Activists
and Media
An intricate
relationship
By: Johannes Wahlström, Stockholm University
1. Introduction
When dealing with political power one often discusses ways of influencing
decision-making. In liberal democracies the conventional way of exercising
political power is through official channels such as parliamentary
elections. Representative democracy prescribes ballot casting as the sole
legitimate means of effecting political decisions, hereby being the
cornerstone of “democracy”. There is however a variety of other channels
questioning this monopoly, ranging from lobbying to pure extortion. This
essay will assume firstly, that in liberal democracies, political decisions
are not taken solely in official political structures, and secondly, that
ways of influencing these decisions can go through a variety of alternative
channels. If we disregard from direct pressure on decision-makers, we see
that the most common way of influence is through public opinion, a form of
indirect pressure. In modern society mass media is crucial for this type of
influence. Since every occurrence cannot be given the same space in the
public debate, there are doubtlessly more or less important ones. This leads
us to the logic of mass media, meaning that there are certain premises
influencing the portrayal of the world. Neither is it a secret that people
feel varyingly strong about different topics, and would like them more
salient. The combination of these two factors is the core of the following
essay, as we shall from the perspective of democracy and power ask ourselves
about the relationship between mass media and activism. The questions raised
are if media can be used in promoting ones ideas and how media receives and
portrays these actions. The vantage point will be the popular notion that
media encourages sensationalistic and violent actions.
As activism in general and specifically the following analysis is lacking in
empirical studies it shall foremost be seen as an analytical framework for
future scholarship. With this focal point it will be possible to examine
activist perspectives, as well as conducting comparative studies regarding
media depiction. The purpose of this paper will hereby not be to uncover
truths regarding specific activists and their relationship to media, but
rather to form a general conception concerning the intricate relationship
between activists and media.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Activism
Throughout the past decades countless organisations have been created for
political influence outside the state, in which activism has been a strong
and growingly popular method for this influence. Political activism will be
defined as a way of influencing political decision-making and its agenda
through, as Oxford dictionary describes it, vigorous action. Activism is
hereby the use of extraordinary forces for political pressure, where
terrorism is a subgroup in its extreme form. It can be debated if lobbying
should be considered political activism, but for the sake of demarcation it
will be more fruitful to limit ourselves to tangible and purposely visible
action.
Before understanding activism we must ask ourselves what political decisions
activists are trying to influence. Furthermore, if political power is not
confined to the parliament, what shall be considered political
decision-making? Not to annihilate it by claiming that everything is
political, one can say that political power is in the eye of the beholder,
or the activist, meaning that wherever there are activists, there is
political power. This is however an insufficient description since in
accordance with Luke’s third dimension, power is not always visible or
conscious. We can however in accordance with Aristotle say that political
decisions are those that deal with collective problems in the Polis. In
order for the citizens to live “the good life” it is hereby required that
they rule and are ruled in turn. In other words politics can be defined as
decisions taken that affect a group of people (physically as well as
emotionally); the larger the group and stronger the influence, the stronger
is the political power and decision-making. Circumventing official channels
of influence, activists hereby attempt to influence decisions that affect a
group of people.The economical elite has adapted to the role of media where
“in a recent survey, business leaders named the media the most powerful
institution in U.S. society” (Ryan 1991:8). Hereby media is of utter
importance also for activists when it comes to influencing decision-making.
2.2 The logic of Media
There is a common belief among journalists and viewers alike that states
that media ought to be objective. According to liberal-pluralist traditions,
the freedom of choice and a diversity of media will lead to a spectrum of
views and information (Schulman 1990:114). Contradicting this will lead to
great controversy. However, there can be no doubt that certain topics and
views receive greater attention than others. According to a more critical
analysis, one ought not to overlook the ideological functions of media,
where the ideas of a small number of people are disseminated in the pretext
of the common will (ibid). When certain topics are addressed and explained
by media they are hereby interpreted through the ruling ideology and
depicted in a certain way. Activists trying to bring a topic to the public
agenda will hereby be interpreted through a certain discourse. The fact that
media attempts to be objective and apolitical, generally means that one does
not support changes in society, upholding status quo, which in itself is a
conservative political stance. This means that official views and “facts”
are promoted, whilst contesting ideas are simplified and downplayed,
ignoring history and context (Ryan 1991:217).There must be certain
selectivity, when it comes to the output of media; hereby media tells us
what to think about. By setting the public debate media has a primary role
in influencing the saliency of certain topics (see Manning 2001), affecting
the views of people and the political agenda. In liberal democracies most
media have to consider audience figures, hereby they are influenced by
sensationalism as not to be beaten by competitors. This means that
newspapers and channels, not to disappoint their audience, join in on each
other’s stories and scoops. Since the supply of information is homogenised (Bourdieu
1998:104) we can, despite of minor diversity, talk of media as a common
phenomenon. Hereby influencing the media can become a conscious and highly
ideological occurrence where activists can make their voices heard.
