wiebe E. Bijker and
Trevor Pinch’s argument about flexible interpretations of technological artefacts.
Technical principles alone cannot explain the success or failure of technical artefacts
but have to be considered in relation to negotiating processes between social groups
(e.g. designers, developers, customers) (Pinch and Bijker, 1989). Technological
development is as such socially constructed. In a related vein actor-network theory
maintains that technology can only be comprehended by studying the relations
between nodes or actants. As such actor-network theory can be described as a
semiotic method emphasising the study of the symmetry between human and nonhuman actants in practices (Latour, 1992).
The extensive use of digital personal media for social purposes is mirrored in
widespread research [e.g.] (Bargh et al., 2002; Baym and Zhang, 2004; Boase et al.,
2006; Haythornthwaite, 2002; Licoppe and Smoreda, 2005; Lüders, 2006a; Tidwell
and Walther, 2002). Interpersonal communication processes and media-technologies
used for interpersonal communication can no longer be said to be under-researched.
With its focus on converging forms of communication, this article is situated at the
outskirts of interpersonal communication research. Interestingly the Internet as a
underlying media technology facilitates mass media forms as well as personal media
forms, yet mass communication and interpersonal communication regularly cross the
borders between mass media and personal media (Lüders, 2006b)i. The
communicative environments still differ considerably when it comes to social
5
implications and the character of interaction, and neither technology nor specific
media forms neutrally facilitate communication processes. Bluntly and boldly stated,
the exact something cannot be expressed through a letter, a text-message, an e-mail
and a weblog.
Interaction
A premise for discussing possible converging tendencies between interpersonal and
mass communication, is that there at least has existed a distinction. The key-word to
explore in this context is interaction. In a classical mass communication model, there
is no symmetrical interaction between senders and receivers. This has been called
‘para-social interaction’ by Donald Horton and Richard R. Wohl or ‘mediated quasiinteraction’ by John Thompson (Horton and Wohl, [1956] 1979; Thompson, 1995;
Thompson, 2005).
The interaction, characteristically, is one-sided, nondialectical, controlled by the
performer, and not susceptible of mutual development. There are, of course, ways in
which the spectators can make their feelings known to the performer and the technicians
who design the programs, but these lie outside the para-social interaction itself (Horton
and Wohl, [1956] 1979: 33).
Horton and Wohl make an apparently obvious yet still very important observation,
which becomes especially relevant as digital personal media are increasingly used to
initiate contact between members of the audience (horizontally) and between
members of the audience and performers in mass media (vertically): interpersonal
interaction may take place within a mass mediated environment (e.g. a chat on the TV
screen) or outside (e.g. e-mails to a program-host), yet it is questionable whether this
changes the fundamental asymmetrical relationship between mass media institutions
and the audience.
Mass mediated forms of communication give an illusion of intimacy and
friendship (Cathcart and Gumpert, 1986; Meyrowitz, 1986; Thompson, 1995).
Mediated interpersonal communication, e.g. a telephone conversation, is traditionally
much more symmetrical. The relationship between forms of communication and
forms of media are, however, not clear-cut. Although electronic and print media have
mainly been used for mass communication purposes, this is by no means due to
essential characteristics of mass media technologies:
6
The term “mass”, however, is not intrinsic to media. It is a characteristic of only some
media, such as the electronic media, that are extremely efficient delivery systems for
bringing messages to huge, undifferentiated audiences. Any of today’s “mass” media
could be utilized for “non-mass” purposes, such as point-to-point communication, e.g., a
“ham” radio operator talking to a friend on the other side of the world (Gumpert and
Cathcart, [1979] 1986: 13).
Letters can similarly be tokens of interpersonal relationships or formal and
standardised information sent out to an unfamiliar mass of receivers (Thayer, [1979]
1986). Lee Thayer argues that it is the use of the medium which is decisive for
whether a given medium is a communication medium or a mass communication
medium (ibid: 42-43) (an argument which situates Thayer as a scholar with an
instrumental perspective on technology). The widespread appropriation of digital
technology has blurred the distinction between mass communication and interpersonal
communication and emphasised even more strongly that there is no easy and
straightforward connection between (inter)personal communication and personal
media on the one hand, and mass communication and mass media on the other hand.
(Lüders, 2006b). Media forms such as e-mail or web-logs are used for both mass
communication and interpersonal communication and can consequently be said, using
Thompson’s choice of concepts, to facilitate both mediated and mediated quasiinteraction. Hence a central question which will be addressed in the analysis concerns
how to understand the characteristics of relationships in public and semi-public
mediated forms of interaction. In any case, mediated communication (whether mass
or interpersonally mediated) has to be understood and discussed in the context of
appropriate technological realities and not compared to a (still dominant) face-to-face
conversation ideal (e.g. Avery and McCain, [1982] 1986; Moores, 2005: 81-83). It
makes little sense to argue that mediated interaction is inferior to face-to-face
interaction with reference to a lack of a full phenomenologically experienced presence
and less reciprocity between communicants. Computer mediated communication is
still not as rich in cue systems as face-to-face communication, but contrary to earlier
perspectives on social presence, social context cues and information richness, recent
research proves mediated interaction to be very personal, dealing with significant
issues and fostering real social relationships (for discussions of media richness and
“cues-filtered-out” perspectives, see Berger, 2005; Fortunati, 2005; Haythornthwaite
and Wellman, 1998; Hu et al., 2004; Tanis and Postmes, 2003; Walther, 1996;
Walther et al., 2005).
7
Social integration
Personal media facilitate the maintenance and construction of social networks and
relationships between individual users (e.g. Baym and Zhang, 2004; Boase et al.,
2006; Haythornthwaite, 2002; Licoppe and Smoreda, 2005; Lüders, 2006a).
