Reflexive mediatization and remaking of the middleman
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The emergence of public relations in early 20th century was largely fuelled by the rapid mediatization of society. As journalists gained power as middlemen between organizations and society framing news and setting public agenda in the mass media, organizations (corporations and governments alike) responded by introducing counter-parts on their side: public relations practitioners as middlemen between the mass media and organizations. Public relations practitioners enabled organizations to become reflexive (van Ruler and Vercic 2005) to the mass media expectations and adjust their behaviors to journalistic needs. Media relations -- management of relations between organizations and the mass media -- is the most common practice area in the public relations sector (Swerling, Thorson & Tenderich 2012 ; Wilson & Supa 2013 ; Zerfass et al. 2011). In the second half of the 20th century, more than 150 studies explored relations between public relations and the mass media and they found that between 20 and 80 per cent of the journalistic media content was influenced by some sort of ‘information subsidies’ provided by public relations (Cameron, Sallot & Curtin 1997). But that was when journalism as a profession was on its peak and public relations was only becoming an aspiring profession. Sullivan (2011) collected data on changes in the relative weights of the two sides. In the past 30 years, the number of journalists per 100, 000 Americans dropped from .36 to .25. At the same time, the number of public relations practitioners per 100, 000 Americans rose from .45 to .90. Now there are more than three public relations practitioners per one journalist. Between 2000 and 2009, the newspaper advertising revenue in the US dropped from $49 to $22 billion. Between 1997 and 2007 revenues of the US public relations agencies went up from $43.5 to $8.75 billion. The number of US newspaper reporters and editors dropped from 56, 900 in 1990 to 41, 600 in 2011. The number of people employed by the US public relations agencies increased from 38, 735 in 1997 to 50, 499 in 2007. While introduction of public relations practitioners since 1920s lead to reflexivity in media relations, what is emerging today leads to a new phenomenon of reflexive mediatization: non-core-media organizations (corporations and government agencies) are reflexively mediatizing themselves. From providers of information subsidies, public relations is transforming into media producer and distributor of stories and news. Coca-Cola corporation is experimenting with its own “brand journalism” in its digital magazine - http://www.coca-colacompany. com (Working 2013). In September 2013, Alex Aiken, the Executive Director of the UK Government Communications declared: “The press release is dead.” (Magee 2013). In January 2014, Kim McKinnon, the Canadian Government’s Communications Community officer, published the following statement on the Canadian Government official website: “The Government of Canada is retiring the traditional press release format in favour of a more digital-friendly product that makes the key messages of announcements clearer, quick facts more accessible and integrates more effectively with social media channels.” (McKinnon 2014). The paper introduces the notion of reflexive mediatization and proposes conceptual apparatus to tackle with it.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».