3. Media as a channel of influence
Since activist attempt to influence not only decision-making, but also the
public agenda, we can ask ourselves how activists make use of mass media,
and challenge mainstream and official interpretations and views. An obvious
example of the significance of activism is the unauthorized demonstrations
held at Tiananmen Square in 1989, which by far “overshadowed the authorized
ceremonies taking place simultaneously inside the Great Hall of People” (Wasserstrom
1995:207). Obviously one cannot disregard the ideological climate in which
this incident was portrayed (this will be discussed later), as the Western
World would gladly magnify the faults of its foes. It is however clear that
the actions of a relatively small amount of people could, with the help of
media, make a massive statement and inflict damage upon a regime.One can
distinguish between activists dealing with unofficial (i.e. economical)
political power, and official (i.e. parliamentary) political power, where
boycotts are a way of influencing economical power[1]. Friedman claims that
media-oriented, as opposed to market-oriented boycotts (it could be argued
that this division is pointless since all boycotts are in some way
media-oriented) are conducted by discrediting the name of corporations in
the eyes of as big an audience as possible (see Friedman 1999). This is of
course applicable to official power as well, as portrayed in the example of
the Tiananmen demonstration. Hereby mass media is the most effective (if not
the only) way of disseminating a message. In order of being covered by mass
media, activists are resorted to adopt its logic, namely that of
sensationalism. This has certain implications. When it comes to boycotts,
Friedman, in an activist-handbook fashion, says that one must have a
simplified message, a slogan, and that one’s actions ought to be visible,
with for example demonstrations.Boycotts are by no means unique when it
comes to influencing the media. Gerris claims that terrorists can enhance
their actions news value by the degree of violence, where more violence
leads to more media attention (Gerris 1992:46). Symbolism and spectacular
deeds are other ways of appealing to media (ibid), and need not necessarily
be violent. It is important hereby to understand activism (as well as
destructive activism, namely “terrorism”) as a form of communication, where
the importance of the deed is the message and its symbolic values, and not
necessarily the deed itself. Or as Schmid and Graaf put it “without
communication there can be no terrorism” (Schmid and Graaf 1982:9), this
does however not necessitate media, but since media is the primary form of
modern communication, it is the most effective way of transmitting a
message.For twenty years the world had taken little notice of the fate of
two and a half million exiled Palestinians. When a small number of them
carried their struggle from the Israeli frontiers to the heart of the
Western world they were able to command media attention (ibid: 27). Their
terrorism hereby primarily served as an instrument of mass communication,
drawing the attention of the world to the Palestinian movement and its
purposes. If one regards the aim of this terrorism to attract public
attention and setting the agenda, success was imminent as the Palestinian
question is one of the most salient topics today. This did however not
guarantee success in promoting their purposes, as the public opinion,
primarily in the U.S. did not function as the political lever one had hoped.
The public did not sympathise with the Palestinian message portrayed by
media, and thereby neither attempted to affect the regime.
