RETWEETING WITH COMMENTARY
THE SPREAD AND RECEPTION OF NEWS THROUGH PARTICIPATORY
PRACTICES ON TWITTER
29th June 2018 Supervisor: Stefania Milan CONTENTS
Abstract ...... 3
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 4
Chapter 2: Literature review ...... 7 i. Journalism dynamics ...... 7
Key qualities of change ...... 7
The methods behind the changes ...... 12 ii. Participatory practices ...... 15
What is participatory culture? ...... 15
Centering the conversation ...... 17
Political participation ...... 18 iii. A platform studies view: the affordances of twitter ...... 21
Twitter and journalism ...... 21
Twitter actions ...... 26
Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 31
Choice of case ...... 31
Studying twitter ...... 31
DMI-TCAT method ...... 33
First encounters...... 36
Chapter 4: Findings ...... 38
Primary categories ...... 38
Secondary categories ...... 39
Discussion ...... 41
Quote tweets versus other engagements ...... 41
Quote tweets by category ...... 43
Positive and negative sharing ...... 45
Implications ...... 47
Chapter 5: Conclusion ...... 50
Bibliography ...... 52
Appendix ...... 59
2
ABSTRACT
The professional distribution of news is an age-old practice, and social media is vastly newer. Yet, the impact the latter has made on journalism is substantial. In the first part of this thesis I present the literary background of the changes that social media has brought to journalistic practice. The core aspects I identify of these changes are the increased speed with which information can travel on the internet, the plurality of voices contributing to news content, and the interactivity that can occur between journalists and their audiences thanks to the prevalence of news production and intake on social media. The latter two of these changes are helped by a growing culture for participatory practices on social media by news audiences. An increase in participation, I argue, has evolved with the journalist-audience relationship and become a cornerstone of the way that the public engages with news. The nature of these changes to relationships between news providers and receivers beg an inquiry into the particular aspects and possible effects of this new method of news engagement.
On Twitter, news outlets and audiences share a space, and so share communicative methods and practices. In particular, the practice of quote tweeting demonstrates a blend between user engagement with news and a new centralising of the audience’s reaction and political commentary on news content. In the latter half of this thesis, I show that this is the case through an empirical study on quote tweets in relation to a selection of news outlet tweets of news articles. Through this study I find that quote tweeting indeed demonstrates a more two-sided and conversational approach to news engagement than before the rise and common use of social media platforms such as Twitter.
KEYWORDS: Journalism; participatory culture; Twitter; produsage; Grenfell; audience engagement.
3
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Twitter is a place of many opinions. Spending time on the website can occasionally feel like sitting in a loud café, half-listening to those around you and half-shouting into the void. During major news events, the topic of conversation in the Twitter café seems to become uniform. When a fire broke out in Grenfell tower on 14th June 2017, I was scrolling through Twitter. Suddenly the tone changed, and a huge proportion of my timeline materialised around one event. When news outlets report on events they aim to report on factual happenings, and they do so on Twitter as well as in newspapers. When I found out about this fire, however, it was via someone I followed crying out that the fire was a concrete image of inequality in the UK, and via someone else criticising the policies of the government. Some shared the news by expressing their sadness, and some centred the story around the Muslims living in and around the tower. Getting news through a major news organisation usually means seeing the facts first and the opinions later. On Twitter, however, I only came to know the story through individual Twitter users’ own opinions and personal agendas.
Twitter is a microblogging website, so it is only understandable that much of the content is personal utterings of the users (Rogers 2013, 1). The combination of this with its merit as a news source (Gruber et al. 168; Hermida et al.; Rosenstiel et al.; Newman; Stassen; Vis; Wasike) means that many news events will be framed through the eyes of individual users. Particularly interesting to this phenomenon is the practice of quote tweeting, introduced as a native function fairly recently (Twitter 2015), where users may retweet a tweet but with the addition of their own comment, which appears above and more prominently than, but still along with, the quoted tweet. In my personal use of Twitter, quote tweets seem to me like a perfect example of the way that tweets can be viewed as part of a user’s own personal angle. The user can display a tweet as attached yet subsidiary to their own tweet, adding commentary, criticism or other engagement forms. This method of interaction is distinct from other methods, such as the retweet, reply, mention and favourite, and so the practices surrounding it and the ways it is employed warrant some study. Following this, and the use of Twitter for news, I gather there are interesting implications in the way that quote tweets are used to interact with news tweets. News organisations, and by extension their tweets, aim towards objectivity (Wien). Twitter users have no such aim, but they are often the voices through which people are directed to news tweets and events, and so carry the news along with the journalist to some extent. This observation led me to the following research question: What do quote tweet practices say about news engagement and audience-journalist relationships on Twitter?
4
Social media is a relatively recent phenomenon when put next to the profession of journalism. The number of decades journalistic practice has had to develop dwarfs the few years social media has been around, but the impact of the latter has been huge. There are countless papers and studies about how the rise of social media has changed journalism forever. Therefore, to answer my research question, I first consult existing literature to understand the relationship between social media more generally and journalistic practice. To understand the relationship between the journalist and their audience as manifested on social media, it is helpful to first analyse the journalist’s relationship with social media, and then the audience’s relationship with news on these platforms. Since there has been much writing on these topics, I spend this part of my analysis in the theoretical background of the topic of social media’s intersection with journalism.
Existing theories studying journalism through social media are numerous, but I centre around two larger fields of discussion: the change to newsroom practices thanks to social media, and participatory practices by its users. From this I can attack both sides of the question of social media’s effect on journalist-audience relationships; the point of view of the journalist on this matter is shown in the former, and the point of view of the audience in the latter. The salient matter in both of these perspectives is what kinds of practices social media platforms provoke. Regarding the journalists’ side, they might provoke a change to newsroom practices, for example, in increased speed or interactivity with their audiences (Newman; Al-Rawi; Kramp and Loosen; Nielsen and Schrøder). For the audience, they might provoke participation (Bruns 2008; Boulianne; boyd 2010; Domingo et al.; Jenkins; Jenkins et al. 2015; Loader et al.; Loosen and Schmidt; Rotman et al.). From exploring these debates, I can better explore the relationship between the journalists and the audiences as they convene on social media.
Social media platforms have different uses and affordances, and so have varying influence on journalism practices. In the case of studying how news is spread and received online, Twitter is particularly interesting for three reasons: first, it is a place where information can be shared and viewed in real-time, which is valuable to the spread of breaking news (Vis). Second, as it is a microblogging platform the sharing of individual opinions is encouraged. Third, the connection from one user to another has no bearing on the existence of a real-life relationship between people, and therefore has the potential for any voice to be spread widely. Finally, the affordances of Twitter, such as the retweet and (as I will later argue) the quote tweet, carry specific connotations with users based on the ways they are used. This means that when news organisations and journalists also use them, these connotations are both taken up as and contribute to journalistic practice. In my study of Twitter, I use DMI-TCAT (Borra and Rieder) and content analysis of individual tweets to understand the nature of quoting practices employed around news tweets.
5
Following an evaluation of existing literature about changing newsroom dynamics, participatory audience practices and news spread and reception specifically on Twitter, I show that through my research questions I can shed some new light on these debates. Quote tweeting gives an insight into the melding of the journalist voice and the unprofessional voice on Twitter that has not been previously studied in this way. Using a selection of tweets from news accounts on Twitter sharing news events, I analyse the subsequent tweets that quote these and explore how this opens up the conversation about news spread on Twitter in light of my discussion of previous literature. The effect of social media on news and its reception is something that has been written about for as long as it has been around, but my analysis is important in a further way than just contributing to a dense debate. By shining a spotlight on one particular Twitter function, I am able to show the audience’s changing relationship with journalists in a new way. A higher level of engagement and a critical eye is at the centre of this change, and the ways in which people use quote tweets on the news they come across encapsulates this. Through my theoretical study I show the importance of questions about changing journalist and audience relationships and practices; through my case study I get closer to a question that has been previously missing. Participatory practices from audiences within news are phenomena that have evolved with social media. Therefore, to keep up with this fast-paced change in the important context of current events, a closer look at the participatory mechanisms is necessary.
In Chapter II of this thesis I explore the literature surrounding this topic, first by examining arguments on the changing dynamics of the newsroom and of the journalist’s role in society. I establish the blurring line between the journalist and the audience on social media as a crux of the change. Second, I look at the perspective of the audience, especially in the regard of the participatory practices that social media encourages. Third, I explore the role of Twitter specifically on both sides of this relationship, both in its purposes of use and specific function structures. To narrow down the scope of these research factions, I then focus specifically on the quote tweet. Given my hypothesis that this function sheds some light on the changing nature of audience engagement with news, I explore this function in detail using a case study. In Chapter III I outline the method for the empirical study that, as I explain, aims to close the gaps identified in the previous chapter. In Chapter IV I present my results and discuss their merits and implications. I find a number of attitudes and intentions behind engagement with news using this feature. Most interestingly, the use of the quote tweet to interact with and share news content on Twitter seems to be a development in the critical and mutually beneficial relationship between journalists and their audience on social media: news production is less one-sided with more audience criticism, and thus according to previous literature, can be seen as changing in a positive rather than negative way.
6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW i. JOURNALISM DYNAMICS
The field of journalism has undergone many changes with the rise of social media and the interconnection of people across the world. Previously, people would get their news from a newspaper, a highly curated object from one organisation in a once-a-day package. With the prevalence of internet use now, news is received in multiple forms and voices, and there is more possibility for interaction than the passivity of reading a newspaper privately in one’s home. In this section, I explore the differences between these two forms of news production and spread from the point of view of the journalists. The question I therefore aim to answer here is: How are newsroom dynamics evolving vis-à- vis social media?
There are three key elements to this evolution that I identify: increased speed of information travel, a greater number of participating or useful voices in the audience of news content, and a capacity for greater interaction between journalists and their audiences. An analysis of literature on this topic allows me to present the changes to newsroom dynamics as a crucial factor in the changing relationships of audiences and journalists to news as it exists on Twitter.
KEY QUALITIES OF CHANGE
Speed
The first crucial change that internet and social media use have brought to journalistic practice is the increased speed with which information can be collected and shared. Newman (2009) cites Nik Gowing to say that the news cycle has been changed from a number of hours to a number of minutes (Newman 34). The use of Twitter in crises characterises this point. Gruber et al. (2015) cite the relieving and reinstating of University of Virginia president Teresa Sullivan as an example for Twitter’s value as a way of posting and reading up-to-date information as newsworthy events happen (164-8). The 2011 summer riots in London are also a historical example of social media being invaluable to understanding events as they unfold (Vis 27). With social media providing a mechanism for minute-to-minute updates on one’s surroundings, and used by a large number of people in the general public, it follows that more people can record and share events in public more quickly and easily than before (Sharma). It is likely to take longer for the press to attend and report on an event than it is for those already in the area to
7 share what they see. Newman argues that this is an example of the changing nature of ‘breaking news’ and ‘news cycles’ as a whole (2). Journalist Jeff Jarvis (PBS Digital Studios) recommends we ‘break out of the idea that news is a once-a-day product’ (0:28). This points to a move away from the traditional system of publishing news only when papers come out or shows broadcast; according to Jarvis, news is a constant and time-sensitive phenomenon and social media allows a reflection of that.
The increased speed of the news cycle that social media brings comes not just out of a greater number of participants on the scene, but also from the fast evolution of the use of social media. This is something I will show later with the changing affordances of Twitter, but is signposted by Newman in his predictions of the importance of social media to news in the future (3, 15, 31). Kramp and Loosen (2018) point to the increasing ‘pace of innovation of media technologies’ (209) as a core change of media environment that informs the development of journalism. Briefly, this indicates the constant changes to social media platforms and the different ways they come to be used over time. As these change quickly, so do journalistic practices that involve the platforms.
There is also an argument that the rapidity of news distribution from minute-to-minute social media action has had impact on a core tenet of journalistic aim: search for truth. Galloni (2018) argues that because of this speed, it is now it is much harder to be the first voice to a story. What is more important, therefore, is being the voice who is right. She gave an example of a story that snowballed because of the desire for it to be true in multiple news organisations, but after the initial reports, fact- checking led Reuters to confirm that it wasn’t true. The story came after all the others, but it was the story with factual proof, so prevailed. The pull to truth is now more important in some ways than speed.
Plurality of voices
A further level that social media gives to journalistic practice comes from a plurality of users-turned- participants (boyd 2010; Domingo et al.; Jenkins et al. 2015; Kramp and Loosen). With the users contributing to the news cycle in greater numbers, there results a diversity of opinion and an ‘extra layer of information’ (Newman 2). Newman gives examples in Twitter used for live event coverage, for example, in the Iranian street protests of June 2009 (24). Since then there have been countless other examples of Twitter being used for live reporting from those in the vicinity of a crisis or major event. Having a multiplicity of people commenting on events as they happen can lead to a more accurate picture of reality for those who are not there. Janine Gibson, a Guardian online editor, described it as a ‘tiny nip of information juxtaposed against somebody else’s tiny nip of information, which helps you build a picture’ (Newman 31).
8
However, others have criticised this aspect of social media use in journalistic practice. Andrew Keen praised Twitter’s capacity to distribute opinion in real time, but said it cannot replace curated coverage by a trained professional (Newman 30). With the example of the 2009 Iranian protests, Newman poses the dilemma of false information and noise placed around an issue. Newman adds that errors can be amplified on social media, and this can be supported by the spread of fake news on Facebook and Twitter (Vosoughi et al.). Clay Shirky offers in contrast that mistakes get corrected quickly, and these corrections tend to get amplified (2009). A second level of criticism against a greater number of voices spreading news is the risk that those voices are unbalanced (Newman 27). In the example of the Iranian protests, Newman said that the conversation on social media around the elections were in favour of the younger candidate with a greater youth following due to the skewed demographics of young people using social media versus older generations (27). However, these statistics have changed over time. The gap between younger and older people who use social media has closed over the last decade (Pew Research Center), so it is less the case that the majority of voices on social media will be young people.
