This article outlines two modes of publicity, a publicity of promotion and a publicity of openness, and then considers their implications for traditional broadcast versus online communications. Although the structure of the internet makes it particularly good at developing a publicity of openness, the economics, regulatory structure and technology of the traditional broadcast media make them far better at developing promotional publicity. I trace a series of examples that demonstrate this inequality and discuss the implications of this disparity for the economics of attention. Ultimately, I argue, discussions of the democratic possibilities of the internet must take account of the relative lack of promotional publicity online.
Anderson C. ( 2006) The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion .
2.
Barker DC, Lawrence AB ( 2006) Media favoritism and presidential nominations: Reviving the direct effects model. Political Communication23(1): 41-59.
3.
Bennett SE ( 2002) Americans’ exposure to political talk radio and their knowledge of public affairs. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media46(1): 74-86.
4.
Berman M. ( 2009a) Programming insider: CBS and Fox continue to dominate in Prime. MediaWeek.com, 7 May.
5.
Berman M. ( 2009b) Programming insider: Remembering Dom DeLuise. MediaWeek.com, 6 May.
6.
Bernays EL ( 1935) Molding public opinion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science179: 82-7.
7.
Bielby WT, Bielby DD ( 2003) Controlling prime-time: Organizational concentration and network programming strategies. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media47(4): 573-96.
8.
Bolter JD, Grusin RA ( 1999) Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
boyd d ( 2008) Why youth ♥ social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: Buckingham D (ed.) Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 119-42.
10.
Calhoun CJ, ed. (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Cho J., Roy S. ( 2004) Impact of search engines on page popularity. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web. New York: Association for Computer Machinery, 20-9.
12.
Cho J., Roy S., and Adams RE ( 2005) Page quality: In search of an unbiased web ranking . In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
13.
Dayan D., Katz E. ( 1992) Media Events: The Live Broadcasting of History . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Dewey J. ( 1927) The Public and its Problems. New York : H. Holt.
15.
Diaz A. ( 2008) Through the Google goggles: Sociopolitical bias in search engine design. In: Spink A, Zimmer M (eds) Web Search: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: Springer, 11-34.
16.
Donohue JM, Cevasco M., and Rosenthal MB ( 2007) A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. New England Journal of Medicine357(7): 673-81.
17.
Downey J., Fenton N. ( 2003) New media, counter publicity and the public sphere . New Media & Society5(2): 185-202.
18.
Dunbar R. ( 2007) Evolution and the social sciences. History of the Human Sciences20(2): 29-50.
19.
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) 438 US 726.
20.
Feldman L., Young DG ( 2008) Late-night comedy as a gateway to traditional news: An analysis of time trends in news attention among late-night comedy viewers during the 2004 presidential primaries. Political Communication25(4): 401-22.
21.
Frieze A., Vera J., and Chakrabarti S. ( 2006) The influence of search engines on preferential attachment . Internet Mathematics3(3): 361-81.
22.
Habermas J. ( 1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Hall A., Cappella JN ( 2002) The impact of political talk radio exposure on attributions about the outcome of the 1996 US presidential election. Journal of Communication52(2): 332-50.
24.
Hoffman LH, Thomson TL (2009) The effect of television viewing on adolescents’ civic participation: Political efficacy as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media53(1): 3-21.
25.
Holbert RL ( 2004) Political talk radio, perceived fairness, and the establishment of President George W. Bush’s political legitimacy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics9(3): 12-27.
26.
Holbert RL, Lambe JL, Dudo AD, and Carlton KA ( 2007) Primacy effects of The Daily Show and national TV news viewing: Young viewers, political gratifications, and internal political self-efficacy . Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media51(1): 20-38.
27.
Horton D., Wohl R. ( 1956) Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry19: 215-29.
28.
Jenkins H. ( 2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide . New York: New York University Press.
29.
Kaid LL, Postelnicu M. ( 2005) Political advertising in the 2004 election: Comparison of traditional television and internet message. American Behavioral Scientist49: 265-78.
30.
Keeping the Internet Neutral? Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate ( 2007) Federal Communications Law Journal59(3): 575-92.
31.
Krugman DM, Quinn WH, Sung Y., and Morrison M. ( 2005) Understanding the role of cigarette promotion and youth smoking in a changing marketing environment. Journal of Health Communication10(3): 261-78.
