War for a Ball
The impact of user-generated-content over the behavior of media consumer in times of crisis. A Football case study
Master within business admisistration Author: Halima El Joundi Supervisor: Dr. Leon Barkho May, 2010
1 Acknowledgment
My deepest gratitude goes to Dr Leon Barkho for his guidance and help and to JIBS for an experience of a lifetime.
To Hayat Zeroual and Mohamed El Joundi My fortune, my parents
Halima El Joundi
May, 2010
2 Abstract Master Thesis within Business Administration Title War for a Ball : The impact of user-generated-content over the behavior of media consumer in times of crisis A Football case study
Author Halima El Joundi
Supervisor Leon Barkho
Date 05/23/10
Subject terms User-Generated-Content, Social Media, Opinion, deindividuation, Collective Behavior, active audiences, Communication Models
Introduction The recent breakthroughs in communication technologies have reintroduced the user to Internet. Media consumers became empowered with the capabality to produce, and will gradually shift from the traditional role of an audience to generate content, compete with mainstream media and construct new social and cultural realities. The impact user-generated-content is having on individuals and groups is still ambiguous and requires a better understanding of both the nature of UGC as a source and the particularity of social media platforms as a channel.
Purpose The pupose of this paper is to further the discussion on how user-generated-content impact audiences in terms of opinion and behavior, particularly during periods of crisis.
Method The research question will be approached from a qualitative perspective. Thus an examplary case study entitled ”War for a Ball” is designed and analyzed based on data collected from different sources; including official documentation of the incident described in the case, and the author´ personal observations as a participant observer of the phenomenon.
Conclusion Communication is reshaping the world, redefining responsabilities and bringing in new (dis)orders. Channels of social media, through which audiences are mostly active, are vulnurable platforms where Noise is integrated with the message by default, resulting in a participatory form of control and a state of deindividuation as the user gradually merges in the goup.
3 Table of Content
1. Introduction...... 7 1.2 Background...... 7 1.3 The problem...... 7 1.4 The importance of the topic...... 8 1.5 Perspective...... 9 1.6 Delimitations...... 9 1.7 Definitions...... 9 2. Method...... 11 2.1 Qualitative versus quantitative ...... 11 2.2 A qualitative research method: a case study...... 11 2.3 Data gathering and validity...... 12 2.4 Case analysis: the strategy...... 13 3. Frame of References...... 14 3.1 Communication...... 14 3.1.1 Communication models...... 14 3.1.1.1 Aristotle´s model...... 14 3.1.1.2 Shannon and Weaver´s model...... 15 3.1.1.3 Berlo´s model...... 16 3.1.1.4 Schramm´s model...... 17 3.2 Revisiting audiences...... 17 3.3 Social media: the user generated content...... 18 3.3.1 Citizen journalism...... ,,...... 19 3.3.2 Online social network...... 20 3.4 Collective behavior...... 21 3.4.1 Opinion...... 21 3.4.1.1 Revisiting Propaganda...... 21 3.4.1.2Deindividuation...... 22 4. Research Question...... 24 5. War for a Ball: case description...... 25 5.1 The trigger...... 25 5.2 Convergence...... 26
4 5.3 More convergence...... 27 5.4 War! ...... 28 5.5 Aftermath ...... 29 6. Case analysis and discussion...... 30 6.1 The danger of words...... 30 6.1.1 The message and the stimulus...... 30 6.1.2 The channel and the receiver...... 30 6.1.2.1Receiver of television...... 31 . 6.1.2.2 The receiver of Noise...... 31 6.2 The danger of crowds...... 33 6.2.1 Slips and opinion shifts...... 33 6.2.2 Deindividuation by default ...... 34 . 6.3 Convergence...... 34 6.3.1 Integrating the consumer...... 35 . 6.3.2 Realm of confusion...... 35 7. Conclusion...... 37 References...... 39 Appendix 1...... 45 Appendix 2...... 46
5 Table of Figures
Figure 1: Aristotel´s communication model...... 15 Figure 2: Shannon and Weaver communication model ...... 16 Figure 3: Berlo´s communication model...... 16 Figure 4: Schramm´s communication model...... 17 Figure 5: Zimbardo´s model of Deindividuation...... 23 Figure 6: A suggested model of interactive communication on social media platforms...... 32
6 1. Introduction
1.1 Background Never before in history, possibly except from the days of Noah´s ark, has the world been this brought together. Never before was the individual so powerful and active not through the blessings of political theories and democratic institutions but through technology that has equipped us, the masses, with extraordinary tools; literally creating a parallel world where no rules define roles, accessible to all and uncensored by definition (Gross, R., Acquisti 2006).
With the emergence of Web 2.0 communication technologies in the mid 2000s, The internet has been reintroduced; it is no more restricted on being a source of information for consumers to acquire, it became an open source platform where a user can generate content and produce an environment of convergence, participation and collective intelligence (Jenkins, 2006).
400 million people are active users of Facebook. Each subscriber has an average of 130 friends, spends an average of 55 minutes daily logged on and posts an average of 25 comments; making Facebook responsible for 1% of all internet traffic worldwide; as reported in 2009 (Facebook.com). Likewise, hundred millions of videos are instantly watched and uploaded on Youtube, and tens of millions of people report on blogs in the old tradition of an eye witness correspondent. The conventional status of a submissive consumer and a passive audience has changed. We are becoming, either we intended it or not, distributors of ideas, transporters of information and producers in our own rights.
A new cultural order is taking shape “where the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways” (Jenkins, 2006:2), and where crowd sourcing, mass collaboration and information sharing have become the new liberties worth fighting for. However, liberating as it sounds, we are actually living in an age of constant turmoil and within “a realm of uncertainty” (Wallerstein, 1991:15). Thin lines set boundaries between the diffusion of information and the fuel of confusion, the enhancement of innovativeness and the distribution of persuasion; sustaining social control and menacing social order.
1.2 The problem In 2006, “You” has covered up Time magazine as person of the year. The celebrated publication sensitive to the growing significance of user generated content, has paid its tribute to “the revolution” that will “not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes” (Time magazine, 13 of December 2006). “You” has been positioned as a pop superhero. In times of peace and war “The people formerly known as the audience” as described by blogger Jay Rosen (2006) are neither isolated nor quiet anymore; documenting hurricanes and earthquakes (as with Katrina, and Wenchuan) intimidating governments (as in the last presidential elections in Iran) and going where none has dared to set foot (Gaza during the war). Ironically, observers have noted that despite this excessive virtual/simulative activism, “information age has not brought with it a more robust form of civic participatory democracy” (Lewis, Inthorn & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2005:1), others will question the scoop of media consumers´ power and its real significance (Fiske 1993), while some
7 will declare that active audiences are nothing but an index of ”the disorder of things” (Ang,1996:8).
In this interesting era of crisis, lost trust and hunt for credibility, people started looking desperately for heroes among themselves. The communal sense of benevolence upon which the platforms of the virtual world are founded (O´Reilly, 2004), have earned them huge consideration. Apparently the citizen has succeed providing what old media have struggled with all along; reliability, at least so it seems.
From the “I had eggs for breakfast” status on the personal “wall”, to posting shocking videos of torture from a maximum security facility, the contagious “sharing fever” in the anarchical parallel world has escalated against speculations to whopping sizes in a record time. Unsurprisingly, and as it was the case with all revolutions; as times where the world´s groundwork is challenged and its functionality subject to change, what we are seeing today, seems promising when it comes to reconfigurating McLuhan’s global village into a postmodern world more integrated, away too interdependent and astonishingly as exposed and vulnerable as ever (Ang,1996).
This paper aims to investigate the intriguing impact of user-generated-content over the collective behavior of media consumers in times of crises by examining a real life case study entitled “War for a Ball”. The case, features two countries Algeria & Egypt. At the dawn of a football match, a battle of patriotic thoughts displayed by supporters of both parties through the new media platforms (mainly Facebook & Youtube) will be taken by an angry crowd to the streets. A diplomatic crisis will emerge. Overnight the brothers were pushed to the edge of war.
The analysis will be carried out in the light of the events and based on a theoretical framework. This thesis also intends to further the discussion about how communication model is transforming in the digital age.
1.3 Importance of the topic Anthropologist George Marcus while reflecting on the transformation our world is going through stated that “the fact that the globe is generally and intimately becoming more integrated (…) paradoxically is not leading to an easily comprehensible totality, but to an increasing diversity of connections among phenomena once thought desperate and worlds apart” (1992:321). The importance of this research topic lies on its portrayal of some aspects of the world´s paradoxicality, as opposed to the assumption of a stable homogenized globe shriveled by communication and technology (McLuhan, 1964).
The case study, is in itself pertinent, multidimensional and singular in its context and consequences. Though being geographically restricted to two countries, Egypt and Algeria, its impact has a global appeal, and surprisingly has not exhausted enough pens yet. In general, few scholars have attempted to revive the interest in concepts of “control” and “collective behavior”,(Ginneken,2003) and the attention given to user generated content has so far been concentrated on issues of Citizen journalism and online privacy on social networks. Yet today more than ever further understanding of the impact “people are having over people” is needed.
The topic is also personally significant as it spotlights an incident in the North African/Middle
8 Eastern context with which I am familiar, being a Moroccan and an Arabic speaker and someone who is a participant as it will be outlined in the coming sections. Another important point to mention is that often contributions to the topic of social media are within the western context, thus it would be interesting to discuss those universal phenomena from a different angle.
1.4 Perspective Many articles written about social media has approached the topic from an empowered consumer perspective, others tackled it from a professional journalistic outlook. In this paper however, my perspective is that of a conscious citizen, a participant observer and one of the crowd.