A further difference in contemporary journalism practice is the blurring of the line between professional and amateur. Social media allows (though does not promise) broad visibility across this line, with a possibility to be seen even without a larger audience or verified status. Journalist Jeff Jarvis (PBS Digital Studios) says that ‘acts of journalism can be performed by anyone’ thanks to the use of social media, particularly Twitter (4:55). Journalist Tim Pool (NowThis) similarly stated that anyone can become the most important journalist in the world thanks to social media and smartphones, simply from being in the right place at the right time when something newsworthy happens (0:58). Social media’s place in the changing conceptions of journalistic practice is consistent, and one clear result is the coming together of a multitude of voices, who all have the potential to perform world-changing acts of journalism (Jeff Jarvis, PBS Digital Studios). As Tim Pool (NowThis) says, the fact that almost anyone can easily film an event as it happens is crucial to this change, but I would also add that the prevalence of tools such as Twitter where such videos can be shared and popularised in real time further allows journalism to be easily performed by non-professionals.
One contention that comes from the rise of citizen journalism or the blurred boundaries between citizen and journalist is the notion of trust. Tim Pool (NowThis) says that one of the most difficult problems of modern media dynamics is the question of who to trust (1:25). He says that because anyone can be a ‘citizen journalist’, it is difficult to know who is trustworthy and unbiased. This is different from the past dynamic of broadcast media, since those spreading the news are trained professionals. Now, however, the plurality of voices in news content means this is a standard that is
9 harder to uphold. He argues that one possible way of uncovering a source as trustworthy is through the Twitter ‘verified’ status in the form of a blue check mark. This is a confirmation from Twitter that the user is verified as who they say they are, and usually a public figure of some kind. This might be a quick litmus test for a Twitter user to believe information, and without it, they are less likely to trust what is written is true (NowThis 1:40). However, given that the check mark is largely handed out to accounts ‘of public interest’ (Twitter Help Centre, a.), the idea that anyone can be a journalist is therefore still in contention with this. But this is where the new role of journalists come into play; though anyone can perform ‘acts of journalism’ (PBS Digital Studios), it is the journalist’s job to collate these acts and share them as viable information.
Two-way interaction
The third point I identify as one of the most important changes made to journalistic practice from use of social media is the introduction of a two-way structure of practice (Newman 2, 4). This is to say that the broadcast model of journalism, where the journalist speaks ‘one to many’ to an audience, has been shifted to a ‘many to many’ practice in which the audience is more integrated in the production of news (Shirky 2009). In other words, where the news before was a speech, it is now closer to a conversation. News broadcast on television, radio or in newspapers is spoken to an audience, and is difficult to respond to in a meaningful way. News broadcast online, however, has a greater capacity to hold comments and responses. This is true of news websites, where most articles will have comment sections underneath for people to contribute. However, news is shared and viewed via social media sites more and more in recent years (Pew Research Center). Therefore, it is evident that the capacities of the social media sites to incite conversation and display opinions comes even more easily with the way news is received online.
The higher level of engagement from the audience with the news that comes from social media use implies that the way that news organisations promote themselves is different than it has been with broadcast media. Now, Newman (2) finds, organisations aim to encourage participation as a way of increasing their spread. He outlines the ways that some individual organisations have done this. There are two distinct motivations behind the encouragement of participation: first, to gather user-generated content. He identifies the BBC as having this aim to gain a wider understanding of news and engage with their audience (11). Secondly, other organisations preferred to create spaces for opinion and debate. For example, the New York Times created their own social networks within their site (16), and the Guardian and Telegraph ran message boards to hold discussion (11). Though these were arguably
10 products of an earlier time before the ubiquity of social media we see now, they show that the organisation response to a many-to-many model of news has been in development for years.
The rise of news-related user-generated content has been important to the changing practice of journalism. Newman argues that because of this, journalists have a new role rather than just the seekers of newsworthy content: they are the curators of audience-produced material. This is a possible response to critics of the use of user-generated content, such as Andrew Keen who said that it undermines journalism with its ‘amateur’ lack of quality and professionalism (Newman 5). Given an influx of content from amateurs with a certain amount of it inaccurate or exaggerated, the journalist must take on the new role of curating this content and building what is closest to the truth out of the information given. Journalists already had the role of analysing and synthesising information (Mark Luckie, PBS Digital Studios 2:05), but the quantity of user information on social media and the blurred professional-private line have resulted in more responsibility towards sifting through this content (Kramp and Loosen 213).
Paired with this new journalistic role, there follows a new role of the audience too. William Dutton (2007) posits that the general public, or the audience to the news, is now the ‘fifth estate’. This references the 18th century identification of the press as the fourth estate, meaning the entity which watches over the governmental estates (2). Dutton argues that ‘networked individuals’ now comprise the guardian of the fourth (and other) estates, or the fifth estate (3). This comes about from the audience’s newfound integration with the news process, and the ability for the general public to hold the press and the government accountable (17). Newman puts this as a reversal of George Orwell’s Big Brother society, saying it is now ‘us watching them’ (33). The journalist is thus diversified into a curator role, but the audience too gains the extra role of maintaining the journalists. This symbiotic relationship comes from the increasing ease with which the audience and the journalists may communicate with one another.
It is important to remember that a core reason behind the use of comment sections on news articles is feedback, both positive and negative, and this feedback now occurs outside comment sections as well. Kramp and Loosen emphasise an ‘omnipresence of audience feedback’ (206, 209, 213) as one of the bigger trends in the changing media environment for journalism. They argue that this phenomenon shows the importance of journalists taking seriously their new role of curating a plethora of content (214). The deliberation that must be done by journalists is visible in the comment sections themselves, which famously contain a wide range of voices, some more helpful and some more unpleasant. Kramp and Loosen argue that this shows a notable change in audience participation in itself, given that it is much easier to give feedback via this method than it was in the days of ‘letters to
11 the editor’ (206). They further argue that the nature of the section shows the role of mediation in the relationship between journalist and audience, and cite Collins and Nerlich (2015) as seeing a ‘deliberative democratic potential’ in comment sections. The reduction in distance between the news provider and the audience is clear from this practice, and shows that a more community-minded future is at hand (Kramp and Loosen 207).
The importance of the ways that social media has changed the media environment is what Kramp and Loosen identify as a move into symmetry between the journalists and the audience. They identify the broadcast or ‘supply and demand’ model as ‘asymmetrical’ between the audience and the journalists (211), and state that the trend is towards a symmetry between the two in the sense that it is becoming more reciprocal and participatory. This would intuitively mean a change in aims and expectations of the two sides in what they should be doing for journalism and news. But, according to a survey detailed by Kramp and Loosen, there is a mismatch in the mutual expectations of the audience and the journalists (221). They call this an ‘inclusion distance’, meaning the distance between the expectations of inclusion between the two parties. Journalists seem to assume more interest in participation from the audiences than the users themselves specify (229). Users, on the other hand, expect more for journalists to behave as watchdogs for politicians and other governmental agents. The mismatch in expectation here shows a problem in the contemporary move towards symmetry of audience and newsroom.
THE METHODS BEHIND THE CHANGES
The move from the ‘one to many’ model of journalism to the ‘many to many’ model is visibly important in the development of newsroom practice. Following these developments, it is necessary to understand the qualities of social media that entail these changes. Kramp and Loosen detail the shift in the relationship between the journalist and the audience in this way. For one thing, potential audiences to news organisations spend their time and do their communicating over social media. So, they argue, news organisations have followed them to social media as a way of spreading their messages. They follow from this that the behaviour is ‘radical’: the ‘millennial news media strive to engage them’ (218). This is not just a passive operation of watching and replying, but an active change in use by the journalists and news organisations where the behaviour of the young people on social media is mirrored, for example by using memes and using the platform in other such ways as others are using it (214). The purpose of this is, according to Kramp and Loosen, to involve the audience in the process of news-making, either through possible collaboration or for correction of stories. They argue that there
12 are two strategies at play with these techniques of adaptation: first, to contribute to the social media conversation, and second, to build an audience for their brand (218). Their take-away from these strategies is that newsrooms are not simply being supplementary in their social media performance, but it is part of the core of newsroom behaviour (218). This means that use of social media is now integral to journalistic practice.
However, despite the increase in engagement with audiences on social media platforms, Kramp and Loosen also speak of a ‘fragmentation’ of audiences and point out that there is not one coherent group (215). Because of the variation in social media platforms, the audiences vary across them, and so do the ways in which journalists can reach them (Kramp and Loosen 211, 231). They particularly point out the ‘actor constellation’ as increasingly dynamic and less static (211). This goes hand in hand with the move from the broadcast or ‘supply and demand’ model, where one news organisation would have a coherent audience to a television or radio broadcast. However according to their research on the growing ‘dialogue and participation’ model, multiple platforms hold different audiences and given that the journalists engage with audiences over platforms, this would require multiple techniques to engage the differing audiences (218). This entails adopting various voices and styles to reach audiences across the internet spectrum, and so contributes to the necessity for a dialogic approach to news content (231). It may seem contradictory to speak of ‘networked’ audiences (206), but as Kramp and Loosen say, the actor constellation is dynamic, so though there may be connection between them, attention is divided across the audience range.
Effects
Newman calls the possibility of participation a ‘democratising force’, meaning that the mutual spreading of information and knowledge can maintain just dynamics of power and civil society (4). Stassen (2011) views upcoming practice of news spread via social media as a ‘richer’ news experience, given the increase in ability to interact and contribute from the user’s point of view (128). She collates a number of contemporary academics who agree that it is the possibility of participation in news content and sharing that means social media plays such a valuable and ‘democratising’ role for journalism (Momberg 2009 cited in Stassen 127).
However, the notion of the internet as a ‘democratising force’ is not universal. Morozov (2011) countered arguments about the use of social media for revolutionary anti-establishment purposes, saying that social media is not limited in its use to the general public, and powerful people and organisations could use it to their own ends. He argued that the use of social media towards democratic
13 ends, i.e. political (or) activist arguments and actions, contributes to a behaviour of ‘slacktivism’ and devalues the idea of in-person activism (201). Further to this, there is the case of activist behaviour online being turned against the users by authoritarian regimes. Burns and Eltham (2009) outline the 2009 Iranian election’s dark turn when the authorities began to use Twitter to locate and sometimes kill protesters (306). The spreading of news on social media is therefore not necessarily an aid to democratic practice. This leads me into my next area of discussion of whether there is a pull to participation on social media, and what this does for speech and action around news events.
14 ii. PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES
I have touched briefly on one big change to the practice of journalism that has come about through social media: the ease of participation from the audience. This has come about from the move of news distribution from print and broadcast to the internet via websites, whether belonging to the news organisation or not. The internet is decisively not a space for one-way activity; reading content may occur but there is still more often than not an opportunity to comment and engage, or share with others so that they might be more likely to engage with the material. This allows conversation over news content more broadly than is available when watching a broadcast or reading a newspaper, where comments made would only be available to people in the room, and could not be picked up by the news organisation itself. As a consequence, news organisations encourage participation on social media, and audiences play their part. From this I aim to answer in this section the question: Is the conversation the product rather than the news? With news being spread via social media, the object of participation is crucial to understanding the changing culture of news, and through examining the new role of the conversations incited by news, I can better understand this object.
WHAT IS PARTICIPATORY CULTURE?
A common thread in the relationship between the journalist and the audience is the burgeoning symmetry of content creation and distribution. This plays into the relatively recent concept of ‘participatory culture’ (Jenkins 2006, Jenkins et al. 2005). This denotes a culture that opposes the idea of consumer culture, where the common behaviour of the public is to consume without contribution. Participatory culture, on the other hand, is a culture where the public contribute and produce as well as consume. Henry Jenkins, a pioneer of study of the participatory dynamic, identifies developing social media environments as built on the idea of participation (Jenkins 2006, 1, 179). Content on social media is made up of content formed by users, and so participation is necessarily involved in its use. There is an aspect of consuming, but the users also themselves make up the content. Axel Bruns (2008) coined the term ‘produsage’ to describe this effect. The word refers to the move from production to usage, thus blurring the lines between a producer and a user. Vincent Miller (2011) takes this idea and elaborates to discuss ‘prosumers’, a portmanteau of ‘producer’ and ‘consumer’, and argues that this is the endpoint of a feedback-oriented model for products such as social websites (87). He finds that because of this shattering of boundaries, consumers have more power in the production of goods.
15
When it comes to news content as a product, this would imply that in participatory culture, consumers have more influence in the way news is produced.
The relationship newsrooms have with audiences has changed with the rise of participatory practices that follow this culture, but is one that is still said to be important for journalists to uphold (Witschge et al. 2012). Loosen and Schmidt (2012) outline this changing relationship with relation to the shifting levels of symmetry between the two. They argue that there are three ways of viewing the audience from the point of view of the journalist: first, that the audience are recipients, and second, that they are the product (869-70). The first view regards the audience as purely passive in relation to the active journalists. Loosen and Schmidt posit it as a regard of the audience as ‘opposed or even subordinate to media oganizations’ (869). Along with the idea of participatory culture and the influence of the audience in news distribution that I have previously outlined, this is possibly an outdated idea. The second view posits the audience as more active in news production and distribution than the first; they are in a sense created by the newsrooms in order to populate the reciprocal news industry (870). They assert that both views acknowledge some importance of the audience’s role in newsrooms.
But according to their analysis, there is a third view of the relationship: that the audience are ‘empowered networks’, or ‘networked public spheres’ (871). On this view, the audience is not a mass of individuals observing media content or being used by the media companies as part of the industry, but they are collaborative in the media production process, and active rather than passive. They argue that this has come about from the nature of social media websites in their blurring of divide between ‘senders’ and ‘receivers’. Instead these categories are not distinct across people but broadly applied to any user at the same time (871). Performing acts on social media such as liking, commenting and sharing involves being both a sender and a receiver in that the encounters are conversational. This view expands beyond the ‘produser’ of Bruns (2008) as it envisions an audience that is not just a producer combined with a consumer, but a network of ‘mass-self communication’ (Castells 2009, 58-70). The audience is not only active rather than passive, but self-connecting as a group.
