1932

Abstract

Media are central to the dynamics of protest and social movements. Contemporary social movements face a shifting environment composed of new media technologies and platforms that enable new identities, organizational forms, and practices. We review recent research focusing on the ways in which movements shape and are shaped by the media environment and the ways in which changes in the media environment have reshaped participation, mobilization, and impacts of activism. We conclude with the following recommendations for scholarship in this burgeoning area: move toward a broader conception of media in movements; expand engagement with scholarship in neighboring disciplines that study politics, media, and communication; develop new methodological and analytical skills for emerging forms of media; and investigate the ways in which media are enhancing, altering, or undermining the ability of movements to mobilize support, shape broader identities and attitudes, and secure new advantages from targets and authorities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054627
2020-07-30
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/46/1/annurev-soc-121919-054627.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054627&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abul-Fottouh D, Fetner T. 2018. Solidarity or schism: ideological congruence and the Twitter networks of Egyptian activists. Mobilization 23:123–44
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alanyali M, Preis T, Moat HS 2016. Tracking protests using geotagged Flickr photographs. PLOS ONE 11:3e0150466
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Amenta E, Caren N, Olasky SJ, Stobaugh JE 2009. All the movements fit to print: who, what, when, where, and why SMO families appeared in the New York Times in the twentieth century. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:4636–56
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Amenta E, Elliott T. 2017. All the right movements? Mediation, rightist movements, and why US movements received extensive newspaper coverage. Soc. Forces 96:2803–30
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Amenta E, Elliott TA, Shortt N, Tierney AC, Türkoğlu D, Vann B 2019. Making good news: what explains the quality of coverage of the Civil Rights movement. Mobilization 24:119–37
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Amenta E, Polletta F. 2019. The cultural impacts of social movements. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 45:279–99
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Andrews KT, Biggs M. 2006. The dynamics of protest diffusion: movement organizations, social networks, and news media in the 1960 sit-ins. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:5752–77
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Andrews KT, Caren N. 2010. Making the news: movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75:6841–66
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Anduiza E, Cristancho C, Sabucedo JM 2014. Mobilization through online social networks: the political protest of the indignados in Spain. Inf. Commun. Soc. 17:6750–64
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Antony MG, Thomas RJ. 2010. ‘This is citizen journalism at its finest’: YouTube and the public sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident. New Media Soc 12:81280–96
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Agarwal SD, Barthel ML, Rost C, Borning AW, Bennett L, Johnson CN 2014. Grassroots organizing in the digital age: considering values and technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Inf. Commun. Soc. 17:3326–41
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bail CA. 2012. The fringe effect: civil society organizations and the evolution of media discourse about Islam since the September 11th attacks. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:6855–79
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bail CA. 2016. Combining natural language processing and network analysis to examine how advocacy organizations stimulate conversation on social media. PNAS 113:4211823–28
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bail CA. 2017. Taming big data: using app technology to study organizational behavior on social media. Sociol. Methods Res. 46:2189–217
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Barberá P, Wang N, Bonneau R, Jost JT, Nagler J et al. 2015. The critical periphery in the growth of social protests. PLOS ONE 10:11e0143611
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Barranco J, Wisler D. 1999. Validity and systematicity of newspaper data in event analysis. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 15:3301–22
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bastos MT, Mercea D, Charpentier A 2015. Tents, tweets, and events: the interplay between ongoing protests and social media. J. Commun. 65:2320–50
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bayerl PS, Stoynov L. 2016. Revenge by Photoshop: memefying police acts in the public dialogue about injustice. New Media Soc 18:61006–26
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Benford RD, Hunt SA. 1992. Dramaturgy and social movements: the social construction and communication of power. Sociol. Inq. 62:36–55
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Benkler Y, Faris R, Roberts H 2018. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bennett WL, Segerberg A, Walker S 2014. Organization in the crowd: peer production in large-scale networked protests. Inf. Commun. Soc. 17:2232–60
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Blank G. 2017. The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 35:6679–97
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bobo LD. 2017. Racism in Trump's America: reflections on culture, sociology, and the 2016 US presidential election. Br. J. Sociol. 68:Suppl. 185–104
