Advertisement

Tweeting #Ferguson: Affective Publics, Boundary Maintenance, and Journo-Activism in a Mediatized Field

  • Stephen R. Barnard
Chapter

Abstract

Combining digital ethnographic content analysis with social network analysis and link analysis, this chapter examines uses of Twitter by a small cohort of journalists and activists in the aftermath of the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. After providing context about the case and reviewing literature on networked journalism and activism, the chapter compares tweets from each cohort. While the traditions of objective journalism and affective activism persisted, notable exceptions occurred, particularly following acts of police suppression. These findings demonstrate the adaptability of some journalistic norms in the era of mediatization. Furthermore, the networked communities of professional and activist Twitter users were overlapping and interactive, suggesting hybridity at the margins of the journalistic field.

Keywords

Activism Affect Field theory Hybridity Journalism Mediatization Objectivity Social media Social movements Twitter 

References

  1. Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. Proceedings from the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery (pp. 36–43). Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1134271.1134277.
  2. Araiza, J. A., Sturm, H. A., Istek, P., & Bock, M. A. (2016). Hands up, don’t shoot, whose side are you on? Journalists tweeting the Ferguson protests. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(3), 305–312.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616634834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backholm, K., Moritz, M., & Björkqvist, K. (2012). U.S. and Finnish journalists: A comparative study of roles, responsibilities, and emotional reactions to school shootings. In G. W. Muschert & J. Sumiala (Eds.). School shootings: Mediatized violence in a global age (pp. 141–160). Bingley: Emerald Group. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S2050-2060%282012%290000007011.Google Scholar
  4. Balko, R. (2015, July 2). Justice Department report: Police tactics in Ferguson created confrontation. The Washington Post. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/02/justice-department-report-police-tactics-in-ferguson-created-confrontation/?utm_term=.81e9e27e9725.
  5. Barnard, S. R. (2016a). Spectacles of self(ie) empowerment? Networked individualism and the logic of the (post)feminist selfie. In L. Robinson, J. Schulz, S. R. Cotten, et al. (Eds.), Communication and information technologies annual, studies in media and communications (pp. 63–88). Bingley Emerald Group. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S2050-206020160000011014.
  6. Barnard, S. R. (2016b). Digital sociology’s vocational promise. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. M. Cottom (Eds.), Digital sociologies (pp. 195–210). Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berman, M., & Lowery, W. (2015, March 4). The 12 key highlights from the DOJ’s scathing Ferguson report. The Washington Post. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/04/the-12-key-highlights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/.
  8. Bigoted Ferguson was ‘Powder Keg’: Our View. (2015, March 4). USA Today. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/04/ferguson-civil-rights-justice-department-darren-wilson-editorials-debates/24397873/.
  9. Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 29–47). Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  12. Brock, A. (2012). From the blackhand side: Twitter as a cultural conversation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 529–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruns, A. (2003). Gatewatching, not gatekeeping: Collaborative online news. Media International Australia, 107(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2012). Researching news discussion on Twitter. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 801–814.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.664428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlson, M. (2015). Metajournalistic discourse and the meanings of journalism: Definitional control, boundary work, and legitimation. Communication Theory, 26(4), 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlson, M. (2016). Embedded links, embedded meanings. Journalism Studies, 17(7), 915–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chaudhry, I. (2016). ‘Not so black and white’: Discussions of race on Twitter in the aftermath of #Ferguson and the shooting death of Mike Brown. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(3), 296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen, W. (2015). Mediatizing the network model of cultural capital: Network diversity, media use, and cultural knowledge along and across ethnic boundaries. Social Networks, 40, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, L. S. (2016). Participants on the margins: Examining the role that shared artifacts of engagement in the Ferguson protests played among minoritized political newcomers on Snapchat, Facebook, and Twitter. International Journal of Communication, 10, 26.Google Scholar
  21. Cottle, S. (2006). Mediatized conflict: Understanding media and conflicts in the contemporary world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  22. Couldry, N. (2014). Mediatization and the future of field theory. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communication (pp. 227–245). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.Google Scholar
  23. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Contexts, traditions, arguments. Communication Theory, 23(3), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Maeyer, J. (2013). Towards a hyperlinked society: A critical review of link studies. New Media & Society, 15(5), 737–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Maeyer, J., & Holton, A. E. (2015). Why linking matters: A metajournalistic discourse analysis. Journalism, 17(6), 776–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duggan, M. (2015). The demographics of social media users. Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/.
  27. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (Eds.). (2014). Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of western democracies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Feldman, J. (2014). Crowd of NY Ferguson protestors chants ‘F*ck CNN!’ on CNN. Mediaite.com. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.mediaite.com/tv/crowd-of-ny-ferguson-protestors-chants-fck-cnn-on-cnn/.
  30. Freelon, D., & Karpf, D. (2015). Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Freelon, D., McIlwain, C. D., & Clark, M. D. (2016). Beyond the hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice. Center for Media and Social Impact. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://cmsimpact.org/resource/beyond-hashtags-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-online-struggle-offline-justice/.