Consequently, a discussion of communication and interaction needs to consider the
social or ritual functions of communication. As the interactional roles and
relationships differ significantly between interpersonal and mass mediated forms of
communication, the ritual significance is also likely to differ. However, this is not to
imply that quasi-social relationships typical of mass communication do not have real
social significance. Mass communication is an essential part of the social symbolic
process of constructing and maintaining reality and the representation of (sometimes
illusory) shared beliefs (Carey, 1989). As David Holmes emphasises, broadcast media
have an essential social integration role despite an apparent lack of direct or
symmetrical interaction (Holmes, 2005). Instead mass mediated integration relies
heavy on audience identification and recognition. Brent D. Ruben similarly argues
that the study of communication is the study of human individual and collective
symbolic integration: it is how we come to know and be in relationship with our
world both in terms of personal intracommunication as well as interpersonal and mass
communication (Ruben, 1986). Hence, communication cannot be fully comprehended
simply by focusing upon interaction in the form of source, message and receiver (ibid.
142).
How then, can the social functions of communication-processes be examined?
The ritual perspective on communication is vital in the following analyses, although
first some of its implicit views on communality and communication have to be
refined. Interaction-based perspectives and ritual perspectives on communication have
a common fundamental danger of romanticizing communication as facilitating
sharing, communality and understanding between individuals (Chang, 1996; Peters,
1999). If communication and interaction is seen to enable to close the gap between
solitary subjects and a transcendence of difference, the difficulties of communication
are not taken seriously into account. Theoretical communication models do actually
include the importance of interpretation (Eco, 1977; Hall, [1973] 1999; Luhmann,
[1996] 2000), yet a stronger emphasis of the problem and perhaps impossibility of
shared understandings is valuable. From a ritual perspective on the other hand, we
8
communicate not so much to share information, but because of human needs for
fraternity. Mass communication facilitates a sense of belonging, security and
community (Holmes, 2005: 123). Hence, this intersubjective position, implying a kind
of transcendental ideal, is a common problem and peril of both interaction and ritual
views: communication is to overcome the distances between us. John Durham Peters
manages to articulate the conundrum and the blessing of communication, describing
dialogue as two people taking turns broadcasting at each other, whereas dissemination
covers forms of communication where messages are cast out, not aimed at specific
others and with less chance of obtaining replies (Licoppe and Smoreda, 2005; Peters,
1999). By this Peters suggests that face-to-face talk is just as laced with gaps as
distant (mediated) communication. There is nothing wrong with broadcasting per se
as a form of communication, but Peters reminds us that there is always an abyss
between us, and communication is merely our hope to bridge this abyss. Yet Peters
appears to be an advocate of human reciprocity and the ritual significance of human
relationships, arguing that communication is not about the sharing of truths.
Communication is a significant quality of human existence as it proves the
importance of significant others in our lives, but it does not imply a transcendental
meeting of minds.
Participation
The expansion of means does not lead to the expansion of minds (Peters, 1999), and
modern individuals seem to have basic everyday needs for an arsenal of personal and
mass media. These needs are a fundamental part of human life. We use media to
communicate and maintain social relationships, and the use of media has integrating
functions (diversified integration into different and varying sub-cultures will not be
discussed here). However, the concepts of interaction and integration do not suffice as
analytical tools of digital communication forms. An analysis of the relationship
between interpersonal and mass mediated forms of communication becomes more
nuanced if including a discussion of the notion of participation, and moreover an
examination of the relationship between participation, interaction and integration.
Participation is here used in a non-normative sense, i.e. merely referring to nonprofessional partaking in mediated environments without an explicit focus on
deliberative democratic theories.
9
It must be noted that layperson participation in mass media have a long
history (McNair et al., 2002; Wincour, 2003; Ytreberg, 2004). In radio and television
formats which include audience call-ins, performances are formatted: nonprofessional participants are expected to meet requirements of performance connected
with the format (Ytreberg, 2004: 689). The contrast to user-comments in certain
digital media-forms is considerable as there appears to be a lack of interest and ability
for editorial screening of expressions before publication. The 2005 revision of the
Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press is a telling example. The increasing amount of
user-generated content led to a discussion of whether these contributions should be
edited before being published. The board in the Norwegian Press Association decided
not to include such a paragraph into the Code of Ethics, but emphasised that editors
have a responsibility for removing contributions that break with good press-ethics.
Using the words of Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis, the Norwegian media system
can hence be said to follow a “publish, then filter” model attempting “to amplify the
signal-to-noise ratio, separating the meaningful information frorm the chatter”
(Bowman and Willis, 2003: 18).
Whether motivation is idealistic or commercial (or both), there is little doubt
that mass media institutions see increased user-participation as vital in their future
development. A forceful web 2.0 discourse focusing on catchphrases such as
‘collective intelligence’, ‘architecture of participation’ and social software (O'Reilly,
2005) is taken seriously by the media industry. One of the main tasks in the below
analysis is to examine the relationship between participation and interaction, and to
indicate the ritual significance of this these practices. Can some of these practices be
described as participation without interaction, i.e. close to Peters’ concept of
dissemination (messages being cast out, not aimed at specific others and with less
chance of obtaining replies)? Also, considering the heterogeneous and relatively
larger audience of online newspapers, will participation here suffer especially from
lack of interaction and reciprocity between participants?
The discussion so far has focussed on communication in terms of interaction,
social relationships, sharing and participation. As a result, despite the above warnings
about excessively romantic perspectives, communication appears too restrictedly
concerned about human social needs and creating connections. Clearly this is a
significant part, but it may overshadow individual expressive needs. We express
ourselves as a way of being in the world. Our expressions are then responded to or
10
not, and interpreted or misinterpreted. Practices of being in the world clearly has
social motivations and implications, yet it is essential not to reduce individual
expressions to be solely concerned about sociability.
In the next part I analyse how conversations in different digital media forms
differ when it comes to characteristics of interaction, participation and integration.