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bode L, Vraga EK. 2018. Studying politics across media. Political Commun 35:11–7
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bonilla Y, Rosa J. 2015. #Ferguson: digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. Am. Ethnol. 42:14–17
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Boyle MP, McLeod DM, Armstrong CL 2012. Adherence to the protest paradigm: the influence of protest goals and tactics on news coverage in U.S. and international newspapers. Int. J. Press/Politics 17:2127–44
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Brown M, Ray R, Summers E, Fraistat N 2017. #SayHerName: a case study of intersectional social media activism. Ethn. Racial Stud. 40:111831–46
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Burgess J, Matamoros-Fernández A. 2016. Mapping sociocultural controversies across digital media platforms: one week of #Gamergate on Twitter, YouTube, and Tumblr. Commun. Res. Pract. 2:179–96
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Buyukozturk B, Gaulden S, Dowd-Arrow B 2018. Contestation on Reddit, Gamergate, and movement barriers. Soc. Mov. Stud. 17:5592–609
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Caren N, Jowers K, Gaby S 2012. A social movement online community: Stormfront and the white nationalist movement. Media, Movements, and Political Change J Earl, D Rohlinger 163–93 Bingley, UK: Emerald
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Carney N. 2016. All lives matter, but so does race: Black Lives Matter and the evolving role of social media. Humanit. Soc. 40:2180–99
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Casas A, Williams NW. 2019. Images that matter: online protests and the mobilizing role of pictures. Political Res. Q. 72:2360–75
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Castells M. 2015. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Chadwick A. 2017. The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Clark R. 2016. “Hope in a hashtag”: the discursive activism of #WhyIStayed. Fem. Media Stud. 16:5788–804
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Conover MD, Ferrara E, Menczer F, Flammini A 2013. The digital evolution of Occupy Wall Street. PLOS ONE 8:5e64679
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Costanza-Chock S. 2012. Mic check! Media cultures and the Occupy movement. Soc. Mov. Stud. 11:3/4375–85
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Crossley AD. 2015. Facebook feminism: social media, blogs, and new technologies of contemporary U.S. feminism. Mobilization 20:2253–68
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Davenport C. 2009. Media Bias, Perspective, and State Repression: The Black Panther Party Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Davidson T, Berezin M. 2018. Britain First and the UK Independence Party: social media and movement-party dynamics. Mobilization 23:4485–510
    [Google Scholar]
  41. De Bruycker I. 2019. Blessing or curse for advocacy? How news media attention helps advocacy groups to achieve their policy goals. Political Commun 36:1103–26
    [Google Scholar]
  42. De Choudhury M, Jhaver S, Sugar B, Weber I 2016. Social media participation in an activist movement for racial equality. Proceedings of the 10th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media92–101 Palo Alto: CA: AAAI
    [Google Scholar]
  43. DeLuca KM, Brunner E, Sun Y 2016. Constructing public space: Weibo, WeChat, and the transformative events of environmental activism in China. Int. J. Commun. 10:19
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Dignam PA, Rohlinger DA. 2019. Misogynistic men online: how the Red Pill helped elect Trump. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 44:3589–612
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Earl J. 2018. Technology and social media. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements DA Snow, SA Soule, H Kriesi, HJ McCammon 289–305 New York: Wiley, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Earl J, Kimport K. 2011. Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Earl J, Kimport K, Prieto G, Rush C, Reynoso K 2010. Changing the world one webpage at a time: conceptualizing and explaining internet activism. Mobilization 15:4425–46
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Earl J, Martin A, McCarthy JD, Soule SA 2004. The use of newspaper data in the study of collective action. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:65–80
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Earl J, Soule SA. 2010. The impacts of repression: the effect of police presence and action on subsequent protest rates. Res. Soc. Mov. Confl. Change 30:75–113
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Elliott TA, Amenta E, Caren N 2016. Recipes for attention: policy reforms, crises, organizational characteristics, and the newspaper coverage of the LGBT movement, 1969–2009. Sociol. Forum. 31:4926–47
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ferree MM, Gamson WA, Rucht D, Gerhards J 2002. Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Fisher DR, Andrews KT, Caren N, Chenoweth E, Heaney MT et al. 2019. The science of contemporary street protest: new efforts in the United States. Sci. Adv. 5:10eaaw5461
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Fominaya CF, Gillan K. 2017. Navigating the technology-media-movements complex. Soc. Mov. Stud. 16:4383–402
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Freelon D. 2018. Computational research in the post-API age. Political Commun 35:4665–68