1.5 Delimitations Time is a valuable asset especially when the research method involves observation. I tried to make optimum usage of it, yet I consider it one of the delimitations of this paper. Another boundary is the lack of academic documentation for the case study (war for a ball) due to it being timely. Consequently I had to restrict myself to my own observation notes and collected data. A third limitation is the paper´s multidisciplinary character. Because of time constraint and relevancy to my program, I had to confine myself to the fields of knowledge I am most equipped to handle.
1.6 Definitions User generated content: For media professionals the user generated content (UGC), is Interchangeable with “citizen journalism”, “grassroots journalism” “open source journalism” or “distributed journalism”. In this paper, the acronym UGC, also called consumer-generated-media and user-created-content, will be used to describe all media substance produced by media consumers and openly shared through the social networking sites.
Social media: Commonly linked to the new medium of internet and enabled by communication, digital and information revolutions of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It describes the social web based services that allow users to have a presence in the virtual world, and connect with other consumers/users existing within their network reach (Boyd D. M. and Ellison, N. B. 2007)
Propaganda: Typically defined as “organized persuasion” (De Vito,1986:239). “It is a work of large organizations or groups to win over the public for special interests through a massive orchestration” (Sproule,1994:8). In this paper propaganda is revisited and involved in discussing “controllability”.
Public opinion: It is the shared opinions, views and manifested attitudes amongst a large population. Public opinion didn´t reach its contemporary format (in the geopolitical north) until the end of the 19th century, with working classes and woman inquiring their rights to vote. In this paper public opinion is involved with the perspective of its ability to be manufactured (Lippman, 1919).
Communication: it is a field of research investigating how symbols are transmitted from person or group to another to convey ideas, attitudes or emotions (Theodorson and Theodorson, 1969). Communication models and transformation is central to this paper..
9 Web 2.0: the term Web 2.0, as opposed to Web 1.0, describes the evolutionary phase of world wide web, where internet is described as: “an architecture of participation”; “harnessing collective intelligence”; development in a state of “perpetual beta” and “the wisdom of crowds”(O´Reilly, 2005).
10 2. Method
2.1 Qualitative versus quantitative Fundamentally, the scientific norms of research are the “objective, logical, and systematic method of analysis of phenomena, devised to permit the accumulation of reliable knowledge” (Lastrucci 1963:6). When conducting a research, the inquirer has the responsibility to carry out a methodical examination, analysis and reasoning of the subject in question. The method in this respect is based on three assumptions, as described by Harvey Russell Bernard(2006); “first reality is out there to be discovered, second, direct observation is the way to discover it and thirdly, material explanations for observable phenomena are sufficient” (2006:5). The choice of the method, by means of which the research question will be approached, its suitability, conceivability and efficiency, could deeply affect the study outcomes.
Babbie E. (1992) describe the quantitative method as “a numerical representation and manipulation of observations” as opposed to qualitative method that features a “non-numerical examination and interpretation of observations, for the purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships”(1992:537). In other words, while the qualitative investigation is sensitive to issues of quality and frequency within processes, the quantitative mechanisms focuses on mathematical and analytical interpretations of different correlations among varriables (Denzin NK,Lincoln .Y.S,1994). The Tight spot of qualitative versus quantitative options depends on the endeavor itself, accordingly, the method is selcted (Silverman,2009)
This paper investigates the impact of user generated content over the media consumer, in an attempt to understand an aspect of variation in human behavior through a contextual analysis of a real life case study. The paper in this respect is exploratory, not statistical and relies on inductive logic. Having noted that, I believe a qualitative approach to this question is favorable as it will allow a more comprehension and holistic understanding of the phenomenon (Walker, Cooke & McAllister, 2008).
2.2 A qualitative research method: Case study Case study as a qualitative research method has been long used by researchers in various disciplines. Chetty (1996) argues that it is the best option when researchers attempt to explore and explain phenomena by finding answers to “the how?” and “why?”(1996). It was also defined by Robert K. Yin as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (Yin,1984:23). Similarly, Zonabend (1992) has noted that a case study is done “by giving special attention to completeness in observation, reconstruction, and analysis of the cases under study” (1992:49).
The strength of this method lies on it being an encouraging platform to describe and explain happenings in a realistic and reachable arrangement while being scientifically and academically relevant.
11 Yin (2003) distinguishes between two strategies of case studying; a single case and a multiple case study. Though he favors multiple case study over single one; a supposition defended by Saunders et al (2007) based on the assumption that multiplicity provides more accuracy as findings can be checked against each other, despite that, this research focuses solely on one case. The choice is justified on many levels.
First “War for a Ball” provides an intense, unique and authentic portrayal of the two elements that makes our research question: user generated content and consumer behavior. The causality between the variables are strongly visible and the appealing nature of the context itself (before, during and after the match) as it will be discussed in the coming sections, in addition to the consequences that are still enduring, makes it an exemplary case worthy of concentration.Yin (2003) suggests that when picking one case study, the research has to ensure exemplary results (Yin,2003). Second, these variables are interestingly connected to a multiplicity of issues; political, social, economical, psychological and historical, which makes it complex and challenging to study.
Because there are no previous academic articles written about the incident this paper investigates, the developing of a case study will be opted for as a strategy (Yin,1994). This will require describing the phenomenon by displaying the data gathered in a narrative fashion that allows the reader to understand how, who and why the phenomenon in question took place.
2.3 Data gathering and Validity Stake (1995) and Yin (1994) recognize no less than 6 possible sources of data and evidence for case studies. These are: Documents, Archival records, Interviews, Direct observation, Participant- observation and Physical artifacts.
It is crucial to select the effective platform that is both available and will provide the case with “validity”.Carmines and Zeller (1982) describe validity as “evidenced by the degree that a particular indicator measures what it is supposed to measure rather than reflecting some of other phenomenon”(1982:16). That being noted, there are four norms that evaluate the “validity” of any study of a qualitative nature as suggested by Guba and Lincoln (1985), and these are; credibility, transfarability, depandability and confirmability (1985). All four criterias are supposed to indicate a subjective, reflective, consistent and believable research outcomes. Properly choosing data collection techniques and diversifying them will galvanize the paper´s validity; thereby triangulation will be used as suggested by Saunders et al (2007).
Saunders et al (2007) interpret the concept of triangulation as the implementation of various techniques of data collection within the same study. By doing so, researchers have noted that accuracy gets upgraded as findings replicability is enhanced. Moreover, Yin (1984) suggests the usage of “multiple sources” of data to achieve the state above described.
As far as this paper is concerned, two data collection techniques are used; Documents, including all user generated content relevant to the case and the material portrayed in mainstream media. The second collection technique is participant-observation; as I was myself participant observer of the
12 phenomenon from the very beginning with the researcher identity concealed. The records I documented will be used in developing a narrative for the study. As a matter of fact, observation is believed to “enhance the quality of data obtained, the quality of data interpretation and encourages the formulation of new research hypothesis grounded in on the scene observation (…) participant observation is thus both a data collection and an analytical tool (DeWalt & DeWalt 2002:14 ).
2.4 Case analysis: the strategy Since this research is based on a single case study, a “within-case analysis” will be endeavoured. This form of reasoning, as suggested by Yin (1994) (with allusion to Miles and Huberman (1994)) will be achievable through a comparision of the case data with the theoritical material suggested in the frame of reference. Data analysis as defined by Miles and Huberman (1994) “consists of three concurrent flows of activity: Data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing or/and verification” (1994:10). Each of the three phases could be seperatly described as follow:
First, data reduction: It happens when all displayed data are scrutinized in order to allow better focus and deduction. Unnecessary details will be excluded, and pertinent leads will be highlited in an organized way.
Second, data display: is an extantion of data reduction. Once the necessary findings and arguments are selected and summarized, more structure should be giving to the data. The outcome of successful data display should be more accessibility to make conlusions. Miles and Huberman (1994) belive data display to be the route for a genuine analysis (1994).
Last, conclusions drawing or/and verification: Usually this activity, comes in a seperate section. In this paper however, conclusions are integrated in the analysis section to maintain coherence in the suggested argumentation. A more general conclusion of the paper will be provided.
13 3.Frame of references
3.1 Communication
To be able to understand the complexity of social media and its impact over consumers, one must look at the wider picture of communication theory. Heath and Bryant (2000) in their book Human communication theory and research, recalled Berelson´s declarations back in 1959, stating that the field of communication research has exhausted its resources and reached a dead end. Ironically some major breakthroughs in the field, practically and theoretically, will take place subsequently during the second half of the 20th century producing a new understanding of both individuals and societies and producing a knowledge that will be brilliantly implemented by politicians and entrepreneurs to win opinion polls and generate wealth. The nature of audiences, as stated before, has changed, and so its relationship to mass media. It’s US versus US.
3.1.1 Communication models The importance of communication models lies in its ability to explore to what extent behavior is intentional (Heath,Bryant, 2000). Though Wilbur Schramm´s interactive model of communication (1955) is commonly recognized by scholars as being at the basise of modern understanding of communication, David Berlo´s contribution in communication modeling back in 1960, is accredited as being “The simplest and most influential message-centered model of our time” (Ehninger, Gronbeck and Monroe, 1978). His approach was an adaptation from Shannon & weaver´s model and had been importantly influenced by Aristotle´s speaker-centered model. All four models will be discussed in this section.
3.1.1.1 Aristotle´s model The Greeks have sensed the importance of communication in sustaining the human society over 2000 years ago when the prominent philosopher Aristotle provided one of the earliest depictions of what communication is. His model is centered around “the speaker” and its ability in a “rhetorical situation” to use the language (Nietzsche also considered language to be of a rhetorical nature) to deliver a persuasive message.
