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. |