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Freelon D, McIlwain CD, Clark MD 2016. Beyond the hashtags: #Ferguson, #BlackLivesMatter, and the online struggle for offline justice Rep., Cent. Media Soc. Impact, Am. Univ Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Freelon D, McIlwain CD, Clark MD 2018. Quantifying the power and consequences of social media protest. New Media Soc 20:3990–1011
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Futrell R, Simi P. 2004. Free spaces, collective identity, and the persistence of US white power activism. Soc. Probl. 51:116–42
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gaby S, Caren N. 2012. Occupy online: how cute old men and Malcolm X recruited 400,000 US users to OWS on Facebook. Soc. Mov. Stud. 11:3/4367–74
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Gaby S, Caren N. 2016. The rise of inequality: how social movements shape discursive fields. Mobilization 21:4413–29
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gallagher RJ, Reagan AJ, Danforth CM, Dodds PS 2018. Divergent discourse between protests and counter-protests: #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter. PLOS ONE 13:4e0195644
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Gamson WA, Wolfsfeld G. 1993. Movements and media as interacting systems. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 528:114–25
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Garza A. 2014. A herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. Feminist Wire Oct. 7. http://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Gitlin T. 2003. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 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
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Graham R, Smith S. 2016. The content of our #characters: Black Twitter as counterpublic. Sociol. Race Ethn. 2:4433–49
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Harlow S. 2012. Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media Soc 14:2225–43
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Harlow S, Johnson TJ. 2011. The Arab Spring: overthrowing the protest paradigm? How the New York Times, Global Voices and Twitter covered the Egyptian Revolution. Int. J. Commun. 5:16
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Hendriks CM, Duus S, Ercan SA 2016. Performing politics on social media: the dramaturgy of an environmental controversy on Facebook. Environ. Politics 25:61102–25
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Hensby A. 2017. Open networks and secret Facebook groups: exploring cycle effects on activists’ social media use in the 2010/11 UK student protests. Soc. Mov. Stud. 16:4466–78
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hermida A, Lewis SC, Zamith R 2014. Sourcing the Arab Spring: a case study of Andy Carvin's sources on Twitter during the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 19:3479–99
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Hofstra B, Corten R, van Tubergen F, Ellison NB 2017. Sources of segregation in social networks: a novel approach using Facebook. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:3625–56
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Holmes A. 2012. There are weeks when decades happen: structure and strategy in the Egyptian revolution. Mobilization 17:4391–410
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Horeck T. 2014. #AskThicke: “Blurred Lines,” rape culture, and the feminist hashtag takeover. Feminist Media Stud 14:61105–7
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Hounshell B. 2011. The revolution will be tweeted. Foreign Policy June 20. https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/the-revolution-will-be-tweeted/
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Howard PN. 2010. The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Hug S, Wisler D. 1998. Correcting for selection bias in social movement research. Mobilization 3:2141–61
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Ince J, Rojas F, Davis CA 2017. The social media response to Black Lives Matter: how Twitter users interact with Black Lives Matter through hashtag use. Ethn. Racial Stud. 40:111814–30
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Isaac L. 2009. Movements, aesthetics, and markets in literary change: making the American labor problem novel. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:6938–965
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Jackson SJ, Foucault Welles B 2015. Hijacking #myNYPD: social media dissent and networked counterpublics. J. Commun. 65:6932–52
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Jackson SJ, Foucault Welles B 2016. #Ferguson is everywhere: initiators in emerging counterpublic networks. Inf. Commun. Soc. 19:3397–418
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Jamieson KH, Cappella JN. 2008. Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Jao N. 2018. WeChat now has over 1 billion active monthly users worldwide. TechNode Blog March 5. https://technode.com/2018/03/05/wechat-1-billion-users/
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Jenkins JC, Perrow C. 1977. Insurgency of the powerless: farm worker movements (1946–1972). Am. Sociol. Rev. 42:2249–68
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Juris JS. 2012. Reflections on #Occupy everywhere: social media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation. Am. Ethnol. 39:2259–79
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Kang T, Fowler EF, Franz MM, Ridout TN 2018. Issue consistency? Comparing television advertising, tweets, and e-mail in the 2014 Senate campaigns. Political Commun 35:132–49
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Karpf D. 2012. The MoveOn Effect Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Karpf D. 2016. Analytic Activism: Digital Listening and the New Political Strategy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Keller J, Mendes K, Ringrose J 2018. Speaking ‘unspeakable things’: documenting digital feminist responses to rape culture. J. Gend. Stud. 27:122–36