Loosen and Schmidt particularly identify the potential of contributions from users of social media. The affordances of social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter are such that to use them is to participate and produce: writing a tweet or liking a status is using the platform, but it is also production of social content and/or participation. Media theorist Douglas Rushkoff (2011) argues that the users of Facebook are not the customers of the website, but the products. He argues this on the basis that the customers do not pay for the service but the advertisers do, so we are the commodity of the website (Solon). While this argument has implications elsewhere, it becomes clearer that the nature of the website is to encourage participation by making it apparent and available in its forms. While users
16 of social media are not necessarily all contributors to news production and distribution, thanks to the nature of the websites and their use, they all have the potential to contribute to journalistic practice. On top of this, the nature of the platforms puts people of all career backgrounds and influence levels together in broadly the same place, allowing an arguably level playing field (Ahmad). The journalists and non-journalists alike are in the same space, and aside from questions of verification or attachment to recognised news organisations, both categories follow the same rules of social media games. In a vacuum, a professional and a private citizen have the same potential to spread something newsworthy on social media.
CENTERING THE CONVERSATION
Social media affords participatory action, and news organisations encourage engagement via these means. Communicative practices have become a priority of action for newsrooms (Kramp and Loosen). As a result, there are more conversations and replies around news. With the content being displayed on a social website, it is intuitive that the conversations come first and the news comes second. But with news becoming a centre of social media, and discoveries of people who get all their news content this way (Pew Research Center), the conversations have become a central part of news content too. Kramp and Loosen talk about a move from ‘supply and demand’ journalism to ‘dialogue and participation’ (222, 231). They say that the nature of news content production has fundamentally shifted along with this, as evident by new job titles such as ‘community manager’, ‘moderator’ and ‘curator’ (214). They emphasise the growing importance for journalists to stimulate communicative practices between journalists and audiences, ‘with a strong emphasis on user dialogue’ (214). Here we see the centralising role of the conversation in news content.
Stearns (2016) elaborates on the trend of conversational news apps and websites. He analyses the news app Quartz, which offers a service whereby news is received as part of a dialogic messenger app on a phone. He felt that the app had a ‘soul’, and explains that this may be because of the intimacy that comes from a two-way conversation. News is a conversational phenomenon in that it is always evolving and rarely has only one side or voice. Stearns argues that journalists should view the public as ‘“democratic strangers” instead of distant others’, and apps like this show that the development of understanding of the conversational merits of news when contextualised in its reality of being situated among a population of individuals.
According to Stearns, conversational news is more engaging and is growing in popularity. There is also research to show that involving conversation can increase the quality of news content. Stearns
17 cites Arthur Miller (1961, cited in Stearns) as saying ‘a good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself’. News content is rich and complex, and it is understandable that a dialogic approach would be a method that better covers the nuances of events. Jahng and Littau (2016) also found that journalists were believed to be more credible by audiences when more interactive on social media. They suggest that journalists are mediators of information and because the journalist-audience relationship is not (any longer) one-way, the public regards journalists engaging with them visibly as positive: that is to say, interaction on social media reflects a journalist’s intentions to be dialogic and open in their work (52). This shows that the trend towards a dialogic approach for newsrooms does not just reflect a method for newsrooms to improve their trade from just their side, but a way that the public now regards the practice from the outside. Given the positive view of interaction and the importance of dialogue in journalisms, it follows that newspapers encourage conversation to occur, either in a format hosted by the news organisation such as comment sections below articles or opening forums (Newman), or engaging people on social media with the conventionally used methods (Kramp and Loosen).
A conversational approach to journalism can be seen as a reflection of the participatory culture of social media use, but it is also helpful to the trade in that the audience can get a richer and more personal feel to the news they view, and feel more connected to the journalist ‘curators’ (Newman) who moderate their news. On top of this, there is the case that a dialogic approach better reflects the nuances of news. Encouraging engagement and conversation around a story can show not only the story itself, but the relational complexities of the story and the many sides that can be taken around it. Parisi (1997) argues that given the journalistic aim towards impartiality in news reports (Wien), encouraging dialogue around a story can show the nuances without undermining the balanced voice of the journalist (682). Marchionni (2013) offers the concept of ‘journalism-as-a-conversation’ as a way for the process of spreading news to improve the ‘common good’ by way of interaction and inter- correcting between journalist and audience (136). She further argues that conversation is democratic (137; 2016 232) and so integrating conversation with news provides a less autocratic voice.
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
I have thus far focused on the changes to newsroom practice following the rise of social media broadly, and more particularly participatory practices on social media. I will now turn to discussing the storied changes to the audience or user from these factors. I believe the most interesting thing for social media
18 participation is the phenomenon of increased political participation as a result. This comes possibly as a result of participatory culture meaning lower bars for participation through ease and convention (Jenkins et al. 2005).
The concept of a networked audience (Loosen and Schmidt, boyd 2010a,b) has remained consistent in discussion of implications of social media. The idea denotes an audience that is self- connected and informed among themselves. One theorised implication is that a networked audience is more politically active than non-networked audiences of the past (Skoric et al., Boulianne, Jenkins et al. 2015, Knoll et al., Loader et al.) Related to this is the goal of journalists to inform the public: given this, a self-connected and self-informing public can be seen as a goal of journalists, updated to modern standards of connectivity. Further, viewing journalists as the fourth estate and the audience as the fifth within a contemporary democracy (Dutton 2007), we can assume that political participation and commentary following information and engagement from journalists is a necessary part of the behaviour of a networked audience.
The fact of user participation on social media and its link to political participation has not come about merely from the audience’s use of social media alone: the pull to audience engagement from newsrooms is also at play. I have detailed above the advantages for newsrooms in encouraging engagement, especially in the more networked era of social media. I have also discussed that a result of this is a more conversational approach to journalism. However, there is the further possibility of not only a centering in news of conversation, but of opinionated voices. News organisations like the Guardian host opportunities for readers to share their opinions such as in ‘Comment is Free’ (Domingo et al. 338, Newman 12). Marchionni (2014) argues that comment sections under articles are offered as a form of ‘democratic discourse’ (230). There is implication in this that the opinion of the amateur has a valued role in news content, whether as a way to connect the journalist and audience (Newman 7) or to gain attention to a news story (Marchionni 244). When a message comes with feedback, especially pointed feedback, response to the feedback would involve (to an extent) spreading the message. In a study on what comments on news articles do for the citizen-journalist relationship, Marchionni concludes that perceived ‘conversationalness’ of journalists results in perceived credibility (243). Whether this trust coming from engagement goes in two directions is not touched on in her paper, but it is telling that she finds engagement via online commenting begets (perceived) journalistic value. Marchionni also adds that native social media behaviour such as retweeting could be ‘the new commenting’ (244), so there follows the possibility that citizen participation even in the form of a simple social media comment or retweet can be viewed as collaborative to journalism.
19
The question of whether social media has resulted in greater political participation is contested. Boulianne (2015) discovers a positive trend between social media use and political engagement, but admits the results may not be causal (534). Loosen and Schmidt argue that not everyone using social media actively contributes to the conversations held there (871). Loader et al. find that there is a positive correlation between social media use and political engagement across Australia, the United States and the UK (146). As I have mentioned, the affordances of social media provoking participation and engagement is beneficial to the practice of journalism online. Since politics is central to news, it therefore follows that much of this participation on social media is related to politics, and so social media users are engaged in political conversations and behaviour online. While evidence of a causal relationship between social media and political participation is questioned, the participatory nature of social media crossed with the journalistic use of platforms to spread (political) news means an overlap between online participation and political participation.
Whether the link between social media use and political participation is causal or not, another concern of scholars is the notion of performative politics, or inauthentic political action online. Kligler- Vilenchik and Thorson (2016) examine the arguments around this inauthentic action with relation to popular moments of collective activist thought on social media. They argue that the methods of political action in the networked era indicate ‘changing citizenship’ rather than a reduction in political participation, and this entails a move towards a different form of citizenship and thus action (1995). They suggest that the view of ‘changing citizenship’ should be a frame by which to understand the forms of political engagement (1995). However, they offer a counterexample in the view of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ citizenship, using the idea that online political participation is not effective, and so lower in value than traditional offline participation (2005). This perhaps comes from the small size and effect of political actions online such as sharing videos. On the other hand, they compare the memes ridiculing such small actions with other actions such as voting (2005). The difference comes down to a change in methods of social action, they argue, and online political action should not be taken as a replacement of traditional political action, but an object of ‘changing citizenship’ (2006).
20 iii. A PLATFORM STUDIES VIEW: THE AFFORDANCES OF TWITTER
When it comes to the spread of, and participation within, news on social media, it is necessary to ask how the platforms themselves allow or encourage this kind of activity. I have separated the objects of this study into the categories of journalists and audiences; each category has different motivations in their particular uses of Twitter. For journalists, I refer to their use of the platform as an aid to their professional practice. For audiences, use of Twitter is in accordance with normal user behaviour: practices that are part of the founding and evolving purpose of the website in its design, and practices that are adopted by casual users through their individual uses. In this section, I explore both sides of use of Twitter and aim to show how its particular affordances and used behaviours contribute to the question of the changing relationship between journalists and audiences. Thus, I follow the question: How does Twitter shape conversation?
TWITTER AND JOURNALISM
FOR THE JOURNALISTS
Speed of communication
I have explored earlier the nature of social media to spread news quickly and allow a multitude of voices to enter the atmosphere. I will now elaborate on this with specific reference to Twitter. Vis (2013) cites the short 140 character updates on Twitter as ‘fragmented’ and so giving a snapshot of information, requiring the user to curate this information as it appears (29). She references Hermida as saying that Twitter is an amalgam of news information without an overruling order (Hermida 2012, 2, cited in Vis 29). This results in a necessity for journalists to adapt to the new methods of sharing and gathering information, and, as I have explained above, possibly themselves becoming that order. Beyond this broad implication for journalists, there is also the implication that Twitter lends itself to be very useful during crises because of its real-time updates (Vis 29). This is to say that the timeline (Twitter homepage) is focused on the tweets showing up in the present rather than on updates from days ago or longer, and events happening at that moment are the core focus (Manjoo). A study by Schultz et al. (2011) found that because communication on Twitter can be shared with one mouse click, information in crises can spread faster than by traditional blogs or other means (22, 24). This has not always argued
21 to have been a positive, however: they reference an (uncited) argument that this factor of speed could lead to exacerbation of crises (25), possibly on the basis of false information spreading through faster channels such as Twitter (Vosoughi et al. 1-6). Contrary to this, Schultz et al. found that Twitter users spread newspaper articles in crises more than blog posts or tweets (25). They suggest that this is because newspapers give a neutral or broader image of events, so Twitter users might aim towards spreading this kind of information to other users.
Focus on present
The Twitter timeline’s focus on the present and the punchy nature of 140 character posts makes it understandable that it is used to share real-time updates in time-sensitive situations like crises. Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, demonstrates interest only in what’s happening here and now, stating at one point ‘you’re only as good as your last update’ (Sarno 2009). Twitter’s development over the years reflects how this philosophy has come to be valuable with narratives and reactions around events. In 2006, the ‘About’ page on Twitter said ‘Twitter is for staying in touch’, whereas in 2018 it says ‘Twitter is what’s happening in the world and what people are talking about right now’ (Twitter About pages, archive.org). Similarly, the tweet-prompting statement changed in 2009 from ‘what are you doing?’ to ‘what’s happening?’ (Rogers 2017, 9). This also reflects a change from focusing on a purely personal angle to a more events-minded approach, where a depiction of one’s surroundings are encouraged to fill up the timeline rather than a depiction of personal, private behaviour.
The tendency towards events of recent years means that Twitter can be a useful source for journalists to find out ‘what’s happening’ around certain events, and the nature of Twitter to encourage and accept this information in short format means the information comes in abundance. The accumulation of this (not always useful) information requires curating, as I have earlier mentioned, and this has become a new role of the journalist. Andy Carvin is often cited as an example of how this should be done. He is famous for gathering live information on Twitter, sharing it either by retweet or tweeting, about the occurrences of the Arab Spring in 2010 and 2011. He noticed a great deal of information about the current happenings of Egypt and aimed to gather this information minute-to-minute on his Twitter feed (Stelter). This form of ‘real-time journalism’ has been celebrated as an example of how to use the affordances of social media to the benefit of journalistic practice. Thus a way to use Twitter to the advantage of journalism involves engaging with the audience and joining in with the same methods used by the public (Marchionni, Kramp and Loosen).
22
Journalist behaviour on Twitter
Twitter has been thought of as an asset to journalists for at least a few years (Hermida 2010, 2012) and has even crossed the boundary into becoming a necessity: BBC Global News director Peter Horrocks once told his staff ‘tweet or be sacked’ (Miller 2011, cited in Barnard 2016). Barnard (2016) identifies the practices of journalism on Twitter, including information collection, news sharing, sourcing and public engagement (196-8). Two of these four that I have picked out (information collection and sourcing) are traditional journalistic practices, and the fact that they are moving into the world of social media has some implications for journalism. For one thing, there is less reliance on mainstream media outlets through which journalists can gather information (196). For another, processes that are done by journalists before the process of sharing information with the public (fact acquiring and checking) seem to be shared more with the public from the beginning if the practices occur within a public field. After this fact acquiring process, the checked information flows back into Twitter and news is shared in the same place some of it was acquired. The curation role of the journalist is even more clear when journalist names on Twitter become a marker of trust that allows a lens through which to view happenings that may have previously only been thought of as rumours (Tim Pool, NowThis).