32.
Lanham RA ( 2006) The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Lewis J., West A.(2009) ‘Friending’: London-based undergraduates’ experience of Facebook. New Media & Society11(7): 1209-29.
34.
Lewis K., Kaufman J., Gonzalez M., Wimmer A., and Christakis N. ( 2008) Taste, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook.com. Social Networks30: 330-42.
35.
Lippmann W. ( 1922) Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace.
36.
Lippmann W. ( 1925) The Phantom Public. New York : Harcourt Brace.
37.
Lu Y., Roberts S., Lió P., Dunbar R., and Crowcroft J. ( 2009) Size matters: Variation in personal network size, personality and effect on information transmission. International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering 4: 188-93.
38.
McChesney RW ( 1993) Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy: The Battle for the Control of US Broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York : Oxford University Press.
39.
McChesney RW ( 1999) Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
40.
McChesney RW ( 2004) The Problem of the Media: US Communication Politics in the Twenty-first Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
41.
Macleod C. ( 2006) Global adspend prospects. International Journal of Advertising25(2): 261-3.
42.
Malin B. ( 2003) Drive by programming: Niche marketing to the channel surfer on TNT, MTV, and CNN. Explorations in Media Ecology2(2): 101-15.
43.
Malin B. ( 2010) Viral manhood: Niche marketing, hard-boiled detectives, and the economics of masculinity. Media, Culture & Society32(3).
44.
Merton RK, Fiske M., and Curtis A. ( 1946) Mass Persuasion: The Social Psychology of a War Bond Drive . New York: Harper.
45.
Nail J. ( 2007) Visibility versus surprise: Which drives the greatest discussion of Superbowl advertisements? Journal of Advertising Research47(4): 412-19.
46.
Negt O., Kluge A. ( 1993) Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.
47.
Newman JL ( 2008) Keeping the internet neutral: Net neutrality and its role in protecting political expression on the internet. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal31(1): 153-72.
48.
Owens L., Palmer LK ( 2003) Making the news: Anarchist counter-public relations on the world wide web. Critical Studies in Media Communication20(4): 335-61.
49.
Pan B., Hembrooke H., Joachims T., Lorigo L., Gay G., and Granka L. ( 2007) In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication12(3): 801-23.
50.
Pandey S., Roy S., Olston C., Cho J., and Chakrabarti S. ( 2005) Shuffling a stacked deck: The case for partially randomized ranking of search engine results, paper presented at the 31st International Conference on Very Large Data Bases.
51.
Paterson C. ( 2005) News agency dominance in international news on the internet . In: Skinner D, Compton J, Gasher M (eds) Converging Media, Diverging Politics: A Political Economy of the News Media in the United States and Canada. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 145-64.
52.
Peters JD ( 1995) Historical tensions in the concept of public opinion . In: Glasser TL, Salmon (eds) Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent. New York : Guilford, 1-32.
53.
Poster M. ( 2001) Information Subject. New York : Routledge.
54.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co.Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) 395 US 367.
55.
Roberts SGB, Dunbar RIM, Pollet TV, and Kuppens T. ( 2009) Exploring variation in active network size: Constraints and ego characteristics. Social Networks31(2): 138-46.
56.
Simpson JA, Weiner ESC, and Press OU ( 1989) The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57.
Snyder LB, Milici FF, Slater M., Sun H., and Strizhakova Y. ( 2006) Effects of alcohol advertising exposure on drinking among youth. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine160(1): 18-24.
58.
Staiger J. ( 2000) Blockbuster TV: Must-see Sitcoms in the Network Era. New York: New York University Press.
59.
Sweetser KD, Golan GJ, and Wanta W. ( 2008) Intermedia agenda setting in television, advertising, and blogs during the 2004 election. Mass Communication and Society11(2): 197-216.
60.
Warner M. ( 2002) Publics and Counterpublics. Public Culture14: 49-90.
61.
Weaver D., Drew D. ( 2001) Voter learning and interest in the 2000 presidential election: Did the media matter? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly78(4): 787-98.
62.
Weinstein D. ( 2004) The Forgotten Network: DuMont and the Birth of American Television. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
63.
Yanovitzky I., Cappella JN ( 2001) Effect of call-in political talk radio shows on their audiences: Evidence from a multi-wave panel analysis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research13(4): 377-97.