    [Google Scholar]
  89. King G, Pan J, Roberts ME 2013. How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:2326–43
    [Google Scholar]
  90. King MD, Haveman HA. 2008. Antislavery in America: the press, the pulpit, and the rise of antislavery societies. Adm. Sci. Q. 53:3492–528
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Lee FLF. 2014. Triggering the protest paradigm: examining factors affecting news coverage of protests. Int. J. Commun. 8:22
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Lee FLF, Chan JM. 2016. Digital media activities and mode of participation in a protest campaign: a study of the Umbrella movement. Inf. Commun. Soc. 19:14–22
    [Google Scholar]
  93. LeFebvre RK, Armstrong C. 2016. Grievance-based social movement mobilization in the #Ferguson Twitter storm. New Media Soc 20:18–28
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Lewis K, Gray K, Meierhenrich J 2014. The structure of online activism. Sociol. Sci. 1:11–9
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Lim M. 2012. Clicks, cabs, and coffee houses: social media and oppositional movements in Egypt, 2004–2011. J. Commun. 62:2231–48
    [Google Scholar]
  96. López-Sanders L, Brown HE. 2019. Political mobilisation and public discourse in new immigrant destinations: news media characterisations of immigrants during the 2006 immigration marches. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1556464
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Lyons MN. 2017. Ctrl-Alt-Delete: the origins and ideology of the Alternative Right Rep., Political Res. Assoc Somerville, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Maney GM, Oliver PE. 2001. Finding collective events—sources, searches, timing. Sociol. Methods Res. 30:2131–69
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Massanari A. 2017. #Gamergate and the Fappening: how Reddit's algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media Soc 19:3329–46
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Mausolf JG. 2017. Occupy the government: analyzing presidential and congressional discursive response to movement repression. Soc. Sci. Res. 67:Suppl. C91–114
    [Google Scholar]
  101. McAdam D. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  102. McCarthy JD, McPhail C, Smith J 1996. Images of protest: dimensions of selection bias in media coverage of Washington demonstrations, 1982 and 1991. Am. Sociol. Rev. 61:3478–99
    [Google Scholar]
  103. McLeod D. 2007. News coverage and social protest: how the media's protect paradigm exacerbates social conflict. J. Disput. Resolut. 2007:112
    [Google Scholar]
  104. McLeod DM, Detenber BH. 1999. Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. J. Commun. 49:33–23
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Mendes K, Ringrose J, Keller J 2019. Digital Feminist Activism: Girls and Women Fight Back Against Rape Culture Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Mercea D. 2013. Probing the implications of Facebook use for the organizational form of social movement organizations. Inf. Commun. Soc. 16:81306–27
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Muis J, Immerzeel T. 2017. Causes and consequences of the rise of populist radical right parties and movements in Europe. Curr. Sociol. 65:6909–30
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Myers DJ, Caniglia BS. 2004. All the rioting that's fit to print: selection effects in national newspaper coverage of civil disorders, 1968–1969. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:4519–43
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Noble S. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Oliver PE, Myers DJ. 1999. How events enter the public sphere: conflict, location, and sponsorship in local newspaper coverage of public events. Am. J. Sociol. 105:138–87
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Ortiz DG, Myers DJ, Walls NE, Diaz MED 2005. Where do we stand with newspaper data. Mobilization 10:3397–419
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Owens PB, McVeigh R, Cunningham D 2018. Race, ethnicity, and social movements. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements DA Snow, SA Soule, H Kriesi, HJ McCammon 553–70 New York: Wiley, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Pennington R. 2018. Making space in social media: #MuslimWomensDay in Twitter. J. Commun. Inq. 43:3199–217
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Poell T, Borra E. 2012. Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr as platforms of alternative journalism: the social media account of the 2010 Toronto G20 protests. Journalism 13:6695–713
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Pond P, Lewis J. 2017. Riots and Twitter: connective politics, social media and framing discourses in the digital public sphere. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22:2213–31
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Porter AJ, Hellsten I. 2014. Investigating participatory dynamics through social media using a multideterminant “frame” approach: the case of Climategate on YouTube. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 19:41024–41
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Prior M. 2013. Media and political polarization. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 16:101–27
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Qiu J. 2016. Social media on the picket line. Media Cult. Soc. 38:4619–33
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Ramos H, Ron J, Thoms ONT 2007. Shaping the northern media's human rights coverage, 1986–2000. J. Peace Res. 44:4385–406