Ella’s weblog, Underskog, MetaFilter
and db.no
The following analysis characterises examples of threads in Ella’s personal weblog,
Underskog, MetaFilter and Dagbladet (db.no). The analysis aims at describing the
conversations regarding aspects of interaction and participation as well as the social
context and the ritual significance these different conversations have. In so doing the
differences and similarities between the threads are illuminated. Interaction is
analysed in a relatively symmetrical way, indicating that participants in threads
actually read and respond to other user-comments. Interaction as such always concern
participation, but participation does not necessarily imply interaction in the form of
users responding to each other. Participation is used rather descriptively as number of
participants taking part in discussions. Whereas interaction and participation only
concern users who leave explicit symbolic traces in threads, integration theoretically
includes the majority of users who may read parts of threads yet who do not leave
comments. Users may sympathize or strongly disagree with remarks independent of
whether they take a visual part in on-going discussions. Importantly integration does
not depend on interaction or participation. As has been argued mass communication
has a clear integrating role despite lack of symmetrical interaction, as integration also
concerns developing and maintaining (imagined) senses of community and belonging.
That being said, the integrating role of personal and collaborative media expressions
is likely connected to patterns of interaction as computer-mediated communication
helps maintain and construct social ties.
Ella’s weblog
It must first be noted that commenting and interaction between author and readers is
not necessarily a significant part of web-logging. In a study aiming to characterise
weblogs as a genre, Susan C. Herring et al. found the mean number of comments
11
received per entry for blogs that allow comments to be less than 1 (Herring et al.,
2005b) (see also Herring et al., 2005a). Instead blogs in the studied sample were
generally individualistic forms of self-expression. Still, this specific analysis focuses
on examples where the interaction between weblog author and readers are important. I
have carried out qualitative interviews with 15 informants aged between 15 and 19
years old about their weblogs/online diaries and the social and personal significance
of weblogging activitiesii. For these informants, commenting emerged as a relatively
significant aspect of weblogging practices:
Daniel (17, Oslo): I read all comments. I think the comments are important. Some people
say they have a blog for their own sake. But I think that’s bullshit because then they
wouldn’t keep it public.
Marika: How often do you write comments yourself then?
Daniel: I don’t know. I try to comment on most of the things I read. (…) I feel that they
sometimes need to know that I have read it.
Receiving comments is not equally important to all informants, and they differ
significantly when it comes to how many comments they write in their friend’s
weblogs (from hardly any to 20-30 comments a day). Webloggers with several
reciprocal friends or contacts, and who are eager commenters themselves tend to get
more comments and to appreciate this aspect of weblogging. The point here is not to
discuss how common or significant comments are to the weblog genre, but to analyse
actual characteristics of comments in individual weblogs. I emphasise that the
weblogs in question are individual and private projects used in personal and
interpersonal communication processes. Neither do I aim to find a ‘representative’
weblog regarding content, social and personal function or amount and character of
comments received. There is no such thing. However, the example studied here is
typical for a large group of young weblog-users: they write about personal everyday
issues, and the weblogs represents an important part in the user’s social lives.
Ella is a Norwegian 18-year old Live Journal (LJ) useriii. Her diary begins in
March 2002, and she currently has 124 mutual friends on LJ. Only some of her entries
are public and hence accessible for readers who are not part of her LJ-network. In a
public entry, Ella tells her readers about how her mother surprised her with a question
concerning a party Ella was planning but had not yet asked for permission to keep:
“the hairdresser at the salon had told her about it! HOLY CRAP, my mom summed it
up this way: “I guess you’ve learnt what a small town this is.” The entry ends with a
self-portrait of Ella, from waist to chin, in a new t-shirt. There are 19 comments to
12
this post. Nine comments are written by users on her friends-lists, one comment is
from a user not on her friends-list, and eight comments are written by Ella herself as
responses to comments received.
From: Rabbit
Date: January 26th, 2006 02:01 am (UTC)
i can’t really see the print on the t-shirt, but i guess you’re hot in it any way.
i miss your parties.
(Reply to this) (Thread)
From: Ella
Date: January 26th, 2006 03:01 am (UTC)
there’ll be many more when you guys get back :)
(Reply to this) (Parent)
Rabbit comes from the same town as Ella, but is currently studying in Australia.
Online diaries are commonly used in combination with private forms of
communication such as instant messenger (IM) to keep in touch with friends who
have moved away for shorter or longer periods (Lüders, 2006a). The other comments
to Ella’s post are very similar: commenters credit how she looks in her new t-shirt and
request to be invited to the party whether or not they live geographically close to her.
From: saveme
Date: January 26th, 2006 09.15 am (UTC)
YOU’RE HAVING A PARTY AND I’M NOT INVITED.
(Reply to this) (Thread)
From: Ella
Date: January 26th, 2006 04:55 pm (UTC)
dude, we’ve been through this before. if it’s not likely that people are able to be
there, i won’t invite them.
if you moved here, however :P
(Reply to this) (Parent)
This requests is first of all a symbolic expression, indicating a recognition of the
social relationship between saveme and Ella. There is no doubt that social interaction
between Ella and her friends is a significant part of her LJ-practice. This thread is
generally accessible for an audience unrestricted by time and space, yet the
characteristics of the content of the thread is a typical for interpersonal
communication between friends. Over time, these relationships tend to evolve and
13
deepen, existing friendships are maintained, and new social ties are constructed
(Lüders, 2006a). The ritual aspects of these kinds of interaction are evident as users
acknowledge the importance of others in their lives.
Underskog
Underskog was launched in November 2005 by Alex Staubo, Simen Svale Skogsrud
and Even Westvang, primarily as a geographically specific social networking service
based on offline connections, featuring a social calendar, a weblog, user profiles and
an embedded instant messenger application. Member size has been constrained by
allotting a restricted number of invitations, yet the size of the network soon exceeded
server and administration capacities. As of June 2006, there were 5800 members and
invitations were withheld to avoid a collapse of services. Considering the
development and growth, Underskog is a valuable case for analysing collaborative
communicative forms and challenges of scope, as well as examining emerging
practices for posting and commenting. At the beginning of January 2006 Underskog
was turned into a closed arena: only members have full access to the web-site. At the
same time the developers introduced ‘conversations’ (samtaler) as a new function to
prevent littering of the front-page weblog. Conversations are open for all members,
but are only directly visible as links on the front-page if some of your contacts
participate in it. Conversations are thus not overwhelming the amount of content for
all users in the same way as the weblog. Hence, whereas norms for posting entries to
the weblog are constantly being negotiated and criticised, conversations emerged as a
preferred arena for many users.
