Counter-Discourse Activism on Social Media: The Case of Challenging "Poverty Porn" Television.
Counter-Discourse Activism on Social Media: The Case of Challenging "Poverty Porn" Television.
复制标题
社交媒体上的反话语行动主义：挑战“贫困色情”电视的案例。
DOI：
10.1007/s10606-017-9275-z
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Feltwell T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Feltwell T
在本文中，我们研究了活动家如何设计、部署和策划在线反话语，以挑战围绕社会政治问题的主导叙事。我们关注与英国广播媒体对福利申领人的负面描述相关的行动主义；被评论家描述为“贫穷色情”。运用批评话语分析，我们探讨了两场反对电视节目《福利街》的激进运动。通过对社交媒体、相关传统媒体文本的内容分析，以及对活动家的采访，我们的分析强调了活动家利用不同社交媒体和其他在线平台的特定技术优势来管理和配置反话语活动的方式。我们揭示了活动人士如何使用不同的平台来谨慎地控制和争夺话语空间，以及他们如何利用线上和线下活动与新媒体和广播媒体相结合，为他们的工作建立受众。我们讨论了与衡量反话语成功相关的挑战，以及活动家如何依靠社交媒体分析和轶事反馈的结合来确定他们的活动是成功的。我们还讨论了此类运动中经常隐藏的权力关系，特别是在行动主义的基层合法性存在模糊性的情况下，以及在努力控制和拥有反话语传播的情况下。最后，我们强调了一些需要进一步努力的领域，这些领域围绕着企业倡导、数码主义和草根行动主义之间模糊的区别。
In this paper we investigate how online counter-discourse is designed, deployed and orchestrated by activists to challenge dominant narratives around socio-political issues. We focus on activism related to the UK broadcast media’s negative portrayal of welfare benefit claimants; portrayals characterised as “poverty porn” by critics. Using critical discourse analysis, we explore two activist campaigns countering the TV programmeBenefits Street. Through content analysis of social media, associated traditional media texts, and interviews with activists, our analysis highlights the way activists leverage the specific technological affordances of different social media and other online platforms in order to manage and configure counter-discourse activities. We reveal how activists use different platforms to carefully control and contest discursive spaces, and the ways in which they utilise both online and offline activities in combination with new and broadcast media to build an audience for their work. We discuss the challenges associated with measuring the success of counter-discourse, and how activists rely on combinations of social media analytics and anecdotal feedback in order to ascertain that their campaigns are successful. We also discuss the often hidden power-relationships in such campaigns, especially where there is ambiguity regarding the grassroots legitimacy of activism, and where effort is placed into controlling and owning the propagation of counter-discourse. We conclude by highlighting a number of areas for further work around the blurred distinctions between corporate advocacy, digilantism and grassroots activism.