3.1 Public lever
If one believes that activists (but also others) can use media to alter the
perception of people, one follows the ideas of the Frankfurt School meaning
that people can be manipulated into believing certain things. The common
critique against this notion is that it regards people as “victims of
conspiratorially constructed and deliberately wielded capitalist powers of
manipulation” (Nava 1991:161). The critique is however not entirely relevant
as there need not be a self-conscious manipulator, it is rather a structural
manipulation, where media is part of an ideological framework. Media
reporters are not commonly aware of their discursive bias, as they perceive
their reporting as objective. Although activists intend to alter the
perception of an audience, they do not see it as manipulation, rather as
opening their eyes, or as Wapner says concerning environmental activism,
“[t]hey are being “stung”, as it were by an ecological sensibility” (Wapner
1995:326). In this case people can indeed be manipulated (especially
emotionally) despite the lack of a conscious manipulator. Or as Gorgias ones
put it -Rhetoric is powerful because people have opinions, but not
knowledge. They forget the past, don't know the present, and can't predict
the future; this limitation of experience and subjectivity of opinion is
what makes them vulnerable to persuasion by speech, even an unjust
speech.Media oriented activism often implies a personification and a
simplification of a problem, of which Greenpeace is a good example.
According to Wapner, Greenpeace tried to change interpretive frames of the
audience through media stunts, with for example images of whaling, where the
boats were perceived as Goliath and the whales as David (the contrary to the
classical image of Moby-Dick). In doing this, only one side of the conflict
is revealed, and without problematizing it the debate does not go deep
enough, leaving it vulnerable to counterattacks. Wapner continues by claming
that “[r]aising awareness through media stunts is not primarily about
changing governmental policies” (Wapner 1995:322); but in effecting peoples
perception about certain topics, sentiments can “reverberate throughout
various institutions and collectivities” (ibid.).Friedman’s (1999) term
surrogate boycotts, by which he means, pressuring of one part that in turn
pressures another, is applicable to the discussion of media oriented
activism. In this case the surrogate can be defined as the audience, which
works as a political lever, influencing stronger institutions. In other
words, public enlightenment is in this case not a goal in itself but only a
method for creating power and influence. From a democratic perspective,
where one endorses an enlightened citizenship, this is indeed dubious, as
information is not used for a public debate, but rather for emotional
extortion (It is however not as simple as that, since contesting views can
indeed initiate a public debate.One of the major goals of activists is to
challenge ideas that are taken for granted. In media, news is hereby turned
into contested terrain. Or as Ryan puts it “[t]he news is an opportunity for
challengers, at a minimum, to point out that the establishment view is not
the only “natural” way to look at a problem and, at best to present an
alternative” (Ryan 1991:4). From this perspective even simplified
alternatives can initiate debate. In other words, as media portrays a
deviant perspective lacking “contextual and interpretive reporting of
background issues” (Picard 1993:87), it can still be invigorating for the
public debate as it can move into other arenas. Alternative media is here
often depicted as an arena for alternative voices and a possibility for
deeper discussions.
3.2 Activism and alternative media
“Often a fact doesn’t seem true if it hasn’t been on TV; a political
perspective lacks credibility when it lacks media exposure. While
circulating figures may be low, it is only in the alternative press that
radically different perspectives get a fair hearing and it is here that
activists develop opposition views” (Ryan 1991:26). It seems to be popular
in our days to talk of Information Technology as the new forum for
emancipation, people will be able to interact, communicate and participate
in decision-making. It is furthermore said that the public arena will no
longer be held by the powerful (see Deibert). We are given examples of how
vigilant citizens inflict damage to gigantic corporations, and we praise
this courage and the new democratic arena. Indeed IT and the Internet have
questioned the monopoly of mass media as the sole provider of truth.Peretti
is one of those who, using the Internet, managed to reach a massive
audience, hereby threatening the gigantic corporation Nike. Reaching as many
as 15 million people (Peretti 2001:4) he managed to question Nike’s ethics,
and place it on the public agenda. Surprised by the immensity of the
campaign, mass media made a massive thing out of it, and Peretti himself
started lecturing on how to perform “culture jamming” as well as writing
handbooks on Internet activism. It is not surprising that in the light of
this, many people perceive the new technologies as emancipative, one must
however remember that Peretti’s activism would have passed largely unnoticed
had it not been for mass media. Despite of all, on a global scale, he
reached a relatively small amount of people through the Internet; it was
only thanks to mass media's sensationalistic character that his message
reached truly global proportions. In other words, instead of claiming that
the Internet has become an alternative way to set the public agenda, it
seems more plausible that the Internet has to some extent become an
alternative arena for sensationalistic (media-oriented) activism, whereby
the rules of media must be followed. This means that political participation
is largely confined to its first dimension, with attempts in influencing
political power. This is of course a gross generalization, since IT can
indeed be a forum for debate, but there is a risk that it will merely be an
arena for deviant voices. Although alternative media can influence the
output of mass media, the hegemony of mass media seems to prevail in setting
the public agenda.