Some basic statistical figures are required in order to understand the different
structure of Underskog weblog-entries and conversations. Between the 2nd and the 8th
of May 2006, 49 entries were posted in the weblog. Total number of comments for
these entries were 1345, i.e. an average of 27 comments per entry. Maximum number
of comments for one single entry was 157. Whereas comments are hardly ever added
to old weblog entries (i.e. entries no longer visible on the front-page) (see also
Herring et al., 2005b), conversations have a much longer active life, resulting in some
very long exchanges. As of 6th of June, the record is held by the conversation
“Convent without nuns” (the title is continuously changed). This thread was initiated
at the 8th of April as a call for an available apartment, and continued as a never-ending
string of associations, at present counting 27 users and 2018 comments.
14
I will compare the weblog-entry “The new Woman”iv posted 23rd of May 2006
counting 46 comments, and the conversation “The industry sucks”v initiated 16th of
May currently counting 102 comments. The analysis employs the previously
introduced notions of interaction, participation and integration.
In the weblog-thread “The new Woman” participants discuss whether or not
the winner of the Norwegian-Swedish Big Brother 2006 Jessica Lindgren represents a
progressive and liberating or a regressive female role. Jessica’s stereotypical blond
and narcissistic appearance is combined with a highly un-pliable, sexually active and
forceful nature. The weblog post was published on the 23rd of May at 11 am and
refers to the radio-program Kulturbeitet (broadcasted on the 23rd of May 2006) in
which the media-scholar Alex Iversen hailed the winner as a liberated and liberating
woman and a more questioning and ambiguous comment by journalist Anne Lindmo
in the Norwegian paper Dagsavisen (Lindmo, 2006). The thread contains an
additional 46 comments written by 30 users (last comment was posted the 24th of May
at 02 am). The comments indicate a general negative attitude to Jessica as a potential
feminist role-model, but otherwise acknowledgments as well as harsh critiques of
Jessica as a person. Regarding attributes of interaction, participation and integration,
users in this particular thread are relatively responsive to previous comments and
points of view: 24 comments include direct responses to other user-comments. As
such the conversation is characterised by users having an opinion to share as well as
reactions to claims and arguments previously made, i.e. it is typically characterised by
participation and interaction. The thread moreover shares a typical characteristics
with several other Underskog-threads: users are divided when it comes to popularcultural products such as Big Brother. A good share of users have a very elitist
approach to culture.
The deterioration is that NRK P2vi in a serious program about culture wastes time and
resources on the most unintereresting trash on Norwegian television. Even VG vii appears
as a virtuous ideal in this context.
If people believe these types of women are a new ideal, the sex-industry has been
cultivating it for at least a couple of decades (Written by Kjetilhav Tuesday 23. May at
14).
These are opposed by users who are more open-minded towards pop- and trashculture:
15
The deterioration would’ve been even worse if a serious program about culture on NRK
P2 had ignored unintereresting trash TV, which for better or worse contributes to define
our time.
Besides, kjetilhav: the women’s ideal that the sex-industry has cultivated for decades is a
lot more passive (Written by birgitte_m Tuesday 23. May at 14).
Hence, commenters have a pro- or con preference for these kinds of programs and
women’s roles, and feelings of identification with similar others may develop.
However, the participants in weblog-threads are not typically characterised by sharing
social ties. Underskog weblog-entries are not network-specific, and the resulting
threads are consequently relatively independent of existing social relationships.
Conversations however, follow a different path. Users who initiate
conversations invite friends and acquaintances to join. Conversations consequently
develop from within existing social networks. The thread “The industry sucks”
(“bransja suger”) is a telling example. The conversation was started by Trustme as a
response to an article in the Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet about the difficulties
experienced by minor record labels in Norway. The following 101 comments are
written by 18 users, of which ten are part of Trustme’s friends-list. The thread is thus
strongly characterised by the same participants re-visiting and posting new comments.
Six users are part of Trustme’s indirect network as they are friends of one of her
participating friends, and only one user is not connected to any other participants in
this specific thread. These figures already illustrate how structurally different threads
can be depending on whether they are posted as weblog-entries or as conversations.
In brief, this conversation developed as a discussion of the future of the recordindustry generally (e.g. the CD vs. Internet-distribution), the power of major
Norwegian record-shops and a discussion of the relations between artists and recordcompanies. The participants have relevant experiences regarding these specific
themes: they are owners of small record companies, music artists, and enthusiastic
music consumers or otherwise involved in music culture. Importantly the
conversation shows that the participants have knowledge about different aspects of the
music industry, a fact that is reflected in the responsiveness between comments. 86
comments include elements of direct reactions, answers or further remarks to previous
comments.
Didn’t know about Platekompaniet’s [major Norwegian record-store] revenues from
advertising, fucking sick. Let’s crush them marit! You know, we’re strong if we stand
together (Written by andreasg Tuesday 16. May at 23).
16
The characteristics of different Underskog-conversations differ significantly, and it is
not my intention to present a general pattern similar to all threads. It is still quite clear
that conversations are closely tied, though not exclusively, to existing social
networks.
MetaFilter
MetaFilter is one of the internationally best known collaborative weblogs. It was
launched by Matthew Haughey in July 1999 aiming to “break down the barriers
between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion
among its members” (Haughey, 2006a). According to Haughey, 10-12 people register
as new MetaFilter-users every day (Haughey, 2006b). Only registered members are
allowed to contribute to the weblog and to add comments, but in contrast to
Underskog, the content of MetaFilter is open for non-members to read. Total number
of visitors is hence many times the number of users. MetaFilter is a much less filtered
arena than similar collaborative weblogs (such as slashdot.org or kuro5hin.org). Users
must be members for at least a week and have posted a few comments before being
able to post links to the main page, but otherwise the structure is not hierarchical and
new entries and comments appear in the order they are posted.