A “rhetorical situation” implies what Lloyd Bitzer (1968) has described as “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigency which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action so as to bring about significant modification of the exigency.” (as quoted by Lucaites, Condit & Caudill, 1999:9). Regardless of its age, this model is a genuine depiction of what is today known as constructing public opinion through persuasion. An old concept far from being outdated..
Figure1 is a representation of Aristotle´model:
14 Figure1: Aristotle’s Model of communication (from Ehninger, Gronbeck and Monroe 1960)
3.1.1.2 Shannon & weaver´s Model This is a linear (logical) model developed by engineer Claude Shannon along with Warren Weaver. While examining possibilities for telephone physical signals to be improved and reception errors to be minimized, a theory with a “mathematical formulation” was developed (Shannon & Weaver,1949). Shannon and Weaver´s illustration will be later used to describe the human communication process in its simplest and most linear forms; “the informational approach” to communication (DeFleur, Rokeach, 1989).
As far as human communication is concerned, the source and the encoder represented in figure2 refers to the sender, the channel carry the message in space and the receiver will decode it by constructing his/her own interpretation of the symbol´s meaning. Finally as a result of interpretation, the receiver is influenced. Notable here is the depiction of a parallel element; called Noise. It refers to any intrusion to the message moving along the channel that will cause the receiver outcome to be different from that of the source. This eventual noise happens beyond both parties consent and because accuracy (convergence of meanings) is usually difficult to monitor.
It is no surprise that today; this model is considered simplistic. In fact Shannon and Weaver as explained before developed it as a technical portrayal of transmission. The content of the message itself is not highlighted.
Figure2 is a representation of Shannon & Weaver´s model:
15 Figure 2: Shannon & Weaver´ Model of communication, 1949
3.1.1.3 Berlo´s Model Berlo´s S-M-C-R model (Source-Message-Channel-Receiver) has transformed how communication, with “the message” at its heart, is regarded today. With the inspiration of George Herbert Mead 1930´s paper, Berlo argued that communication has indeed a crucial role in the personality development of all individuals.
In his own words he stated: “The concept of self does not precede communication. It is developed through communication”(1960:125). He used the learning theory to explain why people communicate. S in source is equivalent to the S in “stimulus”; this includes all kinds of message (idea) sources. As with Aristotle´s, the receiver according to Berlo is the target of the communication effort. How people decode the message was highlighted by the learning theory, as people tend to create “sense” and “meaning” by associating varriable to each other when they occur together (1960) (as with Pavlov´s experiment on dogs with the bell). Consequently, according to Berlo´s model, communication provides enough room for manipulation.
Figure 3: Berlo´s Model of communication, 1960:
16 3.1.1.4 Schramm’s Model Schramm also based his model upon Shannon & Weaver´s mathematical linear model. It emphasized decoding and encoding as being actions maintained at the same time by the sender and the receiver and that flows through a multiplicity of levels (Schramm, 1954).
Figure 4: Schramm´s Model of communication, (adapted from The Process and Effects of Communication, 1960)
The most important notions stressed by this model could be summarized as following: the Feedback: with communication as a two way transaction. Feedback either instant or delayed is an important determinant of the transaction´s success. Second, the Context: it includes all circumstances interfering in the meaning definition. And last the culture: suggesting more sensitivity towards the cultural varriable and its ability to block communication.
Despite its popularity, Scharmm´s model is criticized for being restricted to two level communication only. Obviously communication today is more complex with “the information” flowing through multiple levels.
3.2 Revisiting audiences Joseph Klapper´s 1960 is relevant to this research. In his Effect of mass communication, he highlighted the multiplicity of mass media influence factors including “selective perception, recall and attention” as opposed to the assumption that media solely influences mass behavior. In fact Klapper challenged the supposition of audiences as “passive receivers” and considered the medium of mass communication (namely television, the new comer among the influential mass communication at the time) as being merely “one of many influences that account for public opinions and mass behavior” (Heath and Bryant, 2000:60).
Klapper suggested remodeling the linear transmission; also known as hypodermic model that was celebrated at the time, mainly during and after the two world wars, that claimed mass media to have
17 a direct effect over audiences; as with propaganda. According to him, people evade influence by the apparatus of factors such as strong norms and values. Consequently mass communications succeed to “change us” when our shield of norms is “weak” or because change is favorable to our “group´s value” (1960).
The concept of non-passive rather active audiences was widely acceptable as an obvious observation (Morris,1988). Fiske (1993) however noted, as cited in Ang (1996) that the power attributed to audiences is that of the weak “it can´t change or overrun imposed structures but serves to negotiate the potentially oppressive effects of those structures where they cannot be overthrown, where they have to be lived with”(1996:7). Contradictory as they may seem, both assumptions serve the purpose of this paper. Firstly, Klapper assigned strength to “groub/collective norms” against the vertical power of mass media, however in its historical context, if I may call it so, and based on the basic model of communication by Shannon & Weaver (see Figure 2), the message source/the sender, is the entity that has the role playing validity (such as a magazine, Radio, TV..). In the case of the internet, and social media, the group norms of audiences is insignificantly valid to resist as both the source and the receiver virtually share the same “community set of norms” (a Facebook community for instance).
When Klapper observed the audiences non-passivity, he probably did not imagine what huge format it will take decades later. With that being said, it is possible to argue that the materialization of a cultural order/disorder not restricted by chains of command, roles and identities, changes our assumptions about mass media impact in the 21st century.
Fisk´s “power of the weak” in its contemporary context is reflective of what is it to be in a post modern era “living with the realization that the promise of modernity to deliver order, certainty and security will remain unfulfilled” (Smart, 1993:27) as opposed to “cultural populism” that was never more appealing and applicable than nowadays. “You” that appeared in the cover of the Time magazine as personality of the year, mentioned in an earlier section, is an advanced unfolding of the concept that was introduced by philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder back in the eighteen century when he distinguished between “learned culture” and “popular culture”. Mikhail Bakhtine will later categorize them into “official” and “non official” (1984). As in folk stories where ordinary individuals perform heroic actions, long before social mediums, “the power of audiences” has been exaggeratedly portrayed (McGuigan, 1992) Some may argue that, today, with the tremendous empowerment of the internet, audiences have ceased to be weak, because the people finally took things in their own hands. Yet one wonders, to what extent is virtual power of “the people formerly known as audiences” valid in the real world? And if it is so what is the impact of US over US? .
Ang (1996) deduced that “the active audience is a condensed image of the disorder of things” (1996:8). This paper agrees with the assumption of disorder but puts it in the context of “Global Village fallacy”. In fact the very assumption that corner stoned “the world homogeneity”, the electronic communication (McLuhan, 1964), is proving it wrong.
3.3 Social Media: the User generated Content As stated earlier, the recent years have known a transformation of the internet consumption
18 behavior. In fact, it is no repetition to stress that during the 1990s, the internet did not differ much in concept, from other mass media; Web consumers will navigate its pages looking for online material published by a restricted number of web masters. Suddenly the 2000s arrived and the user generated content and social media entered the picture. Unlike other media platforms, the internet provided an added value to its services: a community. This concept (of community and network) however is not strange to earlier adaptations of computer, yet it was not popularized until the arrival of the internet as a commercial entity.
3.3.1 Citizen Journalism Because of the freshness of this field, not many scholarly papers focused on user generated content as a phenomenon. However one aspect of social media that has been thriving lately is citizen journalism. Citizen journalism, global perspectives edited by Stuart Allan and Elinar Thorsen (2009), “emphasize the close affinity (citizen journalism has) with crisis, catastrophes and contemporary struggles for justice”(2009:x). According to the diverse practitioners featured in the book, crisis is responsible for the growing status of the internet as a news source notably towards the end of the 1990s. Stuart recalls in his article Histories of citizen journalism (2009), some of the earlier victories of ordinary people as freelance eye witness reporters. The Lewinski case is one example of forerunner citizen journalists. In 1998 Matt Drudge was working in a gift shop in CBS television. He “overheared” some gossip about a possible affair President Clinton was having with a certain Monika Lewinski. Overnight the news jammed the internet making a worldwide sensation. In his personal website, where the news was reported, Drudge wrote “Here I am, I write this thing out in my boxer shorts with my cat as if I am passing notes in high school”(Allan,2009:22). For Drudge, journalistic norms are not a priority anymore, the right of the citizen to have access to information; any information without the interference of a middleman, comes first. This absoluteness of information access under all circumstances that the avant-garde of citizen journalism have earlier raised, has divided the professional opinion. While it portrayed for many the true decentralization of media and the democratization of news, numerous stayed skeptical and many felt threatened in their profession.
Subsequent to the Tsunami in 2004, The Independent in its January 3rd 2005 issue, noted “Producers and professional news cameraman often found themselves being sent not to the scenes of disaster to capture footage of its aftermath, but to the airport where holiday-makers were returning home with footage of the catastrophe as it happened” (the Independent, January, 3rd 2005). Despite their position, the market dictates rules on media companies. From the BBC to CNN, involving the audience became indispensable for their credibility, charts and viewer rates. They all supported their virtual presence, encouraged feedback and welcomed contributions. All it take is “a digital camera” and a web site and here you go a “guerilla journalist” (Allan,2009:24).
It is worth mentioning that the reception and significance of citizen journalism in countries where traditional journalistic freedom is already compromised, media directly or indirectly censored and civil rights disputed, differ from how citizen journalism is accepted in the western hemisphere. For instance, “Citizen journalism has only very recently begun to develop in the Arab world (North Africa, Golf and Middle East)” (Zayyan and Carter,2009: 85). Because of the high rates of illetracy, Beckerman (2007) deduces that most citizen journalists in the region are the privileged elite with
19 high education, money and leisure time to spare blogging (2007). An assemption easily challenged by the growing popularity of the user generated material.and the high rates of involvement of average citizens in areas such as Palestine and neighbouring Egypt as argued by Zayyan and Carter (2009).
