- About the Action
- Events
- PhD workshop - Ljubljana 2014
- Action Open Conference - Ljubljana 2014
- New Media and Participation conference - Istanbul 2013
- Belgrade meeting 2013
- Media literacy research and policy - Brussels 2013
- ICA Pre-Conference 2013
- Tampere meeting 2013
- Budapest workshop 2012
- Milan meeting 2012
- Brussels PhD workshop 2012
- Brussels Action workshop 2012
- London meeting 2011
- Zagreb Conference 2011
- Lisbon meeting 2010
- Affiliated events
- WG 1
- WG 2
- WG 3
- WG 4
- Cross-WG
- Output
The “ordinary” on commercial radio and tv. A reception analysis of the subject position of ordinary people in the participatory programmes. Recht van Antwoord and Zwart of Wit.
Carpentier, N., Resmann, Nick (2011). The “ordinary” on commercial radio and tv. A reception analysis of the subject position of ordinary people in the participatory programmes. Recht van Antwoord and Zwart of Wit.. Communication Review, 14(1), 1-23.
Abstract: In this article, the authors examine the articulation of the subject position ordinary people by analyzing focus group discussions on 2 North Belgian commercial (semi-) participatory programs: the radio talk show “Black or White” (Zwart of Wit) and the TV audience discussion program “Right of Answer” (Recht van Antwoord). The authors’ main objectives are to develop a theoretical framework that does justice to the fluidity of the subject position “ordinary people” and to show how the relationist nature of its construction works within the reception of 2 specific talk shows. For this reason, the authors first discuss different theoretical models that deal with the everyday and the ordinary. Then, through the reception study, they identify 2 relationist discourses that articulate the complex and multilayered subject position of ordinary people. The subject position of ordinary people is first defined through a negative relation with societal elites. Second, the authors use a lower class-based definition (creating a negative relation with the middle and upper classes). They conclude by arguing that these 2 relationist discourses are structural limitations for the participatory process, transforming the ordinary into ordinariness.