A web-based survey was used to collect qualitative data about online fans' use of the internet for keeping up with a favorite television program and for interacting with other fans. The textual responses from 757 participants were coded for patterns and themes related to theories of audience activity. The results reveal a continuum of activity from “lurkers” to a thriving, interpretive community of “outlaw” fans involved in the consumption and production of favored cultural texts. In contrast to historical images of rabid television fans, the researchers discovered a sophisticated audience, devoted to programs that make them think and that inspire meaningful exchanges in online discussions. Internet technologies have empowered these fans to more effectively organize en masse as resistors and shapers of commercial television narratives.
Ailor, Martin. 1988. Relocating the site of the audience. Critical Studies in Mass Communication5 (3): 217—33.
2.
Ang, Ien.1991. Desperately seeking the audience. New York: Routledge.
3.
———, ed. 1995. Living room wars: Rethinking media audience for a postmodern world. New York: Routledge.
4.
Baym, Nancy.1997. Interpreting soap operas and creating community: Inside an electronic fan culture. In The culture of the internet, edited by S. Kiesler, 103—20. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
———. 2000. Tune in, log on: Soaps, fandom, and online community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Bielby, Dennis, C. Lee Harrington, and William Bielby.1999. Whose stories are they? Fans' engagement with soap opera narratives in three sites of fan activity. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media43 (1): 35—51.
7.
Carragee, Kevin.1990. Interpretive media study and interpretive social science . Critical Studies in Mass Communication7 (2): 81—96.
8.
Costello, Victor J.1999. Interactivity and the “cyber-fan”: An exploration of audience involvement within the electronic fan culture of the internet. Ph.D. diss., University of Tennessee, Knoxville. http://idserver.utk.edu/?id=20030000000153 .
9.
Fish, Stanley.1980. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Fiske, John.1987. Television culture. London: Methuen.
11.
———. 1988. Critical response: Meaningful moments. Critical Studies in Mass Communication5 (3): 246—50.
12.
———. 1989. Moments of television: Neither the text nor the audience . In Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power , edited by E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner , and E.Warth, 56—78. New York: Routledge.
13.
Gwenllian-Jones, Sara.2002. Phantom menace: Killer fans, consumer activism and digital filmmakers. In Underground USA, edited by X. Mendik and L.Kaufman, 169—79. London: Wallflower Press.
14.
Gray, Ann.1999. Audience and reception research in retrospect: The trouble with audiences. In Rethinking the media audience: The new agenda , edited by Pertti Alasuutari, 22—37. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Hall, Stuart.1980. Encoding/decoding. In Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, edited by S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, A. Willis, and P.Willis, 1972—79. London: Hutchinson.
16.
Harrington, C. Lee, and Denise D. Bielby .1995. Soap fans: Pursuing pleasure and making meaning in everyday life. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
17.
Hills, Matt.2002. Fan cultures. London: Routledge.
18.
Holub, Robert C.1984. Reception theory: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge.
19.
Iser, Wolfgang.1978. The act of reading. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
20.
Jenkins, Henry.1988. “Star Trek” rerun, reread, rewritten: Fan writing as textual poaching. Critical Studies in Mass Communication5 (2): 85—107.
21.
Jenkins, Henry.1992. Textual poachers: Television fans & participatory culture. New York: Routledge.
22.
Jenson, Joli.1992. Fandom as pathology. In The adoring audience: Fan culture and popular media, edited by L. A.Lewis, 9—29. London: Routledge.
23.
Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch .1974. Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In The uses of mass communications, edited by Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz, 19—32. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
Levy, M.R.1983. Conceptualizing and measuring aspects of audience “activity .” Journalism Quarterly60 (1): 109—15.
25.
Liebes, Tamar.1988. Cultural differences in the retelling of television fiction . Critical Studies in Mass Communication5 (4): 277—92.
26.
Lindlof, Thomas R.1988. Media audiences as interpretive communities. In Communication yearbook, edited by J.Anderson, vol. 3, 81—107. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Livingstone, Sonia.1992. Audience reception: The role of the viewer in retelling romantic drama. In Mass media and society, edited by J. Curran and M. Gurevitch , 285—306. New York: Edward Arnold.
28.
———. 1993. The rise and fall of audience research: An old story with a new ending. Journal of Communication43 (4): 5—12.
29.
Lull, James.1990. Inside family viewing: Ethnographic research on television's audiences. New York: Routledge.
30.
McKee, Alan.2004. How to tell the difference between production and consumption: A case study in “Doctor Who” fandom. In Cult television , edited by S. Gwenllian-Jones and R. E. Pearson.Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.
31.
McQuail, Dennis.1997. Audience analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
32.
Morley, David.1980. The “nationwide” audience. London: British Film Institute.
33.
———. 1989. Changing paradigms in audience studies. In Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power, edited by E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, and E.Warth, 16—43. New York: Routledge.
34.
———. 1993. Television audiences and cultural studies. London: Routledge.
35.
Schroeder, Kim Christian.1999. The best of both worlds? Media audience research between rival paradigms. In Rethinking the media audience: The new agenda, edited by Pertti Alasuutari, 38—68. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Suleiman, Susan.1980. Introduction: Varieties of audience-oriented criticism . In The reader in the text: Essays on audience and interpretation , edited by S. Suleiman and I. Crosman, 3—45. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
Tulloch, John, and Henry Jenkins.1995. Science fiction audiences: Watching “Doctor Who” and “Star Trek.” New York: Routledge.
38.
Webster, James G., and Patricia F. Phalen .1997. The mass audience: Rediscovering the dominant model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Wicks, Robert H.2001. Understanding audiences: Learning to use media constructively . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