In addressing the future of citizen journalism, Deuze (2009) concludes with two hypothesis: citizen journalism is bringing us either to an era “of ideal journalism and democracy that will allow the citizen to finally self-govern, or to a supercharge of social fragmentation of society into a countless individualized public sphere” (Citizen journalism 2009:263). In other words it is either a euphoric platonic society or a chaotic, anarchical world. A third guess, would be overtime regression.
3.3.2 Online Social Networks In 1997, a website called SixDegrees.com provided internet users online with inter-network services including mailing and contact lists (Bedell, 1998). Since then the concept has been widely exploited. An online social network provides the internet consumer with a virtual presence over as a member of a community. Fields related to business administration, namely marketing, has benefited from these innovative platforms to find creative and effective ways to reach their customers. The fields of sociology and ethnography also were attracted to this modern “computer-mediated communication” to investigate issues such as individuals´ virtual representation of themselves (Boyd 2004; Donath & Boyd 2004).
One network in particular that has attracted more interest from researchers as a massive social phenomenon has been Facebook. FB is a household name today and a genuine portrayal of how grand and deeply rooted in everyday´s life, social networks have become. In 2009 Facebook and Myspace were called “the premier social networking websites”. As noticed in the introduction and stated by Gross and Acquisti (2005) in their paper Privacy and information revelation in online social networks, the design of these platforms, is purposefully weak in maintaining privacy, security and access control. In other words, The web usefulness for users and its commercial value to owners and businesses depends on its “flexibility” with information. I should stress as a Facebook user myself, that this network provides its members, in the setting section, with control mechanisms to keep their information private. However, the “privacy default settings” are quite supple. Very lately, the minister of consumer protection in Germany Elisa Wagner, has addressed an open letter to the founder and board director of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, complaining about his decision to loosen up Facebook privacy system on the website. In the letter the minister showed her astonishement to Facebook´s planned strategy that allows a third party to get access to all members´ information, arguing that such a step would hurt Facebook´s credibility on the long term (Aljazeera.net).
In the case study discussed in the coming section, Facebook has played a central part in nurturing the discussed conflict. Its wide reach and “permeablity” that spread information in light speed, have turned it into a controlless battle field. Interestingly mainstream media got caught between Facebook´s walls, and will equally integrate users material posted on facebook to make a point; an ironic depiction of convergence
20 3.4 Collective behavior
3.4.1 Opinion In his book collective behavior and public opinion, Jaap van Ginneken (1999), recalls the apparent relationship between behavior and opinion. Neumann (1994) defines public opinion as “a social psychological process lending cohesion to human communities…a process in which agreement about the values of the community and the acts derived thereof are continuously reestablished” (1994: 98). It is not merely “an aggregate of separate individual judgments but an organization, a cooperative product of communication and reciprocal influence” (Fraser & Gaskell, 1990:80). Opinion in this respect is the process of “formation, reformation (and dissolution) of groups” (Ginneken, 1999:8). As far as my research is concerned, I will refer to public opinion as defined by Turner & Killian´s (1987): “A public is a dispersed group of people interested in and divided about an issue, engaged in a discussion of the issue, with a view to registering a collective opinion which is expected to affect the course of action of some group or individual” (1987:179).
There is an ongoing debate about the nature of opinion; is it rational or emotional. Ginneken sees the contradiction around both approaches to be nothing but “a modern western illusion” as there is “hardly any behavior that is not colored by accompanying emotions” (Ginneken, 1999:14). To drag back the issue to Darwin´s day, he has underlined the “role of emotion in adaptation and survival” (Cornelius as reported by Ginneken, 1999:14). Cornelius also identified two modern approaches; “cognitivism” in which emotions are considered “raw appraisal of a situation” and “social constructivism” recognizing emotions as products of socialization and culture (Cornelius,1988). The case study in hand, reflects the role of emotions in shifting opinions and eventually conveying them into an action(s) collectively engendered.
3.4.1.1 Revisiting Propaganda I have been always intrigued by propaganda as a concept, its negative connotation and how offended, both mainstream media and people become when accused of being somehow related to the “P word”. Though it may seem unsuitable to use propaganda as one of the theoretical dimensions of my research, because of what it historically stands for and how outdated it is to the intelligent world of the 21st century, despite that I tend to share Tawney´s belief that “the certainties of one age are the problems of the next” (as cited in Gross, 1987).
Last semester I wrote an article entitled “Are we brainwashed? Remember Edward Bernays” for FRESCO, a small student magazine belonging to the society of international affairs in Jönköping. The purpose of the short article was to investigate how PR, public relations, as a field, was developed by World War I propagandists, to serve as the “peace time” version of propaganda. Edward Bernays, better known as the father of public relations, pioneered the field both in theory and practice. He is accredited for introducing America to Sigmund Freud´s theories about the nature of human behavior and what motivates our decisions and actions. Those theories will influence major thinkers of the first half of the 20th century. In fact many of today’s marketing and advertising concepts and practices in business and politics comes straight from psychological studies in general and Freud´s contribution in particular (focus group as an example).
21 Bernays who happened to be Freud´s nephew, will use his uncle´s assumption of “unconscious primitive forces” driving human behavior, and the need to control and leash the masses so that chaos is prevented. He will use it as the foundation for PR. In his book Propaganda, Bernays wrote “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society”. This interesting association of “conscious manipulation” and “democratic society” redirected me to Aristotles´s early model where persuasion is aimed through the endeavor of an eloquent speaker (the leader/the elite/the manipulator, or ”You”). As a matter of fact, manipulation in Bernays´ perspective is neither negative nor unethical. It is necessary to maintain order in a society of empowered citizens; to protect people from themselves. These applications are not estranged from contemporary history. Many observers of the last half of the 20th century agreed that the decisive battle in the cold war, for instance, was that of ideas and imagination that strong PR provided. One example is the portrayal of ‘Evil’ and its positioning in the collective memory of generations through mass media.
I see the above discussion relevant to the case study and the paper in general. This could be summarized in two points: first internal or horizontal controllability and second external or vertical controllability. In other words, there is no question that the citizen has never been better in terms of activism and online participation. What people think really matters; as a result, social media has provided a flat and horizontal communication flow that produces a reciprocal influence from and to the citizen/consumer, a situation similar to what is known in marketing as “peer pressure” resulting on an internal form of control. Second, it is interesting to notice that the word “democracy” seems to be gradually detached from the political lexicon to become widely used interchangeably with online participation and information sharing, revealing a possible shift in perception of what is democracy and how it is manifested. To shed more light, I feel I need to resort to Bernays once more. He stated: “This is an age of mass production. In the mass production of materials a broad technique has been developed and applied to their distribution. In this age, too, there must be a technique for the mass distribution of ideas”(Bernays,1928). One has to go beneath the conspiracy and cynical feature of this statement (and that of propaganda) and take a different look at the citizen/consumer externally controlled empowerment.
3.4.1.2 Deindividuation Important to mention in this section, that the human society was founded upon groups. The domestication of plants (agriculture era) about 8000 years ago, was responsible for creating human settlements and introducing structure and institution in its primitive formats. Adam smith in his wealth of nations noted how an individual is by default giving up some of his absolute rights for the overall good of the group (a perspective that may explain why full freedom or absolute democratization is technically hard if not impossible to achieve). Even today we refer to the human society in term of civilizations, countries, states and nations. The “rational”, “consistent” and “responsible” individual blurs in the group. In 1957, Leon Festinger with A. Pepitone and T. Newcomb, introduced the term deindividuation to explain how an individual “fully merges” with the rest of the crowd and loses control (Zimbardos, 1964).
Merriam-Webster´s dictionary defines the word crowd as a large number of people having something in common, and Ginneken (2003) specifies the psychological crowd as “a large number
22 of people that are (somehow) psychologically connected to each other or to the same events because their attention is drawn by a performance or an incident“ (2003:82). Gustave Le bon in his 1966 book la psychologie des foules, explained the phenomenon of collective behavior as another impact of communication and its powerful ability to transmit states of minds. He (as reported by Ginneken) explained that “a mental unity“ of a group develops due to its members adaptability to each other´s feelings through, for instance, contagion and diffusion as from peers, or persuasion, as from a leader (2003). According to Ziller (1964) “deindividuation is sought as a defense against a threatening environment” (Zimbardo, 1969). A period that may be distinguished as the golden age of deindividuation was The 1960s. Those were intense years of collective movements, fanaticism, violence, counter-culture and social rebellion, that inspired researchers to further the search. Philip Zimbardo, who is a contemporary pioneer of psychology and behavior studies, portrayed deindividuation as “a process in which a series of antecedent social conditions lead to a change in perception of self and others, and thereby to a lowered threshold of normally restrained behavior” (Zimbardo, 1969).
Figure 5 portrays the 3 phases of deindividuation as described by Zimbardo (1969):
Figure5: Zimbardo´s model (as adapted from The Human Choice: Individuation, Reason, and Order Versus Deindividuation )
The inputs according to Zimbardo involve issues of anonymity, arousal, loss of individual responsibility, unstructured situations, and consciousness altering, among others. These factors will eventually cause “a minimization of self-observation, and concern for social evaluation” leading to a weakening of control (based on guilt, shame, fear, and commitment), and thereby producing “deindividuated behaviors” (Postmers & Spears 1998). Zimbardo´s model is considered as one of the most influencial contributions in this field (Ginneken, 2003) and was widely referenced in examining behavioral patterns within groups. A drawback of his explanation however was highlited laterly by other scientists such as Diener (1980) who signaled the lack of precision when it comes to “the psychological mechanisms” that produces deindividuation in Zimbado´s model (Postmers & Spears 1998). Diener (1980) added to Zimbardo´s model a component of “self-awarness”(Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Wicklund, 1975). He argued that people become deindividuated when “their conscious mediation is reduced” a situation similar to the “stimulus-response organism" (Diener,1980:230).