  32. Gitlin, T. (2003). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Graeff, E., Stempeck, M., & Zuckerman, E. (2014). The battle for ‘Trayvon Martin’: Mapping a media controversy online and off-line. First Monday, 19(2).  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i2.4947.
  34. Hedman, U. (2015). J-Tweeters. Digital Journalism, 3(2), 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hepp, A. (2013). Cultures of mediatization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  37. Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Himelboim, I., Sweetser, K. D., Tinkham, S. F., Cameron, K., Danelo, M., & West, K. (2016). Valence-based homophily on Twitter: Network analysis of emotions and political talk in the 2012 presidential election. New Media & Society, 18(7), 1382–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hitlin, P., & Vogt, N. (2014, August 20). Cable, Twitter picked up Ferguson story at a similar clip. Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/20/cable-twitter-picked-up-ferguson-story-at-a-similar-clip/.
  40. Hjarvard, S. (2013). The mediatization of culture and society. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Jackson, S. J., & Welles, B. F. (2016). #Ferguson is everywhere: Initiators in emerging counterpublic networks. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jurgenson, N. (2012). When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web and augmented revolution. Future Internet, 4(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kidd, D. (2017). Social media freaks: Digital identity in the network society. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kreiss, D. (2016). Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1473–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kreiss, D., Meadows, L., & Remensperger, J. (2015). Political performance, boundary spaces, and active spectatorship: Media production at the 2012 democratic National Convention. Journalism, 16(5), 577–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krogstad, J. M. (2015, February 3). Social media preferences vary by race and ethnicity. Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/03/social-media-preferences-vary-by-race-and-ethnicity/.
  47. LeFebvre, R. K., & Armstrong, C. (2016). Grievance-based social movement mobilization in the #Ferguson Twitter storm. New Media & Society, Advanced online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816644697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lindgren, S. (2012). Collective coping through networked narratives: YouTube responses to the Virginia Tech shooting. In G. Muschert & J. Sumiala (Eds.), School shootings: Mediatized violence in a global age (pp. 279–298). Bingley: Emerald Group. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S2050-2060%282012%290000007017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maireder, A., & Ausserhofer, J. (2014). Political discourses on Twitter: Networking topics, objects, and people. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, N. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 305–318). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  50. Mattoni, A., & Treré, E. (2014). Media practices, mediation processes, and mediatization in the study of social movements. Communication Theory, 24(3), 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McChesney, R. W. (2008). The political economy of media: Enduring issues, emerging dilemmas. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  52. Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on #Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Molyneux, L. (2015). What journalists retweet: Opinion, humor, and brand development on Twitter. Journalism, 16(7), 920–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morozov, E. (2014). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  55. Neuberg, C., vom Hofe, H. J., & Nuernbergk, C. (2014). The use of Twitter by professional journalists: Results of a newsroom survey in Germany. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, N. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 345–357). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Poell, T., & Rajagopalan, S. (2015). Connecting activists and journalists. Journalism Studies, 16(5), 719–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raeymaeckers, K., Deprez, A., De Vuyst, S., & De Dobbelaer, R. (2015). The journalist as a jack of all trades: Safeguarding the gates in a digitized news ecology. In T. Vos & F. Heinderyckx (Eds.), Gatekeeping in transition (pp. 104–119). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Rees, G. (2012). Afterword: Is mediatization a useful concept for informing practice in journalism? In G. W. Muschert & J. Sumiala (Eds.), School shootings: Mediatized violence in a global age (pp. 333–341). Bingley: Emerald Group. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S2050-2060(2012)0000007019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Russell, A. (2013). Innovation in hybrid spaces: 2011 UN climate summit and the expanding journalism landscape. Journalism, 14(7), 904–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Santhanam, L., & Dennis, V. (2014, November 25). What do the newly released witness statements tell us about the Michael Brown shooting? PBS NewsHour. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/.
  62. Schudson, M. (1981). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  63. Shjarback, J. A., Pyrooz, D. C., Wolfe, S. E., & Decker, S. H. (2017). De-policing and crime in the wake of Ferguson: Racialized changes in the quantity and quality of policing among Missouri police departments. Journal of Criminal Justice, 50, 42–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Sobieraj, S. (2011). Soundbitten: The perils of media-centered political activism. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  66. Starr, P. (2005). The creation of the media: Political origins of modern communications. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  67. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2015). How gatekeeping still matters: Understanding media effects in an era of curated flows. In T. Vos & F. Heinderyckx (Eds.), Gatekeeping in transition (pp. 25–44). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Tremayne, M. (2014). Anatomy of protest in the digital era: A network analysis of Twitter and Occupy Wall Street. Social Movement Studies, 13(1), 110–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wagner, L. (2016, February 9). Ferguson approves police and courts overhaul – With some changes. National Public Radio. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/09/466221524/ferguson-approves-police-and-courts-overhaul-with-some-changes.
  71. Zeller, F., & Hermida, A. (2015). When tradition meets immediacy and interaction: The integration of social media in journalists’ everyday practices. About Journalism, 4(1), 106–119.Google Scholar
  72. Zúñiga, H. G. d., Diehl, T., & Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2018). When citizens and journalists interact on Twitter. Journalism Studies, 19(2), 227–246.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen R. Barnard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologySt. Lawrence UniversityCantonUSA

Personalised recommendations