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Ray R, Brown M, Fraistat N, Summers E 2017. Ferguson and the death of Michael Brown on Twitter: #BlackLivesMatter, #TCOT, and the evolution of collective identities. Ethn. Racial Stud. 40:111797–813
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Resende G, Melo P, Sousa H, Messias J, Vasconcelos M et al. 2019. (Mis)information dissemination in WhatsApp: gathering, analyzing and countermeasures. Proceedings of the 28th World Wide Web Conference (WWW19)818–28 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Ribeiro MH, Ottoni R, West R, Almeida VAF, Meira W 2019. Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube. arXiv:1908.08313 [cs]
  123. Robertson A. 2015. What's going on? Making sense of the role of the media in the Arab uprisings. Sociol. Compass 9:7531–41
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Rohlinger DA. 2014. Abortion Politics, Mass Media, and Social Movements in America New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Rohlinger DA. 2019. Symposium on political communication and social movements: ships passing in the night. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22:5724–38
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Rohlinger DA, Bunnage L. 2017. Did the Tea Party movement fuel the Trump-train? The role of social media in activist persistence and political change in the 21st century. Soc. Media Soc. 3:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117706786
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. Rohlinger DA, Bunnage LA. 2018. Collective identity in the digital age: thin and thick identities in MoveOn.org and the Tea Party movement. Mobilization 23:2135–57
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Rohlinger DA, Corrigall-Brown C. 2018. Social movements and mass media in a global context. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements DA Snow, SA Soule, H Kriesi, HJ McCammon 131–47 New York: Wiley, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Roscigno VJ, Danaher WF. 2001. Media and mobilization: the case of radio and southern textile worker insurgency, 1929 to 1934. Am. Sociol. Rev. 66:121–48
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Rucht D. 2004. The quadruple ‘A’: media strategies of protest movements since the 1960s. Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens and Social Movements W Van De Donk, BD Loader, PG Nixon, D Rucht 25–48 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Ryan C, Anastario M, Jeffreys K 2005. Start small, build big: negotiating opportunities in media markets. Mobilization 10:1111–28
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Scalmer S. 2013. Mediated nonviolence as a global force: an historical perspective. Mediation and Protest Movements B Cammaerts, A Mattoni, P McCurdy 115–31 Bristol, UK: Intellect
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Schradie J. 2018. The digital activism gap: how class and costs shape online collective action. Soc. Probl. 65:151–74
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Schradie J. 2019. The Revolution That Wasn't: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives Boston: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Segerberg A, Bennett WL. 2011. Social media and the organization of collective action: using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. Commun. Rev. 14:3197–215
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Seguin C. 2016. Cascades of coverage: dynamics of media attention to social movement organizations. Soc. Forces 94:3997–1020
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Shirky C. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations New York: Penguin
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Shulman SW. 2009. The case against mass e-mails: perverse incentives and low quality public participation in U.S. federal rulemaking. Policy Internet 1:123–53
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Skocpol T, Williamson V. 2016. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Smith A, Anderson M. 2018. Social media use 2018. Pew Research Center Internet & Technology Blog March 1. http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Sobieraj S. 2011. Soundbitten: The Perils of Media-Centered Political Activism New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Sobieraj S. 2018. Bitch, slut, skank, cunt: patterned resistance to women's visibility in digital publics. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21:111700–14
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Sobieraj S. 2019. Audiences in social context: bridging the divides between political communications and social movements scholarship. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22:5739–46
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Spilerman S. 1970. The causes of racial disturbances: a comparison of alternative explanations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 35:4627–49
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Starr P. 2005. The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications New York: Basic
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Stout CT, Coulter K, Edwards B 2017. #blackrepresentation, intersectionality, and politicians’ responses to black social movements on Twitter. Mobilization 22:4493–509
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Suh CS, Vasi IB, Chang PY 2017. How social media matter: repression and the diffusion of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Soc. Sci. Res. 65:282–93
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Tarrow SG. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Theocharis Y. 2013. The wealth of (occupation) networks? Communication patterns and information distribution in a Twitter protest network. J. Inf. Technol. Politics 10:135–56