23 4. Research question
What is the impact of user-generated-content over collective behavior? Answering this research question requires an understanding of which communication model governs the information transaction in social networks. How is it different from the models discussed earlier?
The nature of virtual public opinion and how it is constructed is also central to the discussion.
24 5. Case Study description: War for a Ball
This case is adapted from a paper I wrote for international relations class in December 2009 with a similar title. It is based on the data collected from both mainstream media and online networks. It is also based on observation notes taken over a period of 6 months.
Few weeks set us apart from the world cup that will take place in Africa for the first time in the game´s history. While those who have fled the charms of the ball, may consider the event an overemphasized gold mine circus, for millions of soccer fans worldwide the significance of the world cup goes beyond athletic amusement; it´s the moment of truth.
Since the very first tournament hosted in Uruguay in 1930, the international dispute over the famous golden trophy will be much anticipated every four years with a growing number of devotees every time. Gradually the championship has accumulated symbolic values for people and countries. In developing nations where contemporary history has records of countless deceptions, unresolved democratic issues and heavy colonial legacies, football stands as one of the very few battles still to be won. The Arab world is an example.
5.1 The trigger
It is November 2009, I was watching on youtube an episode of “Cairo today”; a talk show airing since the year 2000 on Orbit channel; a subscription television. The show is principally hosted by Amr Adib, an Egyptian television personality from a family that has an old tradition of media production; his late father was a famous screenwriter, his brother is an established movie director and the oldest sibling, Emadadine Adib, is the owner of GoodNews Group; a major production studio, and is himself a television icon and a close acquaintance of Egyptian President Husseni Mubarak. Besides Adib, the show often features other recurrent co-hosts; artists, journalists and parliament representatives. Though originally designed to fulfill the needs of an Egyptian audience, the popularity of Egyptian television in the North African and Middle Eastern region, the diversity of “Cairo today” in covering topics from politics to entertainment and its satire format has attracted to it the attention of some Arabic speaking viewers via subscription and other popular means like Youtube.
In that video, Amr Adib and his co-host journalist Ahmed Moussa, were discussing some football results. As I am not a big fan of soccer, I was about to “close the window” and move on with my news tour, when suddenly, a sentence caught my attention;“this generation has the right for happiness”. Moussa was referring to a coming match between Algeria and Egypt that will take place on the 14th of November; if Algeria wins it will be qualified for the world cup in South Africa, if Egypt wins with 2 goals margin, a decisive match gathering both teams will take place in a neutral ground in the 18th of the same month. I couldn´t help smiling for ”this out of proportion” declaration. I thought the words seemed too big for a silly football match. A remark Amr Adib will himself make to his co-host. A moment later, as both Anchors got emotional about their national team, Amr Adib will say “may Algerians grieve”. He will next “wonder” “why do Algerians hate us?”. There was no room for smiling anymore. As I expected, overnight the video will spread in light speed in Youtube and Facebook, generating shock for some, resentment for others and anger for many.
25 In Egypt, where football genuinely matters, the statement will trigger the tribal nerve. Television stations will further thicken the air by broadcasting patriotic songs, many of which were originally composed during the Egyptian-Israeli conflict in the 1960s and the 1970s. The match will be portrayed as a battle, and Algeria as the new enemy. The upcoming event became the center of attention in the whole region. On Facebook, groups will be created inviting the rest of the Arab world to take sides. A community called “Maghrib united” will send invitations for Facebook members belonging to Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco to unite in their support of the Algerian team. Meanwhile, Egypt, the big sister, will continue disputing on influential talk shows its rightfulness to represent the Arab world in the international championship.
Adib´s statements that triggered the controvercy will not be easily forgotten. An Algerian youngster will make a buzz when he broadcasts himself on Youtube responding to Adib´s statements. He addresses him with a message:“listen Amr Adib, your statements have generated hatred (…) I hold you responsible for what´s to happen”.
Despite the tension, neutral observers from both outside and inside the two countries, didn´t expect things to go out of control. It is a game after all. One party will eventually win and the other will consequently lose. “The brootherhood ties are stronger and bigger than a football much”; were they?
It is true that away from stadiums, Egypt and Algeria in particular, have an old friendship, a strong history of common interests and a taste for revolution. In Memoires of October’s war Egyptian General Saad Eddine Al Shazili, remembers the important part Houari Boumediane Chairman of the Algerian Revolutionary Council (1965- 1976) and president of the Republic of Algeria (1976-1978) played in the 1973 Egyptian victory against Israel. According to Al Shazili, the Algerians purchased the military equipment needed by Egyptian army from the Soviet Union and required it to be shipped to Egypt. Similarly, decades earlier, the Algerian revolution for the liberation of the country from France, was declared from Cairo.
As far as the present is concerned, yesterday´s comrades continue to host similarities represented by unpopular military rulers at the top of each government, Mubarak in Egypt and Boutaflika in Algeria, an economic turmoil and an overburdened frustrated people, a generation desperate for happiness indeed.
5.2 Convergence
On both fronts, mainstream media and user generated content platform, mobilization was not showing any sign of hindrance. People seem to have forgotten their hardships; nothing matters more than “defending the colors of the national flag in South Africa” to quote a comment on a Facebook group wall. Some commentators in an Egyptian television will claim that the patriotic spirit is as high as in the early seventies. For Algerians, who have never been represented in any world cup before, this is a historical event. In both camps, campaigning seems to be blessed from above; the political leadership.
It is important to mention that unlike Egypt that has pioneered media production for over a century, with tens of governmentally owned, private and satellite based channels, and a dialect widely
26 popular all around the Arab world, Algeria´s media on the other hand has a restricted local reach. It is through social media networks that Algerians made their voice mostly heard.
I quote from my observation notes:“It is Friday the 13th and tomorrow is the big day: “The Pharaohs” as the media likes to describe the Egyptian football squad, have to win with a 3 goal margin if they are to qualify. It is Today that the Algerian team is arriving to Cairo”. Once onboard the bus that will take them from the airport to the hotel, the Algerian delegation will claim being attacked with stones by an angry crowd, scaring the visitors and breaking the windows. Walter Gagg a FIFA official, will declare that four of the Algerian players were seriously injured. Egypt will deny the incident, yet, that very night, videos taken by the player´s mobile phones will provide evidence of the incident. Interestingly, while the Algerian front will continue sharing and commenting on these videos online, the Egyptian television will argue that the whole thing was a masquerade, accusing the Algerians of self-mutulation. After that evening, even the most optimistic of observers would not doubt the enventual implications of Saturday´s match regardless of who wins.
“Thank God we lost, otherwise we may have been killed in Cairo” one supporter will declare when interviewed by the Algerian media in the capital airport, as the supporters were returning back home. Egypt has won 2-0, bringing back all its chances for qualification. While Egyptian television was celebrating the restored hope with fierce patriotism, the internet was flooded with horrifying stories of how the hosts treated the losers once the match was over. Videos will be posted, testimonials will be blogged, and some will even claim that Algerians have died during the riots. Moved by the flow of citizens´ shared experiences, social media consumers from inside and outside both countries will start taking sides, showing sympathy and posting poignant comments. Unsurprisingly, pronounced hatred will be exchanged. Any call for pacifying was faced with “a how dare you” rejection. It won´t take long before confusion and anger were taken to the streets of the capital Algiers. The few days that separated the first match, on the 14th , from the decisive one on the 18th, were enough to nurture the crisis and “feed the beast”. The Egyptian indifference towards the Algerian claims aggravated the situation. The same Algerian guy who replied to Amr Adib earlier in the crisis will surface with a new post on Youtube, warning Adib that the 18th of November´s match; which will take place in Sudan based on the Egyptian choice, will be payback time. “Don´t you think that the audience you will face in Om Durman (Sudan) is similar to the one you mistreated in Egypt”, he added “we will have our revenge”. It seemed as if Egypt had won “a battle” but not “the war”.
5.3 More convergence
Because of the geographical proximity and the historical attachment, Egypt had chosen earlier in November, Sudan to accommodate the play off scenario (in case Egypt scores 2 goals on the 14th). And so did happen. After the performance of their national team in Cairo, the Egyptian audiences were optimistic more than ever, and in a rare occasion where the people and the authority concord in the Arab world, everybody was supporting the team that made them proud. Artists, politicians, public personalities and president Mubarak´s sons Alae and Jamal, the controversial political figure, all flied to Om Durman, the largest city in Sudan to attend the match.
27 “We were surprised, there were more of them in the stadium than of us!” stated an Egyptian Journalist who attended the match referring to the big number of Algerian supporters in Al Marikh Stadium in Om Durman. “There was something unpleasant about them”, she added “they were all young, all males, all funereal ”. After 40 minutes, the Algerians will score a goal and the result will remain so until the end of the game. It was then, according to the Egyptian side, when the real action began. Based on Egyptian testimonials, hundreds of Algerian supporters organized “as militias” circulating in pick-up cars, aggressively attacked Egyptian buses with sticks and stones. “Cairo Today” broadcasting live will contact some members of the Egyptian delegation who will sound confused over the phone claiming the Algerians´ “barricades” didn´t allow them to reach the airport. The Sudanese authorities will be blamed by the Egyptian supporters for not providing the necessary security coverage, claims that will later be officially withdrawn by the Egyptian government.