Beginning with a humble 32 threads and 143 comments in July 1999, number
of threads and comments were 673 and 28604 for December 2005. Based on the
monthly statistics for 2005, average number of comments per entry varied between
32.2 in February 2005 to 42.8 in September 2005. Number of threads per month has
been varying between approximately 500 and 800 per month since 2001, though
number of comments appear to have increased (Baio, 2005).
There exists a specific normative practice for all MetaFilter weblog entries.
MetaFilter weblog threads contain perceivably interesting and valuable links,
generally accompanied by brief remarks. Links and original remarks are then
followed by comments from other users and conversations develop. The entry “If I
could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be itviii” posted by
insomnia_lj on the 24th of May 2006, acquired 40 comments by 30 different users.
The entry refers to a joint press release of the American Geophysical Union, Centre
for Ecology and Hydrology Dorset and Wageningen University concerning a study of
greenhouse gas-temperature feedback mechanisms indicating a previous
underestimation of global warming. The entry additionally links to information about
17
corresponding studies supporting similar arguments. In the MetaFilter-discussion
users were divided according to their beliefs of whether or not global warning
represents a real global threat and whether or not they had any faith in these studies.
All comments responded to the original entry, and 22 of the 40 comments included
direct responses to previous comments.
Hey muckster – great review. I just saw the film tonight, and i highly recommend it to
everyone. Gore is incredibly impressive in the film. He does a superb job defining the
problem, evidence and science, but leaves you with quite a lot of hope that with some
political will we can solve the issue.
The most depressing part of the film was the reminder that this thoughtful, articulate man
was ‘defeated’ by GWB.
posted by jba at 11:17 PM PST on May 24
This quote is a response to muckster’s links to David Guggeneim’s documentary An
Inconvenient Truth featuring Al Gore’s fight to increase the public awareness of the
global warming threat as well as his own review of it. It illustrates how the thread is
characterised by users interacting and replying to each other, and sharing relevant
information.
People may hence be interacting, but what can be said about the relations
between them? All MetaFilter-users have profile-pages. Some information is
automatically updated statistics on users-activity such as links to entries and
comments written, and links to MetaFilter-contacts if any. Users may add other users
as their contacts if they share social ties or because they wish to keep track of their
future posts. The participants in this thread may well be interacting, but there is not an
overwhelming interconnection in the form of reciprocal contact-links between the
participants. One user has added four of the other users as contacts, but these ties are
unidirectional. Additionally two users have unidirectional contacts to two participants,
and two users share reciprocal contact links.
Users may additionally write more detailed profiles with name and links to
home-pages or weblogs, and hence decide whether or not they want to be
pseudonymous or recognisable users. In this thread 14 users only have their
MetaFilter-nicknames, links to previous entries and comments, and links to
MetaFilter contacts to convey an image of who they are. The remaining 16 users
additionally include a name or link to external sites that provide more information
about them. However, even pseudonymous users cannot prevent to reflect who they
are through their practice. The point here is not how common it is to browse through
18
other users’ profiles and previous activities or to link to external weblogs. The point is
that users necessarily develop a social profile in MetaFilter. Looking at the profilepage of Smedleyman, one of the participants in the above referred to thread, reveals
certain characteristics about him. Links to 49 entries and 3798 comments since 18th of
November 2004 indicates some of his interests and values. Readers do not even have
to follow the links to the actual posts and comments as the profile-page conveys
information about the most popular tags for Smedleyman’s posts: NSFW (“not safe
for work”), art, politics, torture, war, Bush, constitution, foreignpolicy, history,
holocaust. This is important because pseudonymous users build a reputation
connected to their nicknames (Donath, 1999; Henderson and Gilding, 2004). As the
next example from the Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet shows, full anonymity appears
to lower the threshold for commenting, which in certain cases lead to very unbalanced
and condescending threads.
dagbladet.no
I have already mentioned the long tradition of audience participation in mass media
forms (McNair et al., 2002; Wincour, 2003; Ytreberg, 2004), and suggested that
digital technology as well as a dominating discourse of participation increase
implementation of user-created content. As a final example, I look at the audiencedebate succeeding the previously mentioned article in Dagbladet about the difficult
situation of independent record labels in Norway (Thorkildsen, 2006). This article is
hence the departure point for a conversation in Underskog as well as an audiencediscussion in the online version of Dagbladet (db.no).
A selection of articles in db.no is open for reader-comments. However to be
able to control and administer the threads, the possibility to add new comments is
closed after three days. The order of comments is not chronological, but sorted
according to points given by other readers as either a plus or minus. Users can also
respond directly to other user-comments. Comments of comments are evidently sorted
in subsequent order. Although new comments can only be added for a restricted timeperiod, some threads are very large: 691 comments were added to a discussion
following an article about Lordi as the winner of Eurovision Song Contest 2006ix. The
record-industry threadx is in comparison minor with 49 comments. It is nevertheless
sufficient to indicate structural differences and similarities to previously analysed
examples. In this specific thread the 49 comments are written by 40 different users.
19
More importantly users are receptive towards other comments, and 30 comments are
responses to other comments made. A comparison with other reader-discussions on
db.no-articles shows that that a high degree of responsiveness is common for db.no
reader-debates: a discussion about the failure of Norwegian policy on drugs yielded
65 comments, of which 31 were comments on previous comments.xi A debate
following an article about North-Korean missiles consists of 140 comments of which
85 are responses to previous commentsxii. In a discussion following an article about
animal testing for medical purposes 135 out of 203 comments were responses to
previous commentsxiii. My prior expectation that user-discussions within mass
mediated arenas would be characterised by participation rather than interaction was
not supported. Messages are not cast out, but regularly aimed at specific others.