4.
Consequences of media orientation
Claiming that media-oriented activism is resorted solely to as a way of
influencing political decisions becomes questionable, as media is a
primary arena for political debate. In trying to influence people’s
opinions, activism questions general norms of the public discourse and
can hereby create a more critical and intellectual citizenship[2]. In
this sense, activism, even though it is channelled through the discourse
of mass media, has an invigorating effect on democracy by creating a
discussion. The debate created is however far from always positive for
the goal of the activists, as it seems difficult to know how media will
interpret the message.A few years ago some youngsters, fighting for
animal rights, started liberating animals in farms and vandalising fur
shops. It is obvious that the goal of these activists was to get medial
attention; they wanted to change the public debate regarding animal
rights. However, instead of focusing on their aim, media focused on
their means and labelled the activists as terrorists (a large number of
them did indeed “terrorize” both consumers and producers into not daring
carrying nor producing fur). Hereby the public debate was largely about
the deeds of the maladjusted terrorists instead of their message. As the
years went by the public debate however became more focused on animal
rights. It is of course difficult to tell how much of the change is due
to the action of the activists, but the signal they received is that it
clearly played a large role. This means that media encourages activist
groups not only in being sensational but even violent. Friedman mentions
long-term and short-term victories, even if violent activities can bring
short-term losses, they may indeed have effect in the long run.As one
realises that sensational activism is encouraged by mass media, one
must, no mater how much one despises violence, before condemning “riots”
in Seattle, Prague, Gothenburg or Geneva, understand that without
violence there is a great chance that the world would not have known
about the resistance against neo-liberalism. From a democratic
perspective this is highly troublesome, if violence pays, democracy is
threatened. But if violence and sensational action is the only
(effective) way to influence decision-making in the current political
and medial power structure, democracy is also threatened. It is from
this perspective that we must understand the notion of terrorism.
4.1 Media depiction
Since the primary definer, the one who has legitimacy to define a
conflict (see Manning p14), is on the top of the hierarchy of the social
structure, activists are defined through a certain ideology. The most
common bias that permeates media is that it defines challenger
perspectives and ideologies from within the dominant ideology (Ryan
1991:68). An activist trying to use the media is hereby dependent on
where his values are in regard to the ruling ideology of society, when
it comes to how actions will be described. Political activism must
hereby be seen in its full social context to understand its relationship
to the media. A violent activist that is well regarded in the public
discourse will be referred to and framed differently than one that is
disliked, despite the fact that their action may be the same. One side’s
terrorist is another side’s freedom fighter; the definition “seems to
hinge upon notions of right and wrong, as well as interests” (Onduwide
2001:31). This means that the use of media and thereby the success of an
action is very unreliable.Stone throwing can be seen as a symbolical
(although violent) form of activism, which in the case of the
Middle-East conflict is indeed media-oriented (see i.e. Hannerz,
Reporting from Jerusalem[3]). By showing the Israeli military
superiority and brutality many Palestinians hoped to win the fight over
the audience, for use as a political lever. The result was however
stunningly dissimilar in different countries. In the U.S. the
stone-throwers were framed as terrorists (see Abunimah), while in Sweden
they were largely martyrs and children (see Dominique). The public
opinion seemed to follow the same course. This is a typical example of
the unreliability of mass media as a channel of influence.
A reason (except for ideology) for why activists are not entirely successful
in using media for their purpose is that they are not alone in using this
channel. There are a variety of other groups and organisations that
constantly attempt to shape the public agenda. The 17th of December
Greenpeace activists attempted to disrupt a Japanese whale-hunt. The
expedition in charge of the hunt called the activists “eco-terrorists”.