In the midst of confusing, Egyptian television started referencing user generated content of hostile material posted on Youtube and facebook as an evidence of the Algerian assaults. A video of an angry Algerian crowd threatening with knives will be reported as representing the supporters in Sudan. The videos by the youngster who replied twice to Amr Adib will be referenced in different publications and television shows. The public will go literally mad. Similarly and consequently, on Facebook more videos claiming Algerian residents in Egypt and Egyptians in Algeria to be attacked in their houses were posted, and mainstream media in both countries will broadcast the news. As a response, demonstrations in Algiers and Cairo will burn each other´s flags and requests expatriates of opposite countries to be deported away. Real madness of absurdity and confusion successfully and reciprocally were fueled by both the producers and the consumers.
5.4 War!
Unlike before the first match, when ministers of information of both countries advised media not to exaggerate the match importance and to keep a subjective coverage, both officials kept silent following Sudan´s incident. It became natural to watch on major television programs, low quality footages taken by a phone here and a camera there featuring an alleged brutality of this party or that. Nessma TV, a Tunisian satellite television, will broadcast hostile Rap songs posted on Youtube by amateurs to celebrate Algeria´s won. Similarly private Egyptian stations will continue airing testimonials from infuriated influential personalities demanding their government to take action in restoring their “dignity”. Alae Mubarak the younger son of the Egyptian president who happened to be in Sudan during the incident will call a television talk show and get emotional over the phone as he reassured his fellow citizens that the presidential household shares their grief of loss and that Egypt will “discipline and strike” those who dared to humiliate its citizens. Cairo will pull its ambassador from Algiers for consultation and the Egyptian parliament will hold an exceptional hearing session where president Mubarrak delivers a strong speech that will generate a sea of applause. Over borders, similar appraisal by the public will be given to Algerian President Boutaflika who, in the eve of the 18th of November´s match, has been reported to give orders to transport Algerian supporters to Sudan free of charge. He joined his people in happily celebrating their winning team. In both camps never was the public in perfect harmony with their leadership as they were during that crisis.
28 Online, the war had long begun. People will go public with their political and racial comments; some unveiled others while benefiting from the identity concealing luxuries of internet. In the old tradition of the hysteric crowd in ancient Rome, the public opinion will continue promoting thoughts of confrontation. Voices calling for quiet and reconciliation were booed and ostracized.
5.5 Aftermath Annoyed by the magnitude of the events, the league of Arab states, a regional assembly of 22 Arab countries, along with the FIFA will interfere. Neighboring states will also offer their diplomatic mediation. Possibly as a response to pressure, the official attitude will mutually soften. Gradually mainstream media, though reluctant to follow the lead, will try to tone down their rhetoric. Online however, opinion polls will keep the tension tight. Caught in denial and refusing to let go, a group of Egyptian youth will mobilize themselves through FB to gather signatures for a petition requesting the FIFA to discard the Sudan match and rescheduel a play off. On the other hand, new groups will be created driving the attention of the masses to the CAP (Cup of African Nations) expected three months later, in February 2010. People will be requested to cool down, swallow their bitterness and patiently await the African championship as both Egypt and Algeria will play for the cup.
In Angola, where the event is held, the organizers will keep their “fingers crossed” hoping that one of the teams (or both) will get disqualified in earlier rounds so that history won´t repeat itself. Both teams will eventually meet in the semi finals in a highly and emotionally tense match. Though incident-free, the media On and Offline will promote the event as “the last battle”. In Egypt in particular it was a state of national emergency; another defeat was unimaginable. Fortunately for Egyptians, who have held the championship title twice consecutively, they won, also defeating Ghana in the finals and taking back the cup home for the third time in a row. They will be received as national heroes coming from the front with their heads held high.
“Even if we did not win the cup, we will still be over the moon and as proud of our team for having taken our revenge on them (referring to Algerians)”. One of the millions celebrating in the streets of Cairo will shout in tears in a reporter´s microphone. “Who cares for them, we are still the ones going to the world cup”. An equally satisfied Algerian crowd will declare:This generation had finally its share of “happiness”.
29 6. Case analysis and discussion
6.1 The danger of words The nature and ability of language to invent meaning and construct reality has long preoccupied scholars. It is a system that produces significance and defines which way our perception of the world goes (Berger and Luckmann 1967); in Kipling´s poetic tune “words (the language main components) are the most powerful drug used by mankind”.
The fields of business and media have particularly given tremendous importance to “the choice of words”. Krohn (1994) for example, stresses the impact words have on the perception and consumption behavior of current and prospective customers. In the world of media, where providing an information and expressing an opinion get challenged by a freedom of speech that constantly disputes their boundaries, words could be dangerous.
The case study describes a sequence of happenings before, during and after two football matches that have resulted in a state of chaos, confusion and confrontation. A trace back of the case, points out what directly sparked the “war”; a short angry sentence “May Algerians grieve”.
6.1.1 The message and the stimulus The uniqueness of human communication is in its ability to convey emotions and enhance action. Even within the same language, encoding and decoding a message is not a static operation; words do change meanings as the source, the context or the audience change. In this case study, Amr Adib, who represents the stimulus (the source) according to Berlo´s model, and who is primarily addressing an Egyptian audience, will express “hope” for his country´s football squad win, through exhibiting “hope” for the opponents loss (that he believes will result in grief). His later statement “why do Algerians hate us?” will completely detach the message from the discourse of football and give it a “personal” significance. The non-verbal communication; facial, posture and agitated gestures (see Appendix1), will give the receiver directions on how the message is to be decoded; a perfect representation of how Aristotle described the speaker´s performance in a rhetorical situation. The stimulus/speaker here is responsible for how the meaning is to be created by the decoder and what deeds will he/she (Receiver) produce as feedback.
6.1.2 The channel and the receiver In a basic communication situation, both the encoder and decoder have a shared responsibility for creating a successful transaction as both, decoding and encoding, as described in Schramm’s model, are held simultaneously. In our case, the receiver is a large audience demographically and culturally diversified, that was exposed to the message through different channels and contexts. Thus understanding how the receivers decoded the message and what triggered a particular behavior, necessitates distinguishing between the channels, television and social networks, and separating audiences based on their nationality into three categories; Algerian, Egyptian and Neutral receivers.
30 6.1.2.1 Receiver of Television As mentioned in the case study, the talk show “Cairo today”, from which came the controversial statement that generated a wide response, is aired on a subscription television. Thereby the show is selectively restricted to subscribers who are paying for a service that costs around 588 dollars a year; a sum which many Egyptian and Algerian cannot afford. Moreover, people in the region are used to get television services for free since it was first introduced several decades ago. As a result there is little interest given to Pay-TV in general (Forrester,1997).“Cairo today” is thereby accessible by a limited, favored and probably educated audience. The response however came from a huge public of average citizens who probably did not knew who Amr Adib is and what is “Cairo today” about. It is important at this level, to explore how television viewers responded to the statement.
First the Egyptian receiver: both Sender and Receiver share similar culture and understanding of the context and both are psychologically related to the issue (wining).Recalling Ginneken´s (1999) contributions on opinion, discussed earlier, the opinion cannot be void from emotion. Despite the fact that the Egyptian receivers may not approve his choice of word, Adib´s emotinal drift was still justified, understandable and for some even representative. The use of ”us” versus ”them” generates feelings of belonging and collectivity.
Second the Algerian receiver: the receiver shares an understanding of context but refers to it differently. Both trends verbal and non verbal communication will estrange the receiver and enhance decoding hostility. Being a consumer who pays for the message channel, the receiver may conceive resentment and consider an action of protest (as it was the case when some Algerian subscribers called the show).
Neutral Receiver: the receiver could be either familiar with the context or not. Decoding will depend on how he/she personally identify themselves with the situation either with indifference or concern. As a result, later on they will either get involved or stay aside.
6.1.2.2 Receiver of Noise As noted before, the response of the public to Adib´s statement was huge. The television as a channel for the message was restricted by subscription and perception; as the title of the show itself “Cairo today” is exclusive insinuating that the show appeals to a local (Egyptian) audience, thus discouraging a non-Egyptian audience from watching. It is when voluntary people uploaded extracts from the episode on Youtube and shared the links to it on Facebook that events took a drastic turn.
Interestingly the message (Adib´s statement) when flowing through the channels of social media, has transformed. Though the statement is kept intact, the way it was proposed differed; as the user generated contents with titles, descriptions, ratings and comments. Adib is not the source anymore, the user is.
As far as the case is concerned, it is insignificant to keep a nationality distinction among user senders and user receivers online. Instead I will assume, as it was noted earlier, that members of
31 social networks are active individuals who share a common and open ground with equal rights and unrestricted freedom to express what they want.
Today, it became a normal reflex for many internet users to check the number of views, the ratings and the displayed comments before watching any video on Youtube. In analogy with Shanon & Weaver´s linear model discussed earlier, the features accompanying a user generated content may be considered as Noise. In other words, the receiver-user is not able to construct meaning without being influenced by what other receiver-users had decoded (comments, rating). Kappler (1969) had stressed the role of values in protecting active audiences from mass media and its manipulation. The question is how can an overactive audience protect itself from the manipulation of a noise it has self-created?
There is no doubt that Adib´s statement was provocative if not inacceptable, and none can blame a voluntary effort that exposed the statement before a large public. However, the consequences encountered in the case were not solely caused by the content of the statement or the large reach of social networks. The consequences were due to the “inconvinience” of user generated content in integrating noise with the message.