However, a closer look at the messages shows that the db-discussion is very
different from the Underskog-conversation above. A comparison of this kind is
evidently unfair, as the conversation from Underskog takes place between people who
share social ties and who generally have some kind of competence about the recordindustry. Although commenters on db.no may include a link to their home-pages, very
few do that. Commenters are thus anonymous or pseudonymous in the form of a
chosen nick-name. Users may however develop a personality profile through frequent
postings using the same nick-name. As previously noted, pseudonymous commenters
may earn a recognisable positive or negative reputation among other users (Donath,
1999; Henderson and Gilding, 2004). This can be seen in an anonymous reply to one
of Conquistador’s comments about the commercial market system and the deception
of the masses:
Re: Stupidity
Written by: Anonym, 16.05.2006 at 16.13
Hehe, I’ve understood for some time that you have certain psychological issues to deal
with. Strange how that emerges ever time you make a statement. Always charges about a
major “plan” behind. Long live conspiration theories!!! You probably just blame the
Zionists?
Get a life Conquistador! The sun shines, buy yourself an ice-cream!
This comment obviously generated a new reply from Conquistador, but the point
should by now be clear: participants may become recognisable despite a lack of
contextual information about them. Yet, as there are hardly any online or offline
social ties between the participants, and as participants are free to comment
anonymously, threads are regularly characterised by contemptuous comments:
20
Not quite sure
Written by:.....(player58), 16.05.2006 at 14.15
I’m not sure what to say, I mean that if Falck [the owner of the now closed independent
record-company C+C] had had more luck then it could have worked. It almost goes
without saying that if you go for artists like OnklP and Jaa9, not that I mind hip hop, I
am a big fan of timbuktu, paperboys etc etc. But if Falck had signed better artists, then
his business would’ve been more successful and.. just a thought……
Re: Not quite sure
Written by: Maddog, 16.05.2006 at 14.28
Ok, “Player”58
I see you don’t get the point here.
Timbuktu and paperboys are among the most successful on the hip hop market in
Norway.
Falch [sic] goes for music not hits.
So your little thought, is a thought by a person with a rather narrow view on music.
Go home popboy.
Re: Re: Not quite sure
Written by: B, 16.05.2006 at 14.57
He, he,
though Norwegian hip-hop generally sells really badly. Nobody wants to buy
pale Norwegian copycats. (…)
Re: Re: Re: Not quite sure
Written by: Conquistador, 16.05.2006 at 15:43
Hahahaha! Ridiculous!!
A Swedish guy once told me:
”Norwegian hip hop sounds like CHILDREN’S MUSIC!”
Damn, I couldn’t agree more!!
Not exactly hardcore!
Fuckings shit Voice-TV and Eminem clones!
(Yes Eminem sounds like fuckings CHILDREN’S MUSIC too and he
sucks Dr. Dre dick!)
In this thread users are not very concerned with the appropriateness of their messages,
and mocking other commenters appears as a common practice. The disdainful tone of
several threads is troublesome, especially as db.no follows editorial norms for
publishing content. A headline article in db.no (i.e. it was published on the front-page
that day) on the 15th of June 2006 raised the problem of racist comments overflowing
any db.no-debate concerning immigrants, terrorism and Islam,xiv making it difficult to
continue un-restricted debates on db.no. This article yielded a massive 1290
comments, and again racist claims about immigration, refugees and especially Islam
dominated the debate. As previously noted audience participation in mass media are
formatted to meet the requirements of mass media publishing (Ytreberg, 2004: 689).
With online reader-debates, db.no follows a very different path. The participatory
potential of digital technology is warmly embraced as a tool to allegedly improve
21
conditions of free speech, but problems of new mass media practices are still being
negotiated.
A very fundamental question remains to be raised. Discussions within db.no
convey alternative and often dissident voices from below, and the discussions are
characterised by interaction between the participants (horizontally). Yet are the
asymmetrical relations between the mass media institution represented by journalists
and editors on the one hand and readers on the other hand challenged (vertically)? As
argued by Michael Karlsson, journalists hardly ever respond to reader-comments
(Karlsson, 2006: 129-130; Øvrebø, 2006). Although expecting a significant degree of
reciprocal interaction between journalists and readers is vain as the scope of these
discussions regularly becomes overwhelming, important exceptions can be found: in
the thread following the db.no-article about the unbalanced character of debates
concerning immigration and terrorism, the journalist Mina Hauge Nærland responds
to several reader-comments. She expresses gratitude for constructive suggestions to
improve the debates, and emphasises that db.no sincerely hopes to support democratic
and open conversations. How accurate is Horton and Wohl’s previously cited
portrayal of mass mediated interaction? “The interaction, characteristically, is onesided, nondialictical, controlled by the performer, and not susceptible of mutual
development” (Horton and Wohl, [1956] 1979: 33). The exception of the participating
journalist above cannot be used to claim that mass communication is no longer
asymmetrical, but it underlines that mediated communication is no longer easily
divided into interpersonal and mass mediated forms.
Concluding discussion
Mass mediation of interpersonal communication makes boundaries between forms of
communication seem blurred. Although interaction as well as participation appear as
significant parts of all analysed threads, the social relations between participants
differ significantly, from fleeting and ephemeral connections to stable and strongly
tied networks. Consequentely, the ritual functions of different forms of mediated
communication vary. Individual weblogs are private spaces for creative expressions,
and may additionally have a significant function as social networking apparatuses.
Ella’s online diary is a space where she maintains weak as well as strong social
relationships. Underskog is a networking-service as well as a venue for expressing
22
points of view and sharing knowledge. MetaFilter is first of all a venue for sharing
links and knowledge, though social networking features have been added to support
emerging networking practices. The point of departure for reader-debates on db.no is
very different. These discussion are placed within a mass mediated arena, and are
supposedly intended to encourrage open and democratic discussions among citizens
(consumers). db.no runs several community-oriented services such as the social
networking site blink.no and the blogging-service blogging.no, but the readerdiscussions analysed in this article do not contain any embedded features for social
networking. Commenters on db.no remains relatively anonymous and unconnected.
Importantly the aim of reader-debates on db.no is not to foster social relationships,
and research of mediated communication easily tends to overemphasise the
significance of social networking. There is an independent value of providing readers
with simple tools to participate and express their points of view. However, the
analysis indicates that the actual content of discourses benefits from users being
recognisable. Commenters on db.no can choose to be totally anonymous. Underskog
and MetaFilter-users on the other hand have a continuous and traceable presence in
the form of user-profiles (even considering the exisistence of fake profiles).