Greenpeace on the other hand claims that they were met with water cannons (SVT
17/12). This is a typical example of how one attempt to promote ones
perception and ideology in media.
4.2 Terrorism
From the perspective of sensationalistic violence we must further analyse
the phenomenon of terrorism. Oxford dictionary describes a terrorist as a
person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a
government or community. It is however clear that the term terrorism is not
objective. “Terrorism, like crime or any other phenomenon is a social
creation” (Onwudiwe 2001:104), applicable to activists whom one does not
agree with.It is furthermore important to understand medias labelling of
acts of violence as it influences “tremendously, the audience’s perceptions
of the perpetrators of the act” (Odasuo and Kenoye 1991:3). Since those in
power define terrorism through a certain discourse, via for example laws[4],
(mainstream) media, by promoting official facts and views, most often
follows these definitions. This means that authorities can influence how
people perceive violent acts. The result of this can be seen as the U.S.
government labelled the Contras in Nicaragua as freedom fighters while the
PLO were portrayed as terrorists (Onwudiwe 2001:110-213), hereby media
largely followed the same line. In the mentioned case the primary definer
was the U.S. and due to its position in the World System its definitions
became dominant (Ibid). This is also the reason for the usage of the word
“counterterrorism” in the public debate and the fact that state terrorism is
rarely defined as terrorism.There is an ongoing debate about the role media
plays in violent and terrorist actions. Authorities tend to claim that media
is largely responsible as it disseminates the ideas of terrorists, which is
perceived as the goal of the terrorists. This can be seen as the U.S.
government, in regard to the attacks in Washington and New York, asked media
to perform a sort of self-censorship when broadcasting the speeches of
suspected terrorists. This perception is rooted in the idea that reporting
“affects public opinion and can change the political climate in a country” (Shmid
and Graaf 1982:142). A contrary perception is that terrorists succeed only
if authorities react against the public will (Paletz 1992:9). According to
this perspective media can in fact reduce violence since it does not give
terrorists the publicity they desire, and depict their deeds as bad (Picard
1991:51).Both these perceptions are however flawing in the fact that they
perceive terrorism as a form of propaganda, where the activist’s sole aim is
to disseminate his views. If one however regards activism as a means of
setting the public agenda and affecting what is thought of, the goals can
indeed be met without persuasion. Authorities need not act against public
will, the public will may very well be changed by an altered agenda. Indeed,
not all publicity is good publicity, but bad publicity can be better than no
publicity at all.
5. Activism, hope or despair?
Many social
scientists seem to applaud the development of political “grass root”
organisations; they see it as a rejuvenation of democracy and politics.
The debate has largely been on how to democratise the organisations and
how to include them in the official political arena. What this debate
overlooks is primarily that these organisations do not necessarily want
to be part of this arena, since they feel that it cannot serve their
purposes. This is the prime reason for their existence. Secondly the
debate tends to overlook the fact that the reason for the mushrooming of
these organisations is a democratic deficiency, if it were possible
(easier) to influence decision-making through the official arenas, more
people would use them, as opposed to virtually globally shrinking
electoral participation.The homogenisation of media is here also a
strong suspect when it comes to placing the guilt on someone. If it
where easier for “deviant” voices and alternative ideologies to
participate in the public arena, it seems plausible that the need for
sensationalistic activism would diminish. Finally, now that these
organisations have appeared in the modern technological, political and
economical climate, they tend to become disruptive and dangerous not
only for democracy, in the sense that each person’s opinion ought to
weigh equally, but also for society as such. Being sceptical to the
sustainability of grass root organisations does however not mean that
they are useless; on the contrary, through their disturbance of the
social order they necessitate and hereby facilitate a re-democratisation
of the world.
5.1 Individualism
It is often claimed that in the age of modernity society has become more
individualised, whether this means more egocentrism and a challenge of
the civic community or not can be debated. Bennett claims that the
coherence of society has been affected through the modern economy, with
an “increased individual interest in politics” (Bennett 1998:749).