Figure6 represents a suggested model of interactive communication on social media platforms
It is banal to state the existence of noise in a communication transaction, however by the integration of noise and message here, I do not refer to an interference beyond both parties´ consent. The integration of noise and message in social networks happens systematically and by default as part of the participatory creation of meaning.
In the Revisiting Propaganda subsection in the frame of references, I described how the horizontal communication flow provided by social media platforms enhances a generalized control through mutual influence of ideas, feelings and states of minds, resulting in a situation of deindividuation where people embrace what others in their group have accepted; becoming one of the crowd (see section 3.4.1.2).
32 6.2 The danger of crowds To be able to understand why people responded the way they did, one must consider the particularity of; first the respondent and second the communication channel.
Many observers of the football-related incidents between Algeria and Egypt will notice the indifference both governments exhibited regarding the growing anger of the public. Angry demonstrations, usually prohibited by the state of Emergency law that governs Egypt since 1967, will be surprisingly permitted. Equally in Algeria, a country recovering from years of civil confrontation with a fear of regression, riots will be tolerated. It is worth mentioning that in both Egypt and Algeria, people are dispirited by economic and political turbulences and keen for real change. In both Republics the issue of succession has preoccupied the public opinion for the last two years; The Egyptian presidential elections are approaching (2011) with rumors that Jamal Mubarak, the son of the current president, will take over “the throne”. In Algeria, the constitution was amended in 2008 to extend the limited presedential term to as many years as the incumbent would like to stay in power. The brother of president Boutaflika is reported to being groomed for the post. As a consequence bloggers and citizen journalists became strongly active in openly discussing these delicate issues that freedom margins in mainstream media couldn´t handle. A generation of highly spirited youngsters, students and even professional journalists dedicated their time to expose, in web pages, what they believed it to be excessive usage of authority in different departments of their governments. Both the people and the leadership needed a break; in politics as in life, it usually takes a crisis and a victory to break the ice and bring people together.
In addition to user generated content, the case described the role that mainstream media, television and radio in particular, have played in mobilizing the masses before and after both matches. As a matter of fact, distraction is one of the oldest governing tactics used by “authority” to buy itself strategic time through reallocating people´s concern away from what really matters. “Us” replaces “me” and the personal/rational opinion is forced to suspension as the individual merges with the group. Faught with emotion, the crowd will participate in spreading “hope” and exhibiting “confidence” through the channels they found accessible and in the fashion they are mostly acquainted with.
6.2.1 Slips and opinion shifts Recalling the case details, some unprecedented slips of tongues and pens will be displayed, nurtured and exchanged among online debaters. The aggressiveness of arguments will soon desert football talk to involve taboo issues never straightforwardly addressed. Topics such as the identity crisis in the Arab region, the Egyptian-Israeli relations and the Egyptian closed borders with Gaza, will all surface creating opinion polls.
What is metaphorically referred to here as “a slip”, is the outcome of a state where the ”injured” crowd (audiences), deliberately abandon what is “politically correct” when producing content. Empowered by the censor free nature of internet, all parties will unleash their freedom of speech sharing what some users refer to as it hurts, its ugly but its true.
33 Ginniken (1999), as noted in the opinion subsection earlier, closely relates behavior to opinion. Naturally, behavior is an extension of opinion, and the device through which one distinguishes him/herself by making their point visible. On a larger scale and under crisis situations, the manifestation of public opinion through collective behavior is usually unpredictable and depends on motives, circumstances and most importantly how opinion was constructed (or manufactured).
Observing the war on both virtual and real worlds during the incident, unveiled the role user generated content has indirectly played in shifting public opinion, primarily in both countries and also in the rest of the region through a process of deindividuation.
6.2.2 Deindividuation by default As noted in the case, soon after the popularization of Adib´s statement online, many ordinary Algerian citizens will respond with equally provocative messages as retaliation. It is no repetition to stress that social media platforms, like Facebook, are designed to bridge between individuals and “their people”(contact lists; friends they accepted their invitations or to whom they have sent friendship requests). Ziller (1964) as noted before says that the deindividuation happens when there is a shared feeling of threat; and eventually manifest itself as a mechanism of defiance. Interestingly, observing the virtual presence of individuals on a social platform (Facebook) over a long period of time, indicates that the deindividuation process gradually and collectively developed prior to crisis time.
In fact, as a result of intensive and continuous exposition to each other´s shared material, a group with a “mental unity” (see opinion section) evolves by default. When urgency strikes, as in the case study, communities and groups will be created to campaign, attract, consolidate and shield an already existing herd. Whether this process constructs opinion or manufactures/manipulates one, depends on how it was collectively manifested and who benifited most from its outcomes.
6.3 Convergence One of the interesting aspects highlighted by the case was the extensive usage of user-generated- content by other media, television in particular, to both report and validate the allegations of this party over that. Television stations worldwide will diffuse the video featuring the Algerian football squad as they were attacked in their bus prior to the first match, providing the FIFA, for instance, with a piece of evidence. The Algerian media will also use pictures of fainting supporters in Cairo as a proof of the abuse their citizens claimed having endured after the 14th of November´ match. The Egyptians, who have described a real war taking place on the streets of Khartoum (Sudan), will not have much of documentation to exhibit, except from pictures of some destroyed busses, yet they will instead use internet material posted by their opponents to apparently expose their (Algerians) motives.
This is a vivid example of how user generated content is integrating mainstream media and the impact they mutually produce.
34 6.3.1 Integrating the consumer It is true that during this first decade of the 21st century, more importance was given to what “we”, the audiences and media consumers think, as part of the optimization process of knowledge and wealth creation. Yet, it is with the development of Web 2.0 technologies and introduction of social media networks in the mid 2005 that real convergence of what professionals produce and what consumers produce started to take shape.
The concept of what is real and what reality is has long intrigued the media consumer. Television, the most influential mass media of the last century, uses a particular language to construct a visual reality through scenes and sequences of different angles, axes, closeups and transitions (to name few). Depending on the emotion needed to be delivered and the feedback to be generated from the audience, “reality” is reconstituted. Something as simple as changing the background music of a scene may change the whole concept. As audiences became more conscious of the nature of television production, the demand in media market experienced by the early 2000s, will shift towards a need for more genuine and real material featuring real people. In response, a new trend in television production called reality show will take the front scene worldwide. Though it is still popular around the world today, audiences will take the emulation of life one step further when they will start producing themselves.
The reality as shown through the lens of a mobile phone camera is perceived not to be selective nor manufactured but rather simple and credible. It is this generalized attitude towards user generated content that enable convergence and capacitates it. Mainstream media, aware of this new market shift, will choose to integrate media consumers in the system rather than make fierce competitors out of them.
6.3.2 Realm of confusion Convergence is indeed an interesting characteristic of media scenery in this postmodern world where individuals are empowered to participate. In reference to the case study, both user generated content and mainstream media nurtured each other. Adib´s statements that infuriated the masses, were brought to attention by citizens´ effort. Similarly and later in the conflict, the video portraying an angry Algerian crowd threatening with knives will further deepen the crisis.
It is interesting to note that Amr Adib, in a later episode will apologize for his statement and justify his declarations by being himself provoked with what was reported on the internet against his national team. That video though posted on Youtube would not make its way or serve the purpose to soften the situation as no one of both parties were ready to slow down. Equivalently, the video broadcast by Egyptian television as representing the Algerian aggressors with knives in Sudan will be later assimilated to portray a different situation in Algeria.
Like mainstream media, the citizen is equally selective. The user generated content in this respect is also reconstructing “reality”. However, the message is not composed based on what the audience/ the other citizens need to know but rather what the citizen can afford to share; and that is usually only a little piece of the puzzle. When this small bit is portrayed on other media, as television for
35 instance, the bit blows out of proportion and becomes the genuine truth as portrayed by genuine people; resulting on a real realm of confusion.
36 7. Conclusion In concluding this paper that investigates the impact of user generated content over the behavior of media consumer, and based on the analysis of War for a ball, three main assumptions are emphasized; first communication is reshaping the world, second redefining authority and third bringing in a new cultural (dis)order.
In reference to the case study, I argumented how noise is integrated by default in the message on social network platforms through the accessories/options of titles, comments and ratings, thereby producing a participatory form of control that mutually exposes the users to a gradual process of deindividuation. I also demontrated how convergence of what mainstream media produces and what users produces may lead to a state of confusion.
In fact and for long, electronic communication was proposed as the system that will integrate the world into one totality and promote stability and understanding through collaboration and common interests. However none anticipated the magnitude of consumers´ involvement, neither the social and cultural consequences of such a role shift. One field in particular could be sensitive to these changes; and that´s International Relations. To this end, IR are not depending on diplomatic efforts and rational models of decision making taking place on the higher ranks of authority to define them anymore (Allison, 1969), as ordinary individuals through exposed channels of communications can irrationally initiate a shift of opinion and threaten to start a war. That being noted, one must question the consistency of audiences´ participation and exhibited power. In other words, does the power of an audience generated content persist and make an impact regardless of the circumstances? Is it detached from the restrictions of reality?
Recalling the case context, would events take the similar path it did, if authorities in Algeria and Egypt had a common interest to prioritize over a ball? Would the online slips go unpunished if it exhibited a real threatening nature to both authorities; as it was the case, for instance, with blogger Abdel Karim Suleiman who was sentenced for four years imprisonment in 2007 for having “insulted the president” (cited in the BBC news online, February 22, 2007).
It is this unpredictability of the impact of user generated content that was described in the introduction section as its unique duality in sustaining social control and equally menacing social order.