MetaFilter-profiles track previous user-activities, a feature which will also be
included in Underskog 2.0 to be released during the summer of 2006.
The prevalence of unformatted user-participation within digital mass media
forms such as db.no does not imply the end of the structurally asymmetrical relations
between mass media performers and audience. Although mass media institutions
righteously experiment with increased user-participation, there is arguably still a need
for mass communication in its traditional sense. Following ritual perspectives, mass
communication will remain a vital part of the social symbolic process of constructing
and maintaining senses of reality and the representation of shared beliefs. In cases of
asymmetrical communication processes, social integration depends on audience
identification and recognition, rather than on direct interaction (Holmes, 2005). In line
with an overemphasis of interactional aspects of communication, there appears to be
an overemphasis on dialogue as superior to monologous broadcasting (Peters, 1999).
Claiming that mass communication is asymmetrical is hence not the same as claiming
that mass communication is inferior to symmetrical forms of communication in a
normative sense. This makes it all the more interesting to explore the combination of
mass communication and more symmetrical forms of communication emerging in
23
cases such as db.no-debates. Exploring whether these mixed forms of communication
change the power relations between mass media performers and audience is beside
the point and a futile hope.
Notes
i
See also Lüders 2006 (Lüders, 2006b) for a discussion of the relationships between
technique, media technologies, media forms and genres.
ii
I have interviewed 19 young people about various aspects of their use of personal
media, but four of the informants do not write any form of weblog or online diary.
iii
All names are pseudonyms.
iv
http://underskog.no/nyhet/2297#comments
v
http://underskog.no/samtale/2157
vi
NRK P2 is the public service radio-channel with the most distinct focus on culture
and with an emphasis on high-culture (Medieforvaltning, 2004).
vii
VG is the biggest Norwegian tabloid newspaper.
viii
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/51801
ix
http://www.kjendis.no/2006/05/21/466739.html
x
http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2006/05/16/466344.html
xi
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/20/466699.html#comments
xii
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/05/19/466644.html
xiii
http://www.dagbladet.no/kunnskap/2006/06/07/468223.html#comments
xiv
http://www.dagbladet.no/magasinet/2006/06/15/468983.html
24
References
Aronson, S. H. ([1971] 1979) 'The Sociology of the Telephone'. in Gumpert, G. &
Cathcart, R. (Eds.) Inter/media: interpersonal communication in a media
world, pp. 126-137. New York: Oxford University Press.
Avery, R. K. & McCain, T. A. ([1982] 1986) 'Interpersonal and Mediated Encounters:
A Reorientation to the Mass Communication Process'. in Gumpert, G. &
Cathcart, R. S. (Eds.) Inter/media: interpersonal communication in a media
world, pp. 121-131. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baio, A. (2005) 'Metafilter statistics', URL (consulted 29 June 2006):
http://www.waxy.org/mefi/
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A. & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002) 'Can You See the Real
Me? Activation and Expression of the "True Self" on the Internet', Journal of
social issues, 58 (1): 33-48.
Barnet, B. (2003) 'The Erasure of Technology in Cultural Critique', fibreculture, URL
(consulted 14/09/2005):
http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue1/issue1_barnet.html
Baym, N. & Zhang, Y. B. (2004) 'Social interactions across media. Interpersonal
communication on the internet, telephone and face-to-face', New media and
society, 6 (3): 299-318.
Berger, C. R. (2005) 'Interpersonal Communication: Theoretical Perspectives, Future
Prospects', Journal of communication, 55 (3): 415-447.
Beyer, Y., Enli, G. S., Maasø, A. & Ytreberg, E. (in press) 'Small talks makes a big
difference: recent developments in interactive, SMS-based television',
Television and new media.
Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B. & Rainie, L. (2006) The strength of Internet
ties. Washington: Pew Internet & American life project.
Bowman, S. & Willis, C. (2003) 'We Media. How audiences are shaping the future of
news and information', (consulted 26 May 2006):
http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/
Caplan, S. E. (2001) 'Challenging the mass-interpersonal communication dichotomy:
Are we witnessing the emergence of an entirely new communication system?'
Electronic Journal of Communication, URL (consulted March 7, 2006):
http://www.udel.edu/communication/web/onlinepubs/Caplan-ejc-v11no1.html
Carey, J. W. (1989) Communication as culture: essays on media and society. New
York: Routledge.
Cathcart, R. S. & Gumpert, G. (1986) 'Mediated Interpersonal Communication:
Toward a New Typology'. in Gumpert, G. & Cathcart, R. S. (Eds.)
Inter/media: interpersonal communication in a media world, pp. 26-40. 3rd
ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chang, B. G. (1996) Deconstructing communication: representation, subject, and
economies of exchange. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Donath, J. (1999) 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community'. in Kollock, P. &
Smith, M. A. (Eds.) Communities in cyberspace, pp. 29-59. London:
Routledge.
Eco, U. (1977) A theory of semiotics. London: Macmillan.
Feenberg, A. (1999) Questioning technology. London: Routledge.
Fischer, C. S. (1988) 'Gender and the Residental Telephone, 1890-1940: Technologies
of Sociability', Sociological Forum, 3 (2): 211-233.
25
Fortunati, L. (2005) 'Is Body-to-Body Communication Still the Prototype?' The
Information society, 21 (1): 53-61.
Gane, N. (2005) 'Radical Post-humanism. Friedrich Kittler and the Primacy of
Technology', Theory, Culture & Society, 22 (3): 25-41.
Gumpert, G. & Cathcart, R. S. ([1979] 1986) 'Introduction'. in Gumpert, G. &
Cathcart, R. S. (Eds.) Inter/media: interpersonal communication in a media
world, pp. 9-16. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hall, S. ([1973] 1999) 'Encoding, decoding'. in During, S. (Ed.) The Cultural studies
reader, pp. 507-517. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Haughey, M. (2006a) 'About Metafilter', (consulted 29 June 2006):
http://www.metafilter.com/about.mefi
Haughey, M. (2006b) 'Comments on 11945, MetaTalk', (consulted 29 May 2006):
http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/11945
Haythornthwaite, C. A. (2002) 'Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the Impact of New
Media', The Information society: an international journal, 18 (5): 385-401.