Hereby individualisation means that people question official frames
(i.e. party orientation) and create their own concept of reality. If
this is indeed so, one can understand how a greater amount of groups
contest on the public arena with diverse world-views, using mass media
as their tool of dissemination, with the help of activism. However, the
notion of the individual having a possibility to choose his own reality,
presupposes an open flow of (objective) information. Only if the
hegemonic world-view were constantly questioned in the public debate,
would there be a fare opportunity for individuals to shape their own
minds. This means that the ideas of individualisation and the
liberalisation of media, leading to a greater amount of world-views and
a more enlightened citizenship are questionable, as it is only the
strongest actors who can make their voices heard.It seems odd to say
that individuals cannot shape their minds freely, at the same time as
claiming that activists attempt to alter the public agenda. How then do
activists shape their opinions you ask? One can only speculate regarding
how activists perceive themselves, but it seems reasonable to believe
that they are most often dissidents and outsiders. Due to the conformist
society that mass media creates, people with altering opinions tend to
become ostracized, and vice-versa, people who are ostracized tend to
have deviant opinions[5]. Hereby a gap between society and activists is
created, a gap that may very well be dangerous for society unless it is
breached.
5.2 Media and activists
Media indeed plays a special role in regard to democracy and power,
since it has to a great extent become the modern town hall. It is
largely here that opinions and ideas are exchanged and created, hereby
being a cornerstone of democracy. “Opinions necessitate democracy, as
well as democracy necessitates opinions; these are two sides of the same
coin” –Herbert Tingsten (Former Chief Editor, DN). However, if the town
hall is not open for public debate, and “deviants” are not let in, it is
evident that they will do their best to make their voices heard
elsewhere and in other ways. Violent actions are by themselves
dangerous, especially when facilitated by media, but deviant voices can
be even more dangerous if there is no open debate where they can be
dealt with. The best way of creating an opinion or maintaining a stance
is by discussion; arguments and contra-arguments hereby refine people’s
minds and thoughts.When there is no debate, radicalism and fanaticism
has the best possible climate to flourish, since those who happen to
hear the deviant voices are not mentally prepared to tackle them with
contra-arguments. The result may very well be the contrary from what is
desired by mainstream proponents, with growing opposition and extremism.
Activism is hereby to a large extent created when those in power attempt
to confine the public debate and discourse for their own benefit.
Activism also makes this confinement more difficult and can thereby have
a rejuvenating effect on democracy and the distribution of power.
6. Conclusion
Communication is the basis of activism as it conveys a message, without
communication activism cannot exist; media, being the locus of
communication, is hereby of prime importance when it comes to activism.
Since media furthermore follows a certain logic when it comes to what to
portray, it tends to (indirectly) encourage sensationalistic actions.
Due to the ideology that media is embedded in, activists are however not
portrayed in the manner that they would desire, and they may very well
be regarded worse than before coverage. A more in-depth empirical study
would hereby be desirable, as to examine how various activists are
portrayed through the ruling ideology in media. To disseminate an
opinion and propagate for a certain view, is obviously important for
activists, but is not their only, or for that matter, most essential
goal. Having the possibility to be seen on the public arena and
influencing the public debate may very well be the prime object of
activism as it can often alter perspectives of people.
Influencing the public debate (by sensationalistic activism) may very well
be invigorating for democracy as one questions that which is taken for
granted, hereby activism may indeed be seen as a possibility for various
opinions and voices to meet. By challenging discourses one not only
challenges the public agenda but also the distribution of power in society.
In this sense activism, be it violent or peaceful, can indeed stimulate
democracy. Activism however carries an inert danger due to its violent
character, and the fact that deviancy and extremism, due to the lack of
public debate, may grow in proportion. Altering people’s perspectives can in
modern society prove to be easier than giving them an understanding for
other perspectives, showing that there are other ways to perceive the world
than that which is regarded as natural. Hereby people may instead be used as
a levering mechanism for influence and power. In this case it would be
desirable to examine the relationship between media portrayal and public
opinion. A study concerning how people perceive various activists as well as
the nature of the public debate could hereby be set from the perspective of
the preceding analytical frame.Understanding the reason for why activism and
terrorism occurs is obviously connected to history and context, but the
analytical framework can tell us how society functions and dysfunctions,
hereby trying to conceive of what must be done. In modern society, where
media works as an ideological tool, silencing deviant voices, activism is
bound to flourish. It is obvious that a free and open media, with a genuine
debate, would not annihilate all discontent and terror. It is however clear
that discussion and understanding between people is the cornerstone for
coexistence and democracy. An open public arena must in other words be
created to deal with the democratic deficiency in media and society as well
as the violent character of activism.