I will sum up with a note from the case. In the midst of the ball crisis when no slip was left unspoken, a little experiment was made to conclude this research. As an observer participant of the happenings, I took the liberty to create on Facebook a group I called Umma (Nation). The choice of the title was deliberate, as this concept that is deeply rooted in both Islamic and Arabic traditions, connotes in the general public a sense of affiliation. The profile picture of the group, featured victims of the recent war on Gaza., and on the discussion wall a selection of videos opposing the absurdity of the conflict were posted including an extract featuring Sheikh Youssef Al Qaradawi (a respected religious leader), a rap song by Ahmed Mekki (a celebrated Egyptian-Algerian Actor/singer) and a link for a BBC documentary entitled “century of the self” that portrays how the crowds were manipulated during the 20th century. An invitation was sent to a representative sample of Facebook members from both countries and neighboring states, with a message that calls for
37 awakening. My goal was to observe how would a tense crowd respond to a content that doesn´t share the collective opinion. There was no immediate response. However later in the week, three types of responses will be observed (regardless of nationality).
First: a few number will accept the invitation without replying to the message.
Second: a fewer number will not accept the invitation but will instead send unhappy messages questioning the relevancy of such a group in such timing.
And a third: shared by the majority, will be totally ignoring the request.
If I am to interpret the outcomes of this little experiment beyond the restrictions of my case analysis, I would conclude that football was just the tip of the iceberg; an alibi people have subconsciously used to verbalize their extreme bitterness towards their social, economic and political realities. “An index of the disorder of things” indeed. (Ang, 1996).
38 References;
Allan, S.; Thorsen ,E. (2009) Citizen Journalism global perspectives edited by by Stuart Allan and Einar Thorsen New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Allison, G. (1969) Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Ang, I.(1996) LivingRoomWars Rethinking Media Audiences for a Postmodern World, London: Routledge
Babbie, E. (1992) The practice of social research. 6th ed. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth Publishing Company
Bakhtin M.M. (1984) Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers Indiana University Press
BBC News (2007)”Egyptian blogger jailed for insult” news.bbc.co.uk, 22 February.
Bedell, D. (1998) "Meeting your new best friends: Six Degrees widens your contacts in exchange for sampling Web sites" The Dallas Morning News 27 October 1998
Berlo,D.K. (1960) The process of communication; an introduction to theory and practice. New York Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Bernays, E. (2005) Propaganda. New York: IG Publishers. (Original work published 1928)
Bitzer, L. (1968) "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1-14
Boyd, D. M., ; Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Browning, G., Halcli, A.& Webster E. (2000).Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of The Present, (Sage Publications, 2000).
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1982). Reliability and Valiity Assessment, Beverly hills, CA: Sage
Chetty, S. (1996), "The Case Study Method for Research in Small- and Medium Sized Firms," International Small Business Journal, 15 (1), 73-85.
Cornelius, R.R. (1996). The science of emotion. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice hall
DeFleur, M. L. ; Ball-Rokeach, S. (1989). Theories of mass communication (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman
39 Denzin, N.K.; Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), "Introduction. Entering the field of qualitative research", in Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds),Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.1-17.
DeVito, J. A. (1986). The communication handbook: A dictionary. New York: Harper& Row.
DeWalt, K. M. DeWalt, B. R. (2002) Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers AlTamira Press
Donath, J.; Boyd, D. (2004): Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal 22 71–82
Diener, E.; Westford, K. L.; Dineen, J.; Fraser, S. C. (1973). Beat the pacifist: the individuation effects of anonymity and group presence. Proceedings of the 81st annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 8, 221-222
Ehninger, D.; Monroe, A.; Gronbeck B.E. (1978)- Principles and types of speech communication 8th Edition
Fiske, I. (1987a) Television culture, london : Methuen.
Fiske, I. (1987b) ”Britisg Cultural Studies and Television”, in R.C. Allen (ed.) channels of discourse, Chapel Hill/London: University of North Carolina Press
Fiske, I. (1991) ”Postmodernism and Television” in J. Curran and M.Gurevitch (eds) Mass media and society, London / New Yourk:Edward Arnold.
Fraser & Gaskell (1990) the social psychology study of widespread beliefs. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gass, R. H.; J. S. Seiter. (1999). Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Ginneken, J.V.(2003) ”Collective Behavior and Public Opinion Rapid Shifts in Opinion and Cammunication, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
Gross, R.; Acquisti, A.(2005): Privacy and information revelation in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the ACM CCS Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES ’05).
Guba, E.(1990). The paradigm dialog. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Harvey, R .B. (2006), Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches, Rowman Altamira, ISBN:0759108692 pp. 476-79
40 Heath, R. L.; Bryant, J. (2000). Human Communication Theory and Research. 2nd Edition. Mahwh, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Holyoak, K; Morrison R (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press
Jenkins, H.,(2006) Convergence culture: where old media and new media collide; New York university press .
Kaplan, A. (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: Chandler.
Klapper, J. T. (1960) The effects of mass communication, p. 19, New York: Free Press.
Lastrucci, Carlo L.(1963) The scientific approach; basic principles of the scientific method Schenkman Pub. Co. Cambridge, Mass.
Le Bon, G (1966). the crowd: Astudy of the popular mind. New york: viking. (Originalwork published 1895)
Lewis, J., Inthorn, S., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2005). Citizens or consumers? What the media tell us about political participation. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage
Lippmann, W. (1922) Public Opinion. New York: The Free Press (First Free Press. Paperback Edition, 1965). Lippmann, W. (1927) The Phantom Public
Lucaites, J.;Condit, C. ; Caudill, S. (1999). Contemporary rhetori-cal theory: a reader. New York: Guilford Press.
Marcus, G. (1992) Past Present and Emergent Identities Requirements for Ethnographies of late twentieth century modernity worldwide in S.lash and J. Friedman modernity and identity oxford.
Mcluhan, M. (1964) understanding Media: The Extensions of Man; 1st Ed. McGraw Hill, NY; reissued MIT Press, 1964, with introduction by Lewis H. Lapham; reissued by Gingko Press, 2003
41 McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1989). Models of communication. In E. Barnouw, G.Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, & L. Gross (eds.), International encyclopedia of communications, vol. 3 (pp. 36-44). New York: Oxford University Press.
Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edn.), Sage:London & Thousand Oaks, California.
Morris, M. (1988) ”Banalities in cultural studies ”, Block14: 15-25; reprinted in P. Mellencamp (ed.) Logics of television: Essays in cultural Criticism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990
Mortensen, C.D. (1972) Communication: The Study of Human Communication (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972), Chapter 2, “Communication Models.”
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1994). The influence of the spiral of silence on media effects research.In C. Hamelink & O.J. Linne (Eds.) Mass communication research (pp. 97-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Nouredine Miladi, Media University of Northampton, “News Reporting and the War on Gaza: The Emerging Power of NewMedia” Lecture at Hamrin International October 3nd 2009, Jonkoping, Sweden
O'Reilly, Tim, and John Battelle. 2004. Opening Welcome: State of the Internet Industry. In . San Francisco, CA, October 5.
Postmes, T. and Spears, R.(1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
Rosen, J. (2006) ”The people formerly known as the audience”.Pressthink, 27 june.
Saunders, G. and McLeod, L. (2007), Improving fox management strategies in Australia, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
Schramm, Wilbur, ed. (1954). The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Shazeli, S.E., Memoires of October’s war published in AlWatan Al arabi magazine during 1978 & 1979.
Silverman, D. (2009). Doing qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
42 Smart, B. (1993) Postmodernity, london: Routledge.
Sproule J. M. (1994) Channels of Propaganda published by Eric Clearinghouse on Reading.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. CHAPTER 4.
Time magazine (2005) ”Time's Person of the Year: You”http://www.time.com, 13 december.
Theodorson, G.;Theodorson, A. (1969). A modern dictionary of sociology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Turner, R.H. & Killian, L. M. (1972). Collective behavior (2nd ed.).Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice hall
Wallerstein,I. (1991) Geopolitics and Geoculture, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Walker, R., Cooke, M.; & McAllister, M. (2008). A neophyte’s journey through qualitative analysis using Morse’s cognitive processes of analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 81-93. Retrieved from https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/viewFile/1620/1148
Weaver, W.; Shannon C.E. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois
Wicklund, R. A. (1975). Objective self-awarness, New York: Academic Press.
Wicklund, R.A. & Gollwitzer, P.M. (1987). the fallacy of the private public self focus distinction. Journal of personality, 55, 491-523.
Yin, Robert K. (1981), "The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers," Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (March), 58-65.
Yin, Robert K.(1993), Applications of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, CA., USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Yin, Robert K.(1994), Case Study Research Design and Methods, (2nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA., USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ziller, R. C. (1964). Individuation and socialization. Human Relations 17, 341-360
43 Zimbardo, Phillip G.(1969) The Human Choice: Individuation, Reason, and Order Versus Deindividuation, Impulse, and Chaos, In W. T. Arnold and D. Levine (eds.), Nebraska symposium on Motiviation, Vol 17.
44 Appendix 1
Picture 1: Amr Adib while delivering his controversial statement.
h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsgUFHVLwjs
Picture 2: The Algerian Citizen X who replied to Adib´s statement
h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvQWlsA0d-U&feature=related
45 Appendix 2.
Examples of main user-generated-content involved in the battle of the evidence exchange described in the the paper
Picture3: A demonstration in Cairo after the match Picture4: A crowd burning the Algerian flag of Sudan
Picture5: Rafik Halliche and Khaled Lemmouchia Picture6: From a video portraying an angry two of the three algerian players attacked in Egypt Algerian crowd with knives, that will be used by prior of the first match. The Egyptian authorities Egyptian television as evidence. Later, officials will will deny the incident. declare that this video is not representing the Algerians supporters in Khartoum and was taken in different circumstances.
War for a Balll
46