Twitter can be a source of information around events given that people tweet ‘what’s happening’ and it is displayed on the timeline in short, ongoing bursts. This information is used by journalists to help with the creation of news stories, but Twitter is also used beyond collection and sharing of information. Indeed, when these practices occur on Twitter there is inherent social media engagement occurring. But further than this, journalists also share news and use Twitter to talk to others, whether other journalists or the public (Barnard 196-8). This engagement has proven to increase credibility to the audience (Marchionni 243, Barnard 198). Moreover, it manifests as another factor that contributes to the blurring lines between journalists and their audiences. Sharing news is done by both professionals and amateurs on Twitter when considering the fact that retweeting can be taken as a method of this sharing (Barnard 196). The act of spreading news is thus collaborative between journalists and the public alike.
FOR THE (PROD)USERS Getting news from Twitter
Andy Carvin’s example of a new method for journalists shows how it may be that people increasingly get their news from Twitter. Shearer and Gottfried (2017) find that the proportion of Twitter users who get their news from the platform has increased from around half of all users in 2013 to 74% in 2017.
23
They tentatively suggest a relation between this figure and the 2016-elected president of the United States using Twitter to make announcements. It is indeed plausible that a place where news happens could become a place where people go to find their news. However, it is also possible that people are not seeking out their news on Twitter, but merely waiting for it to come up. A 2015 study found that 94% of Twitter news users found their news intake merely by reading tweets in their timeline from people they already follow, rather than seeking out information using any of Twitter’s news-aiding functions such as trending topics (Rosenstiel et al.). If this is the case, then it is understandable that journalists mirror the way the public uses social media in order to reach them (Kramp and Loosen 218); if a majority of people get their news on Twitter just through regular use of the website, then it follows that journalists, who aim to spread news, would make use of regular practice on Twitter in order to do this.
Throughout Twitter’s history it has been used as a news source. Kwak et al. (2010) found that tweets by news organisation will reach at least one thousand users no matter how many followers (600). Research suggests that there is a move from viewing news on social media to sharing it (Hermida et al. 2012, 815). In this there is an interesting change in how news is spread and flows through society in recent years compared to years before social media practice. Hermida et al. (2012) found that surveyed users preferred to get their news on social media partly because of ease of sharing (819). People found comfort with information transmitted through their own networks. There is a contrast between this method of receiving information and the traditional methods of mainstream media, sometimes described as ‘gatekeeping’ information in their authoritative choice of what information audiences may get (217; Yaschur 2011, 7). This function is loosened when the news is shared via familiar networks, or by news outlets operating within the familiar tools of interaction - that is to say, through social media accounts. News shared through Facebook, for example, comes from friends and family, so is more likely to make an impact (Boulianne 2015, 525). Twitter, on the other hand, is not necessarily constructed of friends and family. But, the effect can still be carried through in the presence of a personal network of people a user follows on Twitter. The same level of trust may not be put into a follow as into a Facebook friendship, but there is still a degree of endorsement or agreement between users following one another (Cha et al.). Jansen et al. (2009) found that networks on Twitter could be perceived as trusted by individual users, and so had the power to spread knowledge and understanding (2186). The networked nature of Twitter users means a connection between users, and a network that potentially extends to the news outlet themselves (Marwick and boyd 2011, 129). There is a point of conversation across all of it, and this possibility for feedback between users and journalists is a communicative tool that makes news reception more similar to a face-to-face conversation than a broadcast, and thus is arguably more appealing to an audience.
24
Twitter as a conversational network
The idea of a network on Twitter is fluid and far from rigid, especially when thought of in the context of hashtag publics (Bruns and Burgess 2011, 6). This is important when it comes to looking at the spread of information across Twitter: when information, news or events are attached to hashtags, they are available to all who choose to participate in using or following the hashtag, and so a broad network around this can be formed. ‘Follower’ networks are a different thing, and hashtag networks can transcend this, since users do not need to be following one another to participate (2). Still, follower networks are also fluid and fluctuate over time. Actors on Twitter are interconnected but not constrained, meaning conversation never has to be confined to one topic or between a specific group of users (boyd et al. 2010, 1). Similarly, unlike Facebook friendships, Twitter followers do not need to be mutual, and one user can follow another without the other following them back, indicating the possibility of a broader network (2). With follower networks and hashtag networks, there can be an overlap and use of a hashtag can also be seen as a way to bring a hashtag topic into view of the user’s follower network (Bruns and Burgess 4). The phenomenon of this fluid and exponentially spreading network is crucial to the nature of the spread of information between users on Twitter.
The presence of conversation between individuals on Twitter sheds more light on the way the platform is used across and within networks. Honeycutt and Herring (2009) argue that Twitter is a ‘noisy’ environment, so the @ function is used as a way to pinpoint conversation and gain focus (3). They found that a portion of Twitter users use the platform for the purpose of conversation, and that the @ sign is the strategy used to this end (2, 7). If, following their assertion, Twitter is used as a mechanism for conversation (10), then there is some connection between this use and the design of the platform itself. That is to say, the fact that conversation happens freely with the help of Twitter functions means that conversation, to some extent, is supposed to happen on Twitter. With conversation comes discussion and the sharing of individual ideas across a network. Therefore, Twitter is particularly interesting to the encouragement of individual idea-sharing. Where Facebook, in its reciprocal user-connections and personal history documentation, is focused on connecting people who know each other, Twitter can be argued to be more focused on connecting ideas across people, because of its use for public and open conversation between fluid and easily accessible non-reciprocal networks.
25
TWITTER ACTIONS
To talk about the contribution of the quote tweet to this analysis of the Twitter platform, I will first unpack some other Twitter-native functions such as the retweet, #hashtag and @mention. The #hashtag is used as a grouping tool for tweets around similar subjects, and is especially important within event coverage and topic argumentation because it contextualises an individual statement as being part of a wider conversation (Bruns and Burgess 2011, 2). The act of including a hashtag, Bruns and Burgess argue, is speech turned into action, where a statement is accelerated in way that ‘imbue[s] it with affect [and] allows it to affect in turn’ (7). Hashtags therefore contain capacity for political and social action according to their use by other participants in the conversation. Rambukkana (2015) adds that while hashtags contain the potential to be importantly active in a debate, they also can be used in trivial, consumerist or anti-activist means and this must be taken into context when studying hashtag publics (5). Put simply, they are a way to group tweets by topic. In research, this can be used to study broad conversations, issues and events and the surrounding urgency without narrowing down to specific actors (Rogers 2017, 9). However, they are also seen as fleeting in the time-specific nature of hashtag practice (Rambukkana 2015).
@Mentions and @replies are more specific than hashtags in that they are directed towards specific users. The way these are used suggests a practice of conversation-making on Twitter, and carries potential for collaboration among users (Honeycutt and Herring 2009). Use of the @ sign denotes ‘addressivity’ and shows a desire to capture a user’s attention, which contains a necessary parameter for conversation (1-4). The practice can look similar to messages between users, although the messages are public and anyone may join in. This further contributes to the ways in which @mentions create dialogue and collaboration around topics. Following these can also show which voices drive the dialogue in which voice is more prominent or more controversial than others in the user with the most tweets in the conversation, or the user most @ referenced in the conversation (Rogers 2017, 9).
Retweets contain yet more connotations of action, and especially as a practice that have changed significantly over Twitter’s history. At the time of boyd et al.’s (2010) analysis, retweets were performed within the normal frame of a user’s tweet and structured without consistency, but with a vague convention towards ‘RT @user: msg’ (1). Punctuation and syntax were also inconsistent, with users switching between hyphens, dashes or nothing at all. The word ‘retweet’ first appeared in front of a tweet in April 2007, and the abbreviation ‘RT’ wasn’t used until January 2008, almost two years
26 after Twitter’s inception. In November 2009 Twitter introduced a retweet function that skipped the process of creating a tweet and merely repeated a tweet onto a user’s timeline with the phrase ‘retweeted by @user’ (Seward).
The retweet has no one simple purpose, and meanings behind the action can be subjective across its instances. Meanings can range from an endorsement of the retweeted tweet, a spotlight for the retweeted user or a desired connection between retweeting user to retweeted (Bosker). Shining a spotlight on a user by retweeting them can be a way of sharing content that is perceived to be valuable to one’s own followers. Retweeting can also be a simple action of engagement with a user (Looi). This is different to the favourite, which contains engagement but is more one-sided than retweets given that a favourite is not a means of putting someone else’s tweet on one’s page. Retweets grew in popularity relatively slowly, even after the feature was added to Twitter’s functionality (Seward). The current use of the retweet feature embodies the desire to share information with others, as I have said earlier, especially in relation to educational or interesting pieces of knowledge, such as news events (Noriega). It can also be a way of inviting people into a conversation without directing the invitation at specific people through @ addressivity (boyd et al. 1). Though retweets are not always endorsements, it is important to understand this connotation in the practice, and a simple retweet without comment can reasonably be understood this way (Noriega).
The quote tweet
Before the introduction of the retweet feature, tweets were copied and pasted into a user’s own tweet and prefaced with some variation of ‘RT’, including the retweeted user’s handle (boyd et al.). When this method was used, it was popular to add commentary before or after the quoted tweet (3). When this was the common practice, therefore, quote tweets were used to the same extent as retweets were; users presented the context of the other user’s tweet while at the same time adding their own commentary. The development of the retweet feature changed this method, since instead of manually copying the tweet into one’s own feed, the retweeted tweet would be automatically reproduced verbatim on the user’s page. The fact that a retweeted tweet according to this feature contains not only the tweet itself, but carries the user’s display picture, handle and the tweet’s own interactions, means that the user who retweeted is less visible than the user who was retweeted. In other words, the tweet remains more clearly attributed to the original author than to the retweeter.
With this retweet function in effect, it was not possible to add commentary to a retweet without using ‘edited retweets’ (Mustafaraj and Mataxas). In 2011, Mustafaraj and Mataxas found that 30% of
27 retweets were edited retweets. They assert that given the aforementioned goals of retweeting as diffusing information or participating in this, edited retweets serve the goal of participation in a diffused conversation (39). This is on the basis that the practice occurs in such a way different to the reply because it keeps the context of the original tweet visible, in a way resulting in a more open invitation to conversation with other users. Furthermore, the act of editing a retweet changes the image of endorsement in retweeting - while a simple verbatim retweet might be an act of agreement with the retweeted user, an edited or quoted retweet might be used to indicate disagreement or many other responsive affects (Mustafaraj and Mataxas 39).
Before the quote tweet feature was introduced, users opted for other means of retweeting with commentary that contained the same intentions as the quote tweet. For example, to prevent Twitter from treating a quote retweet as a reply, a ‘.’ would be added at the beginning of the tweet (i.e. before the @) (Garimella et al. 202). As a reply or mention, Twitter would not display the tweet on the timeline in the same way as other kinds of tweets, so this ‘.’ became a way to ensure the public display of a reply, rather than just a more private conversation or comment without invitation for other users to participate. The introduction of the quote tweet feature essentially replaced this Public Reply action, as well as the mention or Forwarding action (Garimella et al. 202).
The quote retweet itself, called ‘retweet with comment’ on Twitter, is contained in a function placed directly next to the ‘retweet’ option (Twitter Help Center, b.). The action is thus grouped in with the retweet on the platform itself, whereas the connotations and uses of quote tweeting are blended with mentions and replies. In a study aiming to document the changes to political discourse on Twitter following the introduction of the quote tweet, Garimella et al. identified three purposes behind using the action: Opinion, Public Reply and Forwarding. In the Opinion connotation, users express their opinions, agreements or disagreements in relation to a tweet that is presented as context. The action is also similar to a reply in use, but more specifically as a Public Reply, in that the user’s response is more publicly displayed according to the Twitter algorithm than other replies. In this way, anyone following the user can see the reply and conversation as part of their normal timeline feed. Thirdly, the quote tweet can be used as a method of forwarding: similar to tagging friends, mentioning a user in a quote tweet can be a way of bringing a specific person’s attention to a tweet in a more public way than mentions (201). From these cases, it is clear that use of quote tweets has come to replace other tweet functions, such as some replies and mentions in Public Reply and Forwarding (202).
The use of quote tweets as a method of participation leads to further interest in the function. Simple retweets have been seen as a way of spreading or diffusing information (boyd et al., Mustafaraj and Mataxas), and given that quote tweets are paired on Twitter with retweets, the question of
28 whether they spread information can be taken at the same time as the question of whether they incite and represent participation on Twitter. A quote tweet can have the same intention as a retweet such as endorsement and desire to spread a certain tweet to one’s followers, with the addition of a comment that might express this endorsement more explicitly. On the other hand, the quote might be a way of sharing the original tweet with expression of disagreement, something that is not common in simple retweets (Garimella 203). In this situation, quote tweets merit study separately than retweets in that they cannot be said to be an expression of endorsement as a majority. Similarly, while they are used as a form of reply or mention, the addressivity is different, since there can be a purpose behind a quote tweet that is purely for the case of presenting a tweet and addressivity to the original user might not necessarily be the intention, as is the case in Forwarding type quote tweets. In this sense they are also not necessarily a case of conversation. Following this, I therefore wish to look closer at instances of quote tweets in the context of participation and the spreading of individual voices on Twitter, especially around news events and objects.
FILLING IN THE GAPS
According to existing literature, the dynamic between journalists and their audiences is changing along with use of social media. The results of this include a greater capacity for audience voices to be heard, either in the form of news content itself or in feedback for the press, arguably leading to a role of the audience as the ‘fifth estate’ to the press’ fourth estate (Dutton 2007). The journalists consider their audience in a different way; the relationship is mutually beneficial as such that the journalist informs the public just as the audience may inform the journalists of their news and commentary. There is therefore an important point to be made about particular social media practices that demonstrate this relationship.