7. List of references:
Abunimah, Ali: The U.S. media and the New Intifada. In Carey, Roane (ed):
The New Intifada. Verso, London, 2001
Bennet, Lance: The Reinvention of Politics: The UnCivic Culture:
Communication, Identity and the Rise of Lifestyle Politics. PS 741-61
Bourdieu, Pierre: Moteld. Brutus Östling, Stockholm, 1999
Bourdieu, Pierre: Om televisionen. Brutus Östling, Stockholm 1998
Deibert, Ronald: International Plug ‘n Play? Citizen Activism, the Internet
and Global PublicPolicy. International Studies Perspectives. 2000
Dominique, Stefan: Israel I svenska media. E&D, Malmö, 1998
Friedman, Monroe: Consumer Boycotts. Effecting Change Through the
Marketplace and the Media. Routledge, New York, 1999
Gerrits, Robin: Terrorists’ Perspectives: Memoirs. In Paletz, David and
Schmid, Alex (eds). Terrorism and the Media. Sage, Newbury Park, 1992
Hannerz, Ulf: Reporting from Jerusalem. Cultural Anthropology 13(4):548-574.
1998
Manning, Paul: News andNews Sources. A critical Introduction. Sage, London,
2001
Nava, Mica: Consumerism Reconsidered. Buying and Power. Cultural Studies 5.
1991
Odasuo, Alali and Kenoye, Kelvin Eke: Critical Issues in Media Coverage of
Terrorism. In Odasuo, Alali and Kenoye, Kelvin Eke (ed): Media Coverage of
Terrorism. Sage, Newbury Park, 1991
Onwudiwe, Ihekwoaba: The Globalization of Terrorism. Ashgate, Aldershot,
2001
Paletz David: Researchers’ Perspectives. In Paletz, David and Schmid, Alex (eds).
Terrorism and the Media. Sage, Newbury Park, 1992
Peretti, Jonah: My Nike Media Adventure. The Nation. 9/4/2001
Picard, Robert: Media Portrayals of Terrorism. Iowa State University, Iowa,
1993
Picard, Robert: The Journalist’s Role in Coverage of Terrorist Events. In
Odasuo, Alali and Kenoye, Kelvin Eke (eds.): Media Coverage of Terrorism.
Sage, Newbury Park, 1991
Ryan, Charlotte: Prime Time Activism. South End, Boston, 1991
Schmid, Alex and Graaf, Janny de: Violence as communication. Sage, London,
1982
Schulman, Mark: Control Mechanisms Inside the Media. In Mohammadi, Downing
(ed). Questioning the Media. Sage, London, 1990
Wasserstrom, Jeffrey: Mass Media and Mass Actions. In Popkin, Jeremy (ed).
Media and Revolution. Kentucky University, Kentucky, 1995
[1] It should however be noted that boycotts can indeed be, and often are,
directed against official power, with for example the French nuclear testing
in the mid-90’s. The boycotts were however directed against French
enterprises as a levering mechanism, where the economical power would
pressure the political.
[2] Bourdieu claims that unlike the doxsofers (many journalists, economists
and other fake intellectuals), who spread opinions and ideas as truths, the
role of the intellectual is to question the doxa and its tools of analysis.
(Bourdieu 1999)
[3] Hannerz claims that stone-throwing was often initiated with the arrival
of journalists.
[4] The recent decision from the European Union for a common definition of
terrorism has launched massive criticism, since it is regarded that groups
who are not perceived as terrorists in certain countries may be prosecuted.
This is a typical example of how authorities can attempt to shape the public
discourse.
[5] Certainly this is only half of the truth, since mainstream media and
ideology may be discarded by society, and the “deviants” may in fact become
the “holders of truth”. In such cases, as in former Czechoslovakia society
can ostracize the “mainstream” authorities and media.