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Theocharis Y, Lowe W, van Deth JW, García-Albacete G 2015. Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: online mobilization patterns and action repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements. Inf. Commun. Soc. 18:2202–20
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Thorson K, Driscoll K, Ekdale B, Edgerly S, Thompson LG et al. 2013. YouTube, Twitter and the Occupy movement. Inf. Commun. Soc. 16:3421–51
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Tilly C. 1982. Britain creates the social movement. Social Conflict and the Political Order in Modern Britain JE Cronin, J Schneer 21–51 New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Tilly C. 2004. Social Movements, 1768–2004 Boulder, CO: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Torres S. 2003. Black, White, and in Color: Television and Black Civil Rights Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Towner TL, Muñoz CL. 2018. Picture perfect? The role of Instagram in issue agenda setting during the 2016 presidential primary campaign. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 36:4484–99
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Tremayne M. 2014. Anatomy of protest in the digital era: a network analysis of Twitter and Occupy Wall Street. Soc. Mov. Stud. 13:1110–26
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Treré E. 2015. Reclaiming, proclaiming, and maintaining collective identity in the #YoSoy132 movement in Mexico: an examination of digital frontstage and backstage activism through social media and instant messaging platforms. Inf. Commun. Soc. 18:8901–15
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Triliva S, Varvantakis C, Dafermos M 2015. YouTube, young people, and the socioeconomic crises in Greece. Inf. Commun. Soc. 18:4407–23
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Tufekci Z. 2014. Big questions for social media big data: representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. arXiv:1403.7400 [physics]
  160. Tufekci Z. 2015. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: emergent challenges of Computational Agency Symposium essays. Colo. Technol. Law J. 13:203–18
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Tufekci Z. 2017. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Tufekci Z. 2018. YouTube, the great radicalizer. New York Times March 10. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html
    [Google Scholar]
  163. Tufekci Z, Wilson C. 2012. Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: observations from Tahrir Square. J. Commun. 62:2363–79
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Valenzuela S. 2013. Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: the roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. Am. Behav. Sci. 57:7920–42
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Valenzuela S, Correa T, Gil de Zúñiga H 2018. Ties, likes, and tweets: using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use. Political Commun 35:1117–34
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Vasi IB, Suh CS. 2016. Online activities, spatial proximity, and the diffusion of the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States. Mobilization 21:2139–54
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Vasi IB, Walker ET, Johnson JS, Tan HF 2015.. “ No fracking way!” Documentary film, discursive opportunity, and local opposition against hydraulic fracturing in the United States, 2010 to 2013. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:5934–59
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Vliegenthart R, Oegema D, Klandermans B 2005. Media coverage and organizational support in the Dutch environmental movement. Mobilization 10:3365–81
    [Google Scholar]
  169. Vliegenthart R, Walgrave S. 2012. The interdependency of mass media and social movements. The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication HA Semetko, M Scammell 387–97 London: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Vraga EK, Bode L, Wells C, Driscoll K, Thorson K 2013. The rules of engagement: comparing two social protest movements on YouTube. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 17:3133–40
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Walgrave S, Vliegenthart R. 2012. The complex agenda-setting power of protest: demonstrations, media, parliament, government, and legislation in Belgium, 1993–2000. Mobilization 17:2129–56
    [Google Scholar]
  172. Wang DJ, Rao H, Soule SA 2019. Crossing categorical boundaries: a study of diversification by social movement organizations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 84:3420–58
    [Google Scholar]
  173. Williams S. 2015. Digital defense: Black feminists resist violence with hashtag activism. Fem. Media Stud. 15:2341–44
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Won D, Steinert-Threlkeld ZC, Joo J 2017. Protest activity detection and perceived violence estimation from social media images. Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Conference on Multimedia786–94 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  175. Yang G. 2015. Narrative agency in hashtag activism: the case of #BlackLivesMatter. Media Commun 4:413–17
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Youmans WL, York JC. 2012. Social media and the activist toolkit: user agreements, corporate interests, and the information infrastructure of modern social movements. J. Commun. 62:2315–29
    [Google Scholar]
  177. Zhang C. 2017. How misinformation spreads on WeChat. Columbia Journalism Review Oct. 30. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/wechat-misinformation-china.php
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054627
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054627
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error