Haythornthwaite, C. A. & Wellman, B. (1998) 'Work, Friendship, and Media Use for
Information Exchange in a Networked Organization', Journal of American
society for information science, 49 (12): 1101-1114.
Henderson, S. & Gilding, M. (2004) ''I've never clicked this much with anyone in my
life': trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships', New media
and society, 6 (4): 487-506.
Herring, S. C., Kouper, I., Paolillo, J. C., Scheidt, L. A., Tyworth, M., Welsch, P.,
Wright, E. & Yu, N. (2005a) 'Conversations in the Blogosphere: An Analysis
From "the Bottom Up"'. the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.
Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Wright, E. & Bonus, S. (2005b) 'Weblogs as a bridging
genre', Information Technology & People, 18 (2): 142-171.
Holmes, D. (2005) Communication theory: media, technology, society. London: Sage.
Horton, D. & Wohl, R. R. ([1956] 1979) 'Mass Communication and Para-Social
Interaction: Observation on Intimacy at a Distance'. in Gumpert, G. &
Cathcart, R. (Eds.) Inter/Media: Interpersonal Communication in a Media
World, pp. 32-55. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hu, Y., Fowler Wood, J., Smith, V. & Westbrook, N. (2004) 'Friendships through IM:
Examining the Relationship between Instant Messaging and Intimacy',
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (1).
Hutchby, I. (2001) Conversation and technology: from the telephone to the internet.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Innis, H. A. (1951) The bias of communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Karlsson, M. (2006) 'Nätjournalistik. En explorativ fallstudie av digitala mediers
karaktärsdrag på fyra svenska nyhetssajter'. Lund Studies in media and
communication. Lund, University of Lund.
Kittler, F. A. ([1986] 1999) Gramophone, film, typewriter. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
Latour, B. (1992) 'Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane
Artifacts'. in Bijker, W. E. & Law, J. (Eds.) Shaping technology/building
society: studies in sociotechnical change, pp. 225-258. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Licoppe, C. & Smoreda, Z. (2005) 'Are social networks technologically embedded?
How networks are changing today with changes in communication
technology', Social Networks, 27 (4): 317-335.
26
Lindmo, A. (2006) 'Egalias døtre'. Dagsavisen. Oslo.
Luhmann, N. ([1996] 2000) The reality of the mass media. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
Lüders, M. (2006a) 'Becoming more like friends: the significance of personal media
in social networking processes'.
Lüders, M. (2006b) 'Conceptualising personal media'.
McLuhan, M. ([1964] 1997) Mennesket og media. Oslo: Pax.
McNair, B., Hibberd, M. & Schlesinger, P. (2002) 'Public Access Broadcasting and
Democratic Participation in the Age of Mediated Politics', Journalism Studies,
3 (3): 407-422.
Medieforvaltning, S. (2004) Allmennkringkastinsrådet: rapport 2003. Fredrikstand:
Medietilsynet.
Meyrowitz, J. (1986) No sense of place: the impact of electronic media on social
behavior. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Moores, S. (2005) Media/theory: thinking about media and communications. London:
Routledge.
O'Reilly, T. (2005) 'What Is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the
Next Generation of Software', URL (consulted 29 June 2006):
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web20.html
O'Sullivan, P. B. (1999) 'Bridging the Mass-Interpersonal Divide: Synthesis
Scholarship in HCR', Human Communication Research, 25 (4): 569-588.
Peters, J. D. (1999) Speaking into the air: a history of the idea of communication.
Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Pinch, T. & Bijker, W. E. (1989) 'The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or
How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might
Benefit Each Other'. in Pinch, T., Bijker, W. E. & Hughes, T. P. (Eds.) The
Social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology
and history of technology, pp. 17-50. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pool, I. d. S. (1977) The Social impact of the telephone. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Ruben, B. D. (1986) 'Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Mass Communication
Processes in Individual and Multi-Person Systems'. in Gumpert, G. &
Cathcart, R. S. (Eds.) Inter/media: interpersonal communication in a media
world, pp. 140-159. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tanis, M. & Postmes, T. (2003) 'Social Cues and Impression Formation in CMC',
Journal of Communication, 53 (4): 676-693.
Thayer, L. ([1979] 1986) 'On the Mass Media and Mass Communication: Notes
Toward a Theory'. in Gumpert, G. & Cathcart, R. S. (Eds.) Inter/media:
interpersonal communication in a media world, pp. 41-61. 3rd ed. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Thompson, J. B. (1995) The media and modernity: a social theory of the media.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Thompson, J. B. (2005) 'The New Visibility', Theory, Culture & Society, 22 (6): 3151.
Thorkildsen, J. (2006) 'Skylder på "Idol" og late journalister'. Dagbladet. Oslo.
Tidwell, L. C. & Walther, J. B. (2002) 'Computer-Mediated Communication Effects
on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations', Human
Communication Research, 28 (3): 317-348.
27
Walther, J. B. (1996) 'Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal,
Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction', Communication research, 23
(1): 3-43.
Walther, J. B., Gay, G. & Hancock, J. T. (2005) 'How Do Communication and
Technology Researchers Study the Internet', Journal of Communication, 55
(3): 632-657.
Wincour, R. (2003) 'Media and Participative Strategies: The Inclusion of Private
Necessities in the Public Sphere', Television and new media, 4 (1): 25-42.
Ytreberg, E. (2004) 'Formatting participation within broadcast media production',
Media, Culture and Society, 26 (5): 677-692.
Øvrebø, O. A. (2006) 'Under medienes overflate. Et forskningsprosjekt om blogging
og journalistikk', URL (consulted
http://www.oov.no/prosjekter/undermedienesoverflaterapport.html
28