Participatory practices surrounding a participatory culture of social media are also heavily discussed. The pull towards participation of audiences has a role in their relationship with news, and if engagement with news is becoming a metric for journalists in their efficacy of news distribution, then the instances that show participation with news on social media warrant a closer look as well. As I have shown, Twitter is a valuable insight into this as journalists and audiences alike use the platform. In the literature presented in this chapter, it has been shown to shape conversation among its users and induce interesting networked publics in its functionality. What is missing, however, is a conversation about how the quote tweet in particular embodies this changed conversation between news providers and viewers. While changing levels of news engagement through social media have
29 been discussed above, and conversational aspects of other Twitter functions have too been explored (boyd et al. 2010; Garimella et al.; Mustafaraj and Metaxas; Honeycutt and Herring), an analysis of how quote tweeting practices show user engagement with news as well as conversation between users has not been attempted. To answer the question of what quote tweeting practices say about news engagement and audience-journalist relationships on Twitter would serve as a bridge between these two discussions, and with my empirical study I aim to explore possible answers to this question.
30
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
CHOICE OF CASE
When it comes to seeking out a more tangible examination of participatory and conversational activities around quote tweet practice, it is necessary to narrow down a desired query object. To keep my analysis focused on journalism on Twitter, I chose an issue that relates to a wide choice of events that occur continuously throughout news cycles. To keep the possibility of analysis of variant opinions, the issue I chose has also appeared in social and other public media in opposing and continuously debating points of view. Migration is an issue that upholds both of these conditions. It is a topic that provokes heated debate, and also is a concern attached to multiple various news events. To narrow this issue down further, an event is needed to embody Twitter’s strength when it comes to discourse around current happenings and breaking news.
The 14th June 2017 fire in the Grenfell tower in London is an event covered by international news that also sparked conversation about immigration. The fire struck a 24-storey council estate in West London, and caused at least 71 deaths and over 70 injuries (Rawlinson et al.). Due to the undocumented statuses of many of the residents, there was fear of being found out and deported if the injured went to the hospital or the grieving reported loved ones as missing (Hiam). This sparked controversy over whether victims should be penalised for their lack of residency in the UK (Gentleman). Given the nature of Twitter to carry conversation and debate from various argumentative sides, as well as reactions around news events, querying around the immigration argument in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire has the potential to bring insight to the way quote tweets drive news engagement on Twitter.
STUDYING TWITTER
Before I present my empirical look into quote tweeting practice around news, I will give a brief note on the nature and ethics of studying Twitter. As a microblogging website, Twitter offers a potential history of conversation and communication on its website. However, as it is mostly focused on the present tense, there are some concerns with accessing and analysing historical tweets. Given the use and merit of Twitter for events, past tweets can be a gateway to understanding events long past as well as present (Raymond). Twitter donated its ongoing public tweet archive to the Library of Congress in 2010,
31 meaning tweets could be studied for non-commercial research up to a six month delay without violating Twitter terms (Stone). However, from the point of view of the users, this still may not be ethical: user expectations of privacy may not match up with Library demands (Zimmer). Zimmer (2010) argued that researchers relying on an assumption that tweets are public and users have agreed to the terms of service does not necessarily mean that it is ethical to store and analyse tweets. Users are not likely to have read through the terms of service and understood everything involved; if they had, they might act differently on the platform (Nissenbaum 2011, 45). Because of this, the ethics of using software such as TCAT to extract tweets as public data is questionable, and the shades of grey must be kept in mind before making any larger generalisations about public behaviour through its results.
A further concern of studying Twitter is its ‘banality’ (Rogers 2013). Though a microblogging website full of billions of short 140-280 character messages from users from all over the world and every demographic might be intuitively a bland space filled with inane nonsense, using it as a means to follow news or events ‘debanalizes’ it, and makes it more of an ‘issue space’ where valuable research on valuable information and attitudes can occur (Rogers 2017, 7). It is through this lens that I study Twitter in the first place: as a medium for spreading information and opinions around news and events. In this sense, Twitter need not be viewed as a banal place, but a kind of record of social information (Raymond).
When performing content analysis on Twitter, it is important to note the connotations of language used by Twitter users and what limitations this leads to in research. For example, hashtag uses can indicate various sides of a debate, such as in the case of the West Bank wall of Israel and Palestine: those for the wall used the hashtag #securityfence, whereas those against it used the hashtag #apartheidwall (Rogers 2017, 12). It is also crucial to maintain awareness of the limitations of Twitter as a medium through which to understand events. While Twitter can be used to give the general public a platform from which to speak, especially in times of public tension such as protests and other events affecting communities, there can also be a push-back from other dominating forces. This can be done by internet service being blocked or users prosecuted (Maher). In such a situation, tweets and accounts surrounding events of public concern may not be an accurate representation of feelings and impact across human lives. Instead, Twitter’s role can be examined critically in these instances, and generalisations beyond the platform should not be made.
32
DMI-TCAT METHOD What do quote tweet practices say about news engagement and audience-journalist relationships on Twitter?
To begin the empirical part of my answer to this research question, a two-step query design is needed to gauge the most useful areas and times of conversation to analyse (Rogers 2017, 10). For the first step, to initially narrow down the scope of data, I used the native search function on Twitter (fig. 1). I searched [grenfell]+[immigration OR migration OR immigrant OR migrant OR immigrants OR migrants] to broaden the possibility of results relating to the Grenfell fire as well as immigration. I kept the date selection boxes empty to get a general view of what dates these kinds of conversations came up. Finally, since my focus is discussion around news, I chose the accounts to be major news outlets, whose tweets I would choose to be the mentioned or engaged with tweets by other users.
Since the Grenfell fire occurred in the UK, and thus so did most of the discourse around the issue, I selected to search for news tweets by top British news organisations. According to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017, the top ten news outlets for online usage were (in order of popularity): BBC News, Guardian, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, websites of local newspapers, Sky News, Buzzfeed News, MSN News, Telegraph and Independent (Newman et al.). To narrow this down further, I omit organisations that are purely local, that are not news companies as their main function and that are not primarily based in the UK. This leaves BBC News, Guardian, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Independent. This selection has further merit in the varying political leanings of the organisations; the Guardian and the Independent lean more left wing, while the Telegraph and the Daily Mail lean more right, with the BBC mostly in the centre (Smith 2017). A variation of political leanings of newspapers is likely to present a more even balance of surrounding discourse than a selection with more bias on one side than another.
These news organisations in some instances contain multiple Twitter accounts for their various sections. Some accounts, such as those focused on entertainment media, are not relevant, whereas others, such as those focused on news and politics are. Following this, the accounts I include are: @BBC, @BBCNews, @BBCBreaking, @BBCLondonNews, @guardian, @guardiannews, @GdnPolitics, @MailOnline, @DailyMailUK, @Telegraph, @TelegraphNews, @Independent and @IndyPolitics (fig. 1). Selecting the ‘latest’ tab on Twitter to order the search by date, it appears that the earliest tweet from these news outlets came from 16th June 2017, and the most recent from 22nd February 2018. Changing the search to find tweets ‘mentioning these accounts’ rather than ‘from these accounts’, to see the broad engagement with the news accounts on Twitter according to the search terms, the search results include far more results dating up to the day of the search. To keep the analysis manageable, I
33 therefore choose to conduct the search within the date range 14th June 2017 (the date of the fire) and the last news organisation tweet relating to immigration at the time of writing, 22nd February 2018.
Figure 1: Twitter search
For an initial look into the tweets of this time, using DMI-TCAT’s dataset of tweets relating to migration (tweets containing the word[s] emigrant, emigrants, immigrant, immigrants, migrant, migrants), I inputted the aforementioned date range with the query [grenfell]. From this, I obtained a general view of the tweets outputted over this time. This initial graph (fig. 2) shows that most of the tweets about Grenfell relating to immigration occurred in the first month and a half after the fire, with output calming down at roughly on 28th July 2017. The day with the largest number of tweets was 22nd June 2017. From this query I could get an idea of the kinds of tweets sent about Grenfell and migration.
34
Figure 2: TCAT results
To keep focused on news, I conducted the same query search, but including the Twitter accounts detailed above in the ‘from user’ box. Unfortunately, this came out with no results. TCAT contains some limitations in that due to the allowances or restrictions built into the Twitter API, not every single tweet can be captured by the device (Borra and Rieder 267). Additionally, the tool itself does not allow both ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ functions within the same query. Therefore, instead of being able to search the tweets mentioning the news organisations’ Twitter accounts as well as specifying tweets talking about migration in relation specifically to Grenfell, I am only able to search one of these queries at a time. In other words, I cannot search for tweets mentioning any of the news Twitter accounts or another at the same time as specifying all these as relating to Grenfell. To bypass this limitation, I used the data exporting options in TCAT to search through the larger collection of tweet data and find the number of mentions to these accounts and article links manually. As a further note, quote tweets are treated by Twitter as links to tweets, and do not have their own separate metric of analysis such as the number of retweets or favourites. By extension, TCAT does not contain a built-in method to quantify quote tweets. Similarly, the URL of tweets containing a quote appears to have the same format as a tweet with no quote (twitter.com/[user]/status/[tweet ID number]). This means that the account name of the quoted user is not searchable by TCAT within the text of the collected tweet. For this reason, it
35 will become necessary to select a certain collection of tweets by the relevant news accounts, find tweets that quote these, and analyse them individually.
FIRST ENCOUNTERS
When exporting all tweets mentioning any of the news accounts selected from the dataset, 363 tweets are counted, with 233 of them retweets and 130 of them mentions. The TCAT software does not have any categories of mention further to this, so it is unclear which category quote tweets fall into. The data exported render links in the form of a short URL, usually beginning [https://t.co/…], and since quote tweets are simply tweets containing the URL for another tweet within them (Wahab), the short URL for quote tweets contains the same stable beginning as many other kinds of links. Thus, it is difficult to filter out the tweets that are quote tweets from the table produced by TCAT. A sample of tweets within the data that are confirmed as links between tweets share the beginning letter ‘u’ after ‘t.co/’; to avoid simple retweets from also being pooled into this category, I simultaneously filtered out instances of [RT]. This provides a list of 64 tweets that were quoting other tweets, as well as including relevance to the [migrant] and [grenfell] queries. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the shortened URLS in quote tweets, it is not possible from this to show the ones that are quoting tweets by the selected news accounts. This further renders difficulty with TCAT’s capability to display and track mentions, since quoted tweets do not register as mentions in the software.
While this method gave an idea of the kinds of tweets relating to both migration and the Grenfell fire, the connection to the news accounts is lacking given the lack of possibility of searching for specific accounts within links in the tweets. Following this limitation, it became necessary to use the Twitter native advanced search function and find examples of quote tweets manually. To do this, I filled the ‘all of these words’ box with [grenfell], the ‘any of these words’ box with [immigration migration immigrant migrant immigrants migrants] and ran each of the news accounts’ handles through the ‘from these accounts’ box (fig. 1). This came up with 22 different tweets across all the accounts relating to immigration and Grenfell between 16th June 2017 and 22nd February 2018, which I displayed in a spreadsheet (Appendix 1). Some of these were duplicates across Twitter accounts from the same news providers, in which cases I removed all but the most engaged-with version of the same tweets or links. This left 14 tweets: six from the Guardian, five from the Independent, two from the BBC and one from the Daily Mail. No tweets were found from the Telegraph reporting on immigration and Grenfell.
I have recorded the metrics of each tweet; however, quote tweets are not counted in any of the ‘replies’, ‘retweets’ or ‘favourites’ statistics (Littman). For this reason, it was necessary to find
36 tweets quoting the selected tweets manually. Since Twitter considers a quote tweet just a tweet with a link to the quoted tweet in it, I stored all the links to the tweets in my selection and searched those links individually into Twitter to find out if they had been quoted. I then transposed the quote tweets into a spreadsheet (Appendix 2) and assigned them qualifications depending on the nature of the comment, such as ‘agreement’ or ‘disagreement’ with the original tweet (Appendix 2). Having collected the tweets that quote Grenfell and immigration related tweets from news accounts, it became clear that TCAT had not collected these tweets as part of its tweet engagements scraping, and therefore the manual method was more extensive a sample of quote tweets than the tool’s alternative approach.
37
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
PRIMARY CATEGORIES
As expected, the number of replies, retweets or favourites of an original news account tweet had no bearing on the number of secondary tweets quoting them. Having searched the URLs of each of the primary tweets in Twitter’s search function, I gathered 113 secondary quoting tweets. The most quoted tweet was from the Guardian, reading ‘Grenfell Tower survivors ‘must have total immigration amnesty’’, and was quoted 21 times. The second most quoted tweet was from the BBC, quoted 19 times and reading ‘Grenfell fire: One year immigration amnesty can become permanent’. The discernible category of the top two quoted tweets was therefore ‘immigration amnesty’. Third in the list with 13 quotes was another tweet from the Guardian, this time about fear from the victims because of their immigration status. The average number of secondary quote tweets to a primary tweet was 8, with the median of all the results being 6. Given this, however, the highest number of quote tweets to a tweet was 21 and the lowest was one, signifying a large range of variations in engagement with news accounts on Twitter. In terms of totals per news outlet, the Guardian got 56 quotes on 6 tweets, or an average of 9.3 quotes per tweet; the BBC got 30 on 2 tweets, or an average of 15 per tweet; the Independent got 26 quotes on 5 tweets, or 5.2 per tweet. Finally, the Daily Mail got 1 quote on 1 tweet. While this sample does not necessarily represent the number of quotes a news outlet might get for any one of its tweets, it gives some idea of how much quoting engagement there was for the topic of Grenfell relating to migration in accordance with the various stories tweeted by the news accounts.
