The 1980s seem to be the time for a rekindling of interest in audience research. Marketers, advertisers, film and television production houses, and public funding bodies for film production, all seem unanimous in their calls for more and better research. In such a climate, academic research has a special and complicated role to play, and some difficult choices to confront.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaudrillardJ, ‘The Ecstasy of Communication’ in FosterH. ed, The Anli-Aesthetic, Port Townsend. Bay Press, Washington, 1983, published as Postmodern Culture, Pluto Press. London, 1985.
2.
BearA, ‘The Myth of Television Violence’, Media Information Australia, 33:3–10, 1984.
3.
CorrellR LBigginsB, ‘Trends in Commercial TV Ratings’, 1977–1983, Media Information Australia, 33:35–37, 1984.
4.
De FleurMBall-RokeachS, Theories of Mass Communication, 3rd Edn, Longman, New York, 1977.
5.
GerbnerGGrossL P, ‘Living with Television: The Violence Profile’. Journal of Communication. 26,(2): 173–199, 1976.
6.
GitlinT, ‘Media Sociology: The Dominant Paradigm’, Theory and Society, 6:205–253, 1978. reprinted in ClevelandWithoit Gde Bock Harold, eds. Mass Communication Review Yearbook, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1981.
7.
HobsonD, Crossroads; The Drama of a Soap Opera. Methuen, London, 1982.
8.
MayerH, ‘Children's TV Viewing 1977–1983: Data and Meaning’. Media Information Australia, 33:18–19, 1984.
9.
McQuailD, Mass Communication Theory. Sage, London, 1983.
10.
MoranA, ‘The Drama of TV Drama’. Media Information Australia, 33:39–43, 1984.
11.
MorteyD, The ‘Nationwide’ Audience, British Film Institute, London. 1980.
12.
MurrayJ, ‘A Soft Response to Hard Attacks on Research’. Media Information Australia, 33:11–16, 1984.
13.
PosterM, Foucault. Marxism and History: Mode of Production versus Mode of Information, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1984.