Each of the primary tweets could be differentiated by the nature of the news story or article the news accounts were linking to: the immigration amnesty that victims were granted, fear for/from the victims due to immigration status, an anti-immigration remark from ex-UKIP, and an opinion piece. Six of the tweets were labelled as ‘immigration amnesty’, with three from the Guardian, two from the BBC and one from the Independent. Five were ‘fear for victims from status’, with three from the Independent, one from the Guardian and one from the Daily Mail. Two were ‘ex-UKIP remark’, one Guardian and one Independent, with the remaining tweet as ‘opinion’ and being also from the Guardian. This shows that the immigration amnesty was mostly tweeted about by the Guardian and the BBC, while the fear from the victims about their immigration status was mostly tweeted about by the Independent and, to an extent, the Daily Mail. Only the Guardian and the Independent tweeted about the ex-UKIP leader’s anti-immigration remark. In terms of engagement proportions, the two ex- UKIP leader tweets were at the top of the list when regarding percentage of engagements that were
38 quote tweets, with 19% for the Independent’s tweet and 18% for the Guardian’s. The average percentage of quote tweets to total other engagements was 8%, with the median at 6.5%. The only other tweets with an above-average percentage of quote tweets were the Daily Mail, the Guardian and the Independent on fear for/from victims about immigration status, with 14.3%, 9.4% and 9.3% respectively. Following this method of quantifying quote tweets, the one with the highest number also had the 8th highest percentage, indicating that many more of its engagements took other forms.
SECONDARY CATEGORIES
Of the secondary tweets, the categories they could be put into were (in relation to their quoted tweet): sentiments of agreement, sentiments of disagreement, additional arguments, reiterations, iterations of personal stance, quotes, emotional reactions, jokes, responses/questions, public service comments, public comments, hashtag attributions and other comments. 12 out of the 133 secondary tweets expressed straightforward agreement with the words of the primary tweet or article, while 36 quoted them out of disagreement, and 3 added their broader personal stance on the issue. 23 used their comments in their tweets to express a specific additional argument. 10 made a comment addressed specifically to their followership, either in the form of a reiteration, public service comment or a comment made in the public eye. While the specific stances or reactions of each secondary tweet cannot be determined as a group, broadly, additional arguments, reiterations, quotes, emotional reactions, hashtag attributions and public service comments were a form of positive sharing (along with agreement) of the tweet/article in question. On the other hand, disagreements, jokes and other comments tended to be closer to negative sharing. Comments categorised as ‘other’, public comments and jokes did not as majorities fall into this binary. I distinguish positive versus negative sharing as the former being sharing for the purpose of encouraging others to view an object positively, or sharing for the purpose of expressing disagreement or encouraging others to disapprove. For example, those sharing an article and attributing an emotional reaction of sadness would be positive sharing in the context that the contents of the article were sad and thus taken at face value and shared. While some of these categories can be universally taken as positive or negative, for the most part it was necessary to assess the positive or negative sharing motivations for each tweet individually.
39
Split by news outlet
According to the total number of secondary tweets, 58 were positive, 46 were negative and 9 were ambiguous. Of the 56 secondary tweets quoting tweets by the Guardian, 13 were additional arguments, 9 were expressions of agreement, 16 were disagreement. Including the remaining categories, and according to the labels of ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ sharing I explained above, this makes 33 forms of arguably positive sharing in the act of the quote tweet and 21 forms of negative sharing, with two ambiguous. Of the 26 secondary tweets quoting the Independent, 6 were additional arguments and 5 were emotional reactions; beyond this there was more variation. Overall, 16 were positively shared and 10 could be seen as negatively shared. For the BBC’s 30 secondary tweets, 15 were disagreement while 2 were agreement and 3 were additional argument. In total, 8 tweets showed positive sharing and 18 showed negative. The one Daily Mail tweet was an additional argument, and read as a positive share.
Split by primary category
For the topic of the immigration amnesty, there 62 secondary tweets quoting those on the subject, 29 of which expressed disagreement, 10 expressed an additional argument and 6 expressed agreement. In total, 24 of the comments showed positive sharing and 32 showed negative, with 8 ambiguous. Regarding tweets on the subject of fear for or from immigrant victims of the Grenfell fire, on the other hand, 26 out of 32 secondary tweets were positive compared to only 5 negative, with one ambiguous. Most of these positives came in the form of additional arguments, followed by agreements and emotional reactions in equal parts. On the subject of the ex-UKIP leader’s comments there were 12 tweets, 4 were public responses to the articles and 3 were emotional reactions. Of the group, 3 were shared positively and 7 were shared negatively, while two were unclear. Finally, for the singular tweet of the opinion category, 5 of 7 were positive shares and 2 were negative. Immigration amnesty had an average of 10.3 quotes per primary tweet, more than the average for the 3 other topics which had averages between 6 and 7 quote tweets per tweet.
40
DISCUSSION
Quote tweets versus other engagements
The fact that the number of quote tweets is not measured in the native metrics of tweets makes them difficult to study alongside specific tweets. With my table (Appendix 1), however, I am able to make some observations about the number of times that tweets are quoted compared to the number of times they are engaged with in other ways. It is evident that a higher number of quote engagements does not necessarily mean a higher number of other engagements (fig. 3). It is intuitive that a tweet with a high number of retweets would have a similarly high number of quote tweets, relative to the standard proportions between the two engagement types. However, the tweets with the highest percentage of engagements being retweets also have some of the lowest percentage of quote tweets. This discrepancy between quote tweets and retweets is interesting because it indicates that the popularity of a tweet to be retweeted, or perhaps ‘shareability’, is not necessarily proportionate between retweet and quote tweet practice (fig. 4). However, it could also be the case that the quote tweet is used simply as an alternative to retweeting or vice versa, and therefore maybe understandable that either one or the other is at the top, but not both.
Sum of engagements by news outlet 400
350
300
250 Sum of Replies 200
Total Sum of Favourites 150 Sum of Retweets 100 Sum of Quotes
50
0 BBC Daily Mail Guardian Independent News outlet
Figure 3
41
Quote tweets also seem to generally be the less favoured option when it comes to engaging with a tweet. The total number of quote tweets in the selection is far less than the total number of favourites, replies or retweets, suggesting perhaps that people prefer to make their comments on Twitter to news information in a less public manner, hence replies, or to spread or endorse the information without making their own comment, hence retweets. However, the sample size in this particular case is small, and perhaps not representative of how users engage with news tweets on Twitter more broadly. While quote tweets are categorised by Twitter as a ‘retweet with comment’, they bear resemblance to replies in that they involve a personal comment in relation to an original tweet. While the tweet with the most replies and with the most quotes is the same, the proportion of these two engagement types is not in accord throughout the list. The highest percentage of quote tweets is met with relatively low numbers of replies in the top three of this particular list order (fig. 4).
Proportion of Engagement Types by Tweet
Guardian 164 100 87 21
BBC 57 96 43 11
BBC 100 72 52 19
Guardian 79 21 65 7
Guardian 45 16 64 13
Guardian 18 14 38 4
Independent 70 12 136 9 Sum of Favourites
Independent 46 12 50 4 Sum of Replies Sum of Retweets Independent 10 11 28 5 Sum of Quotes
Tweet no. and news outlet news no. and Tweet Guardian 12 9 12 6
Independent 12 8 11 6
Guardian 35 5 23 5
Independent 11 2 32 2
41 21 0987654321 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Daily Mail 5 0 1 1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Proportion
Figure 4
42
Quote tweets by category
When it comes to the primary tweet categories, the ex-UKIP leader label contains the highest proportion of quote tweets versus other types of engagement, though not the highest count (fig. 5). This might indicate that the nature of this topic lent itself more to the connotations associated with the quote tweet than to other forms of engagement. As an example, the story about an ex-UKIP leader making a distasteful comment about the immigration status of Grenfell victims might lend itself to being shared, but not being shared in such a way that could be interpreted as an endorsement, or to making a comment on the news story but still directed more towards one’s followers than to the news account directly (that is to say, differences between quote tweets and between retweets and replies). Three out of five of the news tweets relating to fear about the victims’ immigration status were also above average in percentage of quote tweets, perhaps indicating a similar thing. Tweets regarding immigration amnesty were all below average, ranging from 4.3% of the total engagements to 7.8%, indicating that there may have been something to this story that better warranted other kinds of engagement and/or sharing. To understand further how quote tweets may have been used in these instances it will be necessary to explore the various categories I have assigned the secondary tweets.
Sum of Quotes by News Tweet Category
Opinion 7
Immigration amnesty 62
Fear for victims from status 32
Ex-UKIP remark 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total
Figure 5 These secondary categories serve the function of distinguishing various intentions that might have been behind each quote tweet. The nature of the quote tweet is that it is similar to a retweet, but with the addition of commentary, and that it is similar to a reply, but as more of a public display of one’s reply. Categories such as ‘disagreement’ and ‘public response’ are interesting to see for this reason, because they could have come in the form of a reply, but instead were made more public as a quote
43 tweet. In the same vein, categories such as ‘agreement’ and ‘emotional reaction’ could have been expressed in the form of a retweet, but instead they had the addition of personal commentary.
Sum of Tweets by Secondary Category
Response/question 5 Reiteration 2 Quote 5 Public service comment 5 Public response 4 Personal stance 2 Other comment 6 Joke 5 Category Hashtag share 1 Emotional reaction 9 Disagreement 34 Agreement 12 Additional argument 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Total
Figure 6 According to my sample, the most prevalent form of comment in a quote tweet about migration relating to Grenfell was expressions of disagreement with the words of the news sources, 34 times out of 113 (fig. 6). The majority of these, 28, were in relation to stories about the immigration amnesty. This indicates that news stories about an immigration amnesty for Grenfell victims incited feelings of disagreement that were best expressed in quote tweets. This could be because of a desire to share the news article occurring along with a caveat to the users’ followers that this share, as opposed to a retweet, is not an act of endorsement. This could count towards the reason for the relatively few acts of straightforward agreement in my sample; a retweet contains some connotations of agreement in itself, so adding a comment along with the action might be seen as unnecessary.
The second most common act behind these quote tweets was the addition of another argument, which occurred 23 times. In these cases, the user made use of the news tweet as a building block to make their own point. For example, one tweet read: ‘not just migrants, #Britain has failed her religious and ethnic minorities too #GrenfellTower’. These kinds of tweets acted as a public response to the articles of sorts, but used them more in a way to display their own opinion using the quoted tweet as a source of their thinking, as a way of showing an argument that began in the news story and developed into their additional argument. 11 of these kinds of tweets were in response to news stories about the victims’ fear due to their immigration status, and 10 were using news stories about the
44 immigration amnesty. These kinds of quote tweets signify a desire to add a personal voice to a public story, using the public story as a stepping stone from which to voice their own individual opinion.
Positive and negative sharing
Responses to tweets by the Guardian were overall positive with 33 of the secondary tweets, compared to 21 that were negative (fig. 7). This points to a more positive relationship between the Guardian and their Twitter followers, whereby for the most part their tweeted news articles were taken at face value for this issue. The BBC, on the other hand, had a majority of negative shares, indicating on the other hand that their tweets had spread to those who felt more critical towards the news or politics expressed in the articles. This is an interesting comparison given the centre-leaning ethos of the BBC compared to the left-lean of the Guardian. It is possible, therefore, that the Guardian’s tweets are more likely to impress upon people who are also left-leaning, whereas the BBC, given its express lack of political bias, had tweets that impressed upon people of political bias on either side, and thus maybe for this reason invoked more disagreement.
Count of Positive/Negative Tweets by News Outlet 35 30 25 20 BBC
Total 15 Daily Mail 10 Guardian 5 Independent 0 Neg Pos Pos/Neg Positive/Negative
Figure 7 By topic, news articles relating to fear from the victims about their status warranted overwhelmingly positive sharing reactions (fig. 8). From this it can be inferred that the story itself was one that was received in a genuine manner by those who quoted tweets relating to it. In contrast, both tweets about the immigration amnesty and the ex-UKIP leader’s comments spurred a majority of negative sharing reactions. Similarly, this points to the nature of these articles or stories as inciting public criticism from those who came across them on their timelines. Furthermore, given that the
45 immigration amnesty had a higher proportion of quote tweets per total engagements, and was also primarily shared negatively, this may mean that the critical eye inspired by this story was one that fared well with the nature of the quote tweet itself as opposed to the reply. Hence, those critical of the news wished to share their criticism with their followers as well as voice it in response to the news account.
Count of Positive/Negative Tweets by Category 35 30 25 20 Ex-UKIP remark
Total 15 Fear for victims from status 10 Immigration amnesty 5 Opinion 0 Neg Pos Pos/Neg Positive/Negative
Figure 8 The sample of quote tweets overall leaned slightly in favour of number of instances of positive sharing against instances of negative sharing, with 58 positive tweets and 46 negative. This is not to say that the words of 58 tweets were positive, but that 58 of the tweets were an evident use of the function towards an end of spreading a message that had been taken to heart, possibly with the intention of encouraging others to spread the word in the same way. These instances show a way of engaging with news content in a way that is reminiscent of the role of the journalist on Twitter: to spread information about current events around. In this intention being visible in non-journalist users’ Twitter behaviour, there is an element of social responsibility of spreading the word about news. But, this is evident in simple retweets; the fact that these quote tweets are positively shared with the addition of personal comments shows not just a desire to share, but an act of self-involvement in journalistic practice and an integration of journalistic content in one’s own online personal voice.
This addition of personal voice is also true of the quote tweets that negatively shared news content. However, instead of just desiring the tweets to be seen by more people, those shared negatively are taken with a more critical view of news articles or the politics associated with them. Engaging critically with news stories can be seen as part of the development of the audience-journalist relationship. Before the advent of social media, critical news engagement took the form of letters to the editor. Now, however, news may be engaged with critically in the public eye much more easily, and therefore, perhaps, more readily. Through this, debates about journalistic practice or the politics
46 associated with news can happen, arguably leading to a more democratic relationship between the audience and the news they receive.
A crucial limitation to the question of the journalist relationship with their audience is the fact that journalists working at any of the selected news outlets often have their own Twitter accounts rather than solely using the primary accounts, which have been the only ones that I have studied. This means that any reciprocal engagement from the journalist side may still have occurred in relation to tweets sharing and commenting on news tweets. My results seem one-sided, but given the unquantifiable number of journalist Twitter accounts working for the newspapers, the exact amount of reciprocity is not calculable in this study.
Furthermore, the number of quote tweets or other engagements to a news outlet is not necessarily equal across each one that I have queried, given that they may each have different follower counts and varying activity on Twitter, which would lead to more or less activity around them from other users. Therefore, it would be hasty to finalise the number of quote tweets to each tweet I have chosen as being universally representative.
IMPLICATIONS
The use of quote tweets to express oneself according to the various categories I have assigned is interesting in the context of participatory practices on Twitter and on social media more generally. The change in journalistic practice from the ‘one to many’ to the ‘many to many’ model indicates that on social media, the audience has a role and a voice in how the news is spread and received. The fact that much of the audience of the tweets I selected add their own voice in the act of sharing the news shows this change first hand. There is less distance between the journalist and the audience in that they are all operating on the same platform, but also the audience may have more authority, given that the addition of their voice may be the first thing that another user sees in relation to the news content.
On top of this, the audience also may be more openly critical of the news content, which could lead to development of journalistic practice itself, given the closer distance between the journalists and their audience, paired with the increased authority of the audience’s voice due to its place of higher prominence. This plays into the audience’s role as the ‘fifth estate’ (Dutton 2007); with the closing of the gap between professional journalist and unprofessional users, the audience’s use of Twitter functions to be critical of news accounts and content shows an embodiment of this new guarding role. The publicising of user comments and criticism via quote tweet use over reply use further indicates a
47 desire to add their own voice to news. This can be seen as a form of ‘prosuming’, in that they consume the news content but also use it to create their own product in their own tweet.
Twitter’s model is such that followers of a user’s account see their tweets first, and this user does not have to be following them back. Networks of users following each other are connected in such a way that they are interested in reading words of those they follow (Marwick and boyd 2011, 129). Given this implication that people’s words have an impact on their followers (Bruns and Burgess), the fact that my research has shown that the majority of quote tweets expressed a personal opinion or point of disagreement with the original tweets means that it is this kind of sentiment that has an impact on their followers. Along with one of the quote tweet’s arguable functions of sharing, it can be drawn that there is some kind of intention to spread one’s own view as part of the sharing of the news item. This is in line with Marchionni’s view that the ‘dialogue and participation’ model of journalism involves the audience’s voices as collaborative to journalistic practice. Quote tweets are similar to replies but centre the user’s voice by placing the original tweet as a subset of their own; this can be seen as similar to the way that audiences are moving from being ‘receivers’ to being ‘senders’ (Kramp and Loosen 871). Furthermore, quote tweets that add hashtags to news tweets aim to connect topics together, adding to arguments about the audience as ‘networked’ (Kramp and Loosen 871; Marwick and boyd 2011, 129; Loosen and Schmidt; boyd 2010a,b).
Through the critical natures of some of the quote tweets in my sample, it is also visible that the audience behaves to some extent as a watchdog over the press and the political entities they in turn regard, or a ‘fifth estate’ (Dutton 2007). The number of disagreeing comments suggests that audiences are engaging with news outlets in a critical way and thus prompting some level of accountability and transparency from the news organisations in their reporting. Additionally, the emotional reaction in the quote tweet comments shows first hand reactions to news, perhaps contributing to the way that two- way models of news have more ‘soul’ (Stearns). These reactions also challenge arguments about the insincerity of participation on social media given their genuineness; however, it is not possible in this paper to discern the truthfulness or level of emotion behind quote tweeting users. It is possible to argue, however, that the addition of opinions to neutral news content is in accordance with views that human reactions fill out news content and present a broader image of events (Newman).
Related to this is the implications of quote tweets in the context of participatory practices. The act of quote tweeting is a form of participation, and the results of this research show that a large proportion of the commentary in the quote tweets is argumentative or expresses some form of opinion. The case of immigration is a political problem, given that it relates to government policy. Paired with the Grenfell tower as a government project, those expressing arguments around news on the topic are
48 expressing themselves politically. Therefore, according to my sample, quote tweeting is a form of political participation online. As the lines between journalists and audiences blur on social media, it may be expected that political commentary of the users is taken to be part of the news experience itself, rather than a simple personal outburst. In other words, the conversations and commentaries that happen around quote tweeting practices may become central to the way news is received population- wide. I am not able to explore this idea further here, but as engagement from audiences to news is further encouraged and valued by other social media users, it seems intuitive that journalists would themselves value this commentary.
One question that is not fully answered by the quote tweet case study relates to the two-way model of journalistic practice detailed in Chapter II. While audience engagement with journalists can be shown in quote tweet behaviour, the reverse has not been clear, and it is not evident that the news accounts selected reciprocate any contact with the participating users, or other users replying to these tweets rather than quoting. Each of the news accounts chosen had relatively few numbers of favourites, so I was able to perform a cursory look at whether they had engaged with any users on this topic: there was no evidence of this. It is therefore not shown in this particular study that journalists engage with users about topics covered in their own tweets. This could be seen as part of the ‘inclusion distance’ identified by Kramp and Loosen (229), in this case where quote tweeting practices replace replying practices given the lack of response or reciprocity from the journalists. It may be the case, given the tendency of journalists to mirror user use (Marchionni, Kramp and Loosen), on the other hand, that journalists and news organisations begin to quote other tweets as well.
49
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
During my review of existing literature around the topic of audience engagement with news and journalism on Twitter, I separated two parties, the journalists and the audience, and evaluated their theoretical relationship with social media and the changes it has brought. For the journalists, the crucial changes were the increased speed with which information can travel, plurality of voices in the mix and two-way interaction between news providers and news receivers. The findings of my empirical look at quote tweeting practices characterise two out of three of these factors. The plurality of voices is visible in not only the number of users engaging with news tweets, but in the fact that quote tweeting makes the voice of the quote tweeter more prominent than the retweet; therefore, more voices are visible than might have been if the engagement was simply done by retweet or favourite.
The two-way interaction is also visible from quote tweeting practices. Prior to the use of social media, news was put out in a once-a-day package and the primary method of commentary for news audiences were letters to the editor. With social media, however, commentary is far easier, especially when responding or quoting the original news source directly, such as news outlet tweets on Twitter. By quote tweeting in a critical, emotional or otherwise opinionated fashion, as I have identified in my sample, audiences are engaging with news in a vibrant and public way, something that was far less possible in past years. Furthermore, the journalistic aim is to spread information, and this interactivity with news on social media allows a greater picture of events by also including personal reactions. Whether journalists respond back to their quoting audiences is not clear in my research; however, this presents opportunities for future research that takes into account a larger number of news accounts, including journalist personal accounts, and examines the ways that they in turn respond to their audience’s engagement.
Quote tweeting is a participatory practice, and as a relatively new one, carries important aspects that may give an idea of how participatory practices will manifest in the future. The nature of the function is that the user’s voice remains as prominent as it would if it were a normal tweet, but with a secondary tweet embedded within. In this way, the phenomenon carries forth the concept of blurred lines between consumers and producers of news content and commentary: the voice of the user is prominent, and has the potential be taken up by their follower network as trusted and even as part of the news. The large proportion of additional arguments in the quote tweet sample further links the notions of participatory cultures to political participation; I have not been able in this particular paper to explore the levels of genuine political action behind the sampled tweets, but this participation with
50 news and politics visible in my results may have strong implications for social media’s role in political participation in other research. In any case, the outspokenness that some of these argumentative quote tweets show means that political participation is visible on Twitter from audiences to news.
Twitter is useful as a way of both gathering and presenting information, so it has become a popular source of news. As I have shown in the question of quote tweets around news tweets, Twitter users spread news around by quote tweeting. As opposed to replying, this means that they share the tweet as well as add their own commentary. Audience engagement with news is therefore such that Twitter has become a self-driven news information channel, where news organisations share material and audiences pass it on to one another. My results show that beyond this, audiences add their own opinions at the same time as they share. Whether this is for the purpose of spreading neutral information, criticising political actions and ideologies or persuading others of their own opinions is not something I have been able to study here, but since adding an opinion while spreading news clearly occurs, this would be a fascinating area for further study.
As an addition to this, quote tweeting practices give some interesting insight into the various functions of Twitter. Since it is similar to the reply and the retweet, yet still markedly distinct, the particular affordances of the function are crucial to the ways that its use affects journalist-audience relationships. There is an act of sharing, but still a centralising of one’s own voice, and this perhaps gives some signal to how the changes that social media has brought to journalism that I have explored will continue to change as platforms develop.
Though quote tweets are the least popular form of engagement in this sample, their content sheds some light on intentions behind the function, as well as intentions behind news audiences in their relationship with news. Since the most prominent categories the quotes could fall into were additional arguments and disagreements, when regarding quote tweeting practices it is clear that one aspect of audience relationships with journalists is critical and outspoken, whether about the press itself or the government policies behind the stories. Following this relation to journalist dynamics and user participatory practices, I have been able to show that audience engagement and relationships with news is dynamic, opinionated and more visibly reactive than before use of social media. Following evidence from existing literature that audience-journalist relationships are multi-directional and more vocal than in the past, quote tweeting practices portray a tangible example of how this is the case.
51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmad, Irfan. ‘Social Media: A Level Playing Field For Marketing’. Digital Information World, 29 May 2015, https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2015/05/social-media-a-level-playing-field-for- marketing.html.
Al-Rawi, Ahmed. ‘News Organizations 2.0’. Journalism Practice, vol. 11, no. 6, July 2017, pp. 705–20. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/17512786.2016.1195239.
Barnard, Stephen R. ‘“Tweet or Be Sacked”: Twitter and the New Elements of Journalistic Practice’. Journalism, vol. 17, no. 2, Feb. 2016, pp. 190–207. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/1464884914553079.
Barthel, Michael, et al. ‘The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook’. Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project, 14 July 2015, http://www.journalism.org/2015/07/14/the-evolving-role-of-news- on-twitter-and-facebook/.
Borra, Erik, and Bernhard Rieder. ‘Programmed Method: Developing a Toolset for Capturing and Analyzing Tweets’. Aslib Journal of Information Management, vol. 66, no. 3, 2014, pp. 262–78, doi:10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0094.
Bosker, Bianca. ‘What Do We Retweet--And Why?’ Huffington Post, 16 Dec. 2010. Huff Post, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/what-do-we-retweetand-why_n_797369.html.
Boulianne, Shelley. ‘Social Media Use and Participation: A Meta-Analysis of Current Research’. Information, Communication & Society, vol. 18, no. 5, May 2015, pp. 524–38. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542. boyd, danah. ‘Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications’. A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, Jan. 2010.
---. ‘Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information through Social Media’. Educause Review, vol. 45, no. 5, Oct. 2010, pp. 26–36. boyd, danah et al. ‘Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter’. 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2010, pp. 1–10. IEEE Xplore, doi:10.1109/HICSS.2010.412.
Bruns, Axel. ‘Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage.’ Digital Formations, vol. 45, Peter Lang, 2008.
Bruns, Axel, and Jean E. Burgess. ‘The Use of Twitter Hashtags in the Formation of Ad Hoc Publics’. Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2011, 2011. eprints.qut.edu.au, http://www.ecprnet.eu/conferences/general_conference/reykjavik/.
52
Burns, Alex, and Ben Eltham. Twitter Free Iran: An Evaluation of Twitter’s Role in Public Diplomacy and Information Operations in Iran’s 2009 Election Crisis. 2009, pp. 322–34. vuir.vu.edu.au, http://networkinsight.org/verve/_resources/Burns_Eltham_file.pdf.
Castells, Manuel. Communication Power. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Cha, Meeyoung, et al. ‘Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy’. Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, p. 8.
Collins, Luke, and Brigitte Nerlich. ‘Examining User Comments for Deliberative Democracy: A Corpus-Driven Analysis of the Climate Change Debate Online’. Environmental Communication, vol. 9, no. 2, 2015, pp. 189–207.
Domingo, David, et al. ‘Participatory Journalism Practices in the Media and Beyond’. Journalism Practice, vol. 2, no. 3, Oct. 2008, pp. 326–42. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/17512780802281065.
Dutton, William H. ‘Through the Network of Networks - The Fifth Estate’. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2007. Crossref, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1134502.
Galloni, Alessandra. Restoring Trust in News. https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/restoring-trust-news. Accessed 1 May 2018.
Garimella, Kiran, et al. ‘Quote RTs on Twitter: Usage of the New Feature for Political Discourse’. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science, ACM, 2016, pp. 200–204. ACM Digital Library, doi:10.1145/2908131.2908170.
Gentleman, Amelia. ‘Grenfell Tower Survivors “too Scared to Seek Help” Because of Immigration Status’. The Guardian, 22 June 2017. www.theguardian.com, http://www.theguardian.com/uk- news/2017/jun/22/grenfell-tower-survivors-too-scared-to-seek-help-because-of-immigration-status.
Gruber, Daniel A., et al. ‘The Real-Time Power of Twitter: Crisis Management and Leadership in an Age of Social Media’. Business Horizons, vol. 58, no. 2, Mar. 2015, pp. 163–72. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.006.
Hermida, Alfred, et al. ‘Share, Like, Recommend’. Journalism Studies, vol. 13, no. 5–6, Oct. 2012, pp. 815– 24. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/1461670X.2012.664430.
---. ‘TWEETS AND TRUTH: Journalism as a Discipline of Collaborative Verification’. Journalism Practice, vol. 6, no. 5–6, Oct. 2012, pp. 659–68. Crossref, doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.667269.
---. ‘Twittering the News: The Emergence of Ambient Journalism’. Journalism Practice, vol. 4, no. 3, 2010, pp. 297–308.
Hiam, Lucinda. ‘Grenfell Survivors Shouldn’t Be Afraid to Go to Hospital’. BMJ, vol. 358, July 2017, p. j3292. www.bmj.com, doi:10.1136/bmj.j3292.
53
Honeycutt, Courtenay, and Susan C. Herring. ‘Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter’. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42), IEEE Press, 2009, pp. 1–10. Crossref, doi:10.1109/HICSS.2009.89.
Jahng, Mi Rosie, and Jeremy Littau. ‘Interacting Is Believing: Interactivity, Social Cue, and Perceptions of Journalistic Credibility on Twitter’. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 93, no. 1, Mar. 2016, pp. 38–58. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/1077699015606680.
Jansen, Bernard J., et al. ‘Twitter Power: Tweets as Electronic Word of Mouth’. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 60, no. 11, Nov. 2009, pp. 2169–88. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1002/asi.21149.
Jenkins, H. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. NYU Press, 2006, https://books.google.nl/books?id=-gcLB-7FkBQC.
Jenkins, Henry, et al. Participatory Culture in a Networked Era: A Conversation on Youth, Learning, Commerce, and Politics. Wiley, 2015, https://books.google.nl/books?id=AHfiCgAAQBAJ.
---. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. 2005.
Keen, Andrew. The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture. 1st ed, Doubleday/Currency, 2007.
Kligler-Vilenchik, Neta, and Kjerstin Thorson. ‘Good Citizenship as a Frame Contest: Kony2012, Memes, and Critiques of the Networked Citizen’. New Media & Society, vol. 18, no. 9, Oct. 2016, pp. 1993–2011. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/1461444815575311.
Knoll, Johannes, et al. ‘The Social Media Political Participation Model: A Goal Systems Theory Perspective’. Convergence, Jan. 2018, p. 1354856517750366. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/1354856517750366.
Kramp, Leif, and Wiebke Loosen. ‘The Transformation of Journalism: From Changing Newsroom Cultures to a New Communicative Orientation?’ Communicative Figurations, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018, pp. 205–39. link.springer.com, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65584-0_9.
Kwak, Haewoon, et al. What Is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media? ACM Press, 2010, p. 591. Crossref, doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751.
Lee-Wright, Peter, et al. Changing Journalism. Routledge, 2011.
Littman, Justin. ‘On Retweets, Replies, Quotes & Favorites: A Guide for Researchers’. Social Feed Manager, 10 Nov. 2016, https://gwu-libraries.github.io/sfm-ui/posts/2016-11-10-twitter-interaction.
Loader, Brian D., et al. ‘The Networked Young Citizen: Social Media, Political Participation and Civic Engagement’. Information, Communication & Society, vol. 17, no. 2, Feb. 2014, pp. 143–50. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.871571.
Loader, Brian D., and Dan Mercea. ‘Networking Democracy?’ Information, Communication & Society, vol. 14, no. 6, Sept. 2011, pp. 757–69. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.592648.
54
Looi, Bethany. ‘How To Retweet On Twitter: Retweet or Quote Retweet?’ Bethany Looi, http://bethanylooi.com/how-to-retweet-on-twitter. Accessed 18 May 2018.
Loosen, Wiebke, and Jan-Hinrik Schmidt. ‘(Re-)Discovering the Audience’. Information, Communication & Society, vol. 15, no. 6, Aug. 2012, pp. 867–87. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.665467.
Maher, Heather. ‘Examining The Impact Of New Media On Authoritarian Regimes’. RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, 24 Oct. 2009, https://www.rferl.org/a/Twittering_The_Tyrants_New_Medias_Role_In_Authoritarian_Regimes/1860 083.html.
Manjoo, Farhad. ‘For Twitter, Future Means Here and Now’. The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2017. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/business/for-twitter-future-means-here-and- now.html.
Marchionni, Doreen. ‘Journalism-as-a-Conversation: A Concept Explication’. Communication Theory, vol. 23, no. 2, Mar. 2013, pp. 131–47. onlinelibrary.wiley.com (Atypon), doi:10.1111/comt.12007.
---. ‘Online Story Commenting’. Journalism Practice, vol. 9, no. 2, Mar. 2015, pp. 230–49. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/17512786.2014.938943.
Marwick, Alice E., and danah boyd. ‘I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience’. New Media & Society, vol. 13, no. 1, Feb. 2011, pp. 114–33. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/1461444810365313.
Miller, C. ‘#bbcsms: Changing Journalists’ Social Media Mindset. BBC College of Journalism Blog, 11 May.’ BBC College of Journalism Blog, 11 May 2011.
Morozov, Evgeny. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. Perseus Books, 2011.
Mustafaraj, Eni, and Panagiotis Takis Metaxas. ‘What Edited Retweets Reveal About Online Political Discourse’. Proceedings of the 5th AAAI Conference on Analyzing Microtext, AAAI Press, 2011, pp. 38– 43. ACM Digital Library, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2908630.2908637.
Newman, Nic. ‘The Rise of Social Media and Its Impact on Mainstream Journalism’. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Sept. 2009.
Newman, Nic, et al. ‘Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017’. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017. Crossref, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2619576.
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis, and Kim Christian Schrøder. ‘The Relative Importance of Social Media for Accessing, Finding, and Engaging with News’. Digital Journalism, vol. 2, no. 4, Oct. 2014, pp. 472–89. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/21670811.2013.872420.
Nissenbaum, Helen. ‘A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online’. Daedalus, vol. 140, no. 4, Sept. 2011, pp. 32–48. mitpressjournals.org (Atypon), doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00113.
55
Noriega, Margarita. ‘Why We Retweet’. The Daily Dot, 27 Apr. 2014, http://margafret.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/these-tiny-gutenbergs-part-two/.
NowThis. How The 21st Century Changed Journalism. 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmFlKKOKenw.
Parisi, Peter. ‘Toward a “Philosophy of Framing”: News Narratives for Public Journalism’. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 74, no. 4, Dec. 1997, pp. 673–86. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/107769909707400402.
PBS Digital Studios. The Impact of Twitter on Journalism. 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl9xI- kAE8A.
Pew Research Center. ‘Social Media Fact Sheet’. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, 5 Feb. 2018, http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/.
Rambukkana, Nathan. ‘Hashtags as Technosocial Events’. Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks, Lang, Peter, 2015, pp. 1–10. www.academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/24492180/Hashtags_as_Technosocial_Events.
Rawlinson, Kevin, et al. ‘Grenfell Tower Final Death Toll: Police Say 71 Lives Lost as Result of Fire’. The Guardian, 16 Nov. 2017. www.theguardian.com, http://www.theguardian.com/uk- news/2017/nov/16/grenfell-tower-final-death-toll-police-say-71-people-died-in-fire.
Raymond, Matt. How Tweet It Is!: Library Acquires Entire Twitter Archive | Library of Congress Blog. 14 Apr. 2010, doi://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/how-tweet-it-is-library-acquires-entire-twitter-archive/.
Rogers, Richard. ‘Debanalizing Twitter: The Transformation of an Object of Study’. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Web Science Conference, WebSci 2013, 2013.
---. Twitter as Object of Study: De-Banalizing Tweets (Three Ways), Rather than Debunking Their Role in the Revolution. Digital Methods Initiative, 2017.
Rosenstiel, Tom, et al. ‘Twitter and News: How People Use Twitter to Get News’. American Press Institute, 1 Sept. 2015, https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/how- people-use-twitter-news/.
Rotman, Dana, et al. From Slacktivism to Activism: Participatory Culture in the Age of Social Media. ACM Press, 2011, p. 819. Crossref, doi:10.1145/1979742.1979543.
Rushkoff, Douglas. ‘You Are Not Facebook’s Customer’. Rushkoff, 26 Sept. 2011, http://www.rushkoff.com/you-are-not-facebooks-customer/.
Sarno, David. ‘Twitter Creator Jack Dorsey Illuminates the Site’s Founding Document. Part II’. Los Angeles Times, 19 Feb. 2009.
56
Schultz, Friederike, et al. ‘Is the Medium the Message? Perceptions of and Reactions to Crisis Communication via Twitter, Blogs and Traditional Media’. Public Relations Review, vol. 37, no. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 20–27. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001.
Seward, Zachary M. ‘The First-Ever Hashtag, @-Reply and Retweet, as Twitter Users Invented Them’. Quartz, 15 Oct. 2013, https://qz.com/135149/the-first-ever-hashtag-reply-and-retweet-as-twitter- users-invented-them/.
Sharma, Abhinav. ‘Why Twitter Is Still The Best Place For Breaking News Despite Its Many Challenges’. Forbes, 10 Jan. 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/10/why-twitter-is-still-the-best- place-for-breaking-news-despite-its-many-challenges/.
Shearer, Elisa, and Jeffrey Gottfried. ‘News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017’. Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project, 7 Sept. 2017, http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social- media-platforms-2017/.
Shirky, Clay. How Social Media Can Make History. http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html/.
Skoric, Marko M., et al. ‘Social Media and Citizen Engagement: A Meta-Analytic Review’. New Media & Society, vol. 18, no. 9, Oct. 2016, pp. 1817–39. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/1461444815616221.
Smith, Matthew. ‘How Left or Right-Wing Are the UK’s Newspapers?’ YouGov, 7 Mar. 2017, //yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers/.
Solon, Olivia. ‘You Are Facebook’s Product, Not Customer’. Wired, 21 Sept. 2011, http://www.wired.co.uk/article/doug-rushkoff-hello-etsy.
Sørensen, Mads P. ‘Political Conversations on Facebook – the Participation of Politicians and Citizens’. Media, Culture & Society, vol. 38, no. 5, July 2016, pp. 664–85. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/0163443715620924.
Stassen, Wilma. ‘Your News in 140 Characters: Exploring the Role of Social Media in Journalism’. Global Media Journal: African Edition, vol. 4, no. 1, Aug. 2011. globalmedia.journals.ac.za, doi:10.5789/4-1- 15.
Stearns, Josh. ‘From Chat Apps to Town Halls: Why More Newsrooms Are Designing Journalism for Conversation’. Medium, 22 Feb. 2016, https://medium.com/the-local-news-lab/from-chat-apps-to- town-halls-why-more-newsrooms-are-designing-journalism-for-conversation-c9ddf384f070.
Stelter, Brian. ‘Twitter Feed Evolves Into a News Wire About Egypt’. Media Decoder Blog, 13 Feb. 2011, https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/twitter-feed-evolves-into-a-news-wire-about- egypt/.
Stone, Biz. ‘Tweet Preservation’. Twitter Blog, 14 Apr. 2010, https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2010/tweet-preservation.html.
57
Twitter. ‘Say More with Revamped Quote Tweet! Rolling out on IPhone and Web, Coming Soon to Android. Https://Support.Twitter.Com/Articles/20169873 …pic.Twitter.Com/FioAPPi0nW’. @twitter, 7 Apr. 2015, https://twitter.com/twitter/status/585225218093932544.
Twitter Help Center. About Verified Accounts. https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about- twitter-verified-accounts. Accessed 23 Apr. 2018.
---. ‘How to Retweet’. Twitter, https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/how-to-retweet. Accessed 25 May 2018.
Vis, Farida. ‘Twitter as a Reporting Tool for Breaking News’. Digital Journalism, vol. 1, no. 1, Feb. 2013, pp. 27–47. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/21670811.2012.741316.
Vosoughi, Soroush, et al. ‘The Spread of True and False News Online’. Science, vol. 359, no. 6380, Mar. 2018, pp. 1146–51. science.sciencemag.org, doi:10.1126/science.aap9559.
Wahab, Fatima. ‘How To Find Quote Retweets Of A Tweet’. AddictiveTips, 3 Apr. 2018, https://www.addictivetips.com/web/find-quote-retweets-of-a-tweet/.
Wasike, Ben S. ‘Framing News in 140 Characters: How Social Media Editors Frame the News and Interact with Audiences via Twitter’. Global Media Journal, Canadian Ed.; Ottawa, vol. 6, no. 1, 2013, p. 5.
Wien, Charlotte. ‘Defining Objectivity within Journalism’. Nordicom Review, vol. 26, no. 2, Jan. 2005. Crossref, doi:10.1515/nor-2017-0255.
Witschge, Tamara. ‘Changing Audiences, Changing Journalism?’ Changing Journalism, edited by Peter Lee- Wright et al., Routledge, 2012, pp. 117–34.
Yaschur, Carolyn. ‘Friends Who Choose Your News: An Analysis of Content Links on Facebook’. International …, vol. ISOJ: The Official Research Journal of International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX. Vol. 1. No. 2. 2011. www.academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/1369544/Friends_Who_Choose_Your_News_An_analysis_of_content_lin ks_on_Facebook. Accessed 31 Jan. 2018.
Zimmer, Michael. Is It Ethical to Harvest Public Twitter Accounts without Consent? 12 Feb. 2010, https://www.michaelzimmer.org/2010/02/12/is-it-ethical-to-harvest-public-twitter-accounts-without- consent/.
58
APPENDIX
1. Primary Tweet Data
QT% of Reply% RT% of Fav% of JN News site Tweet Link Replies Retweets Favourites Quotes Total total of total total total Category
twitter.com/guar dian/status/8863 Grenfell Tower survivors ‘must 1607221909504 Immigration
1 Guardian have total immigration amnesty’ 0 100 87 164 21 372 5.65% 26.88% 23.39% 44.09% amnesty
twitter.com/BBC News/status/882 Immigration 'amnesty' for 6502579302850 Immigration
2 BBC Grenfell fire residents 57 96 43 57 11 207 5.31% 46.38% 20.77% 27.54% amnesty
twitter.com/BBC Grenfell fire: One year News/status/918 immigration amnesty can 1331942638018 Immigration
3 BBC become permanent 58 72 52 100 19 243 7.82% 29.63% 21.40% 41.15% amnesty
twitter.com/guar Grenfell shows just how Britain dian/status/8756 fails migrants | Nesrine Malik 9490332554444
4 Guardian http://trib.al/i6oLIX9 9 21 65 79 7 172 4.07% 12.21% 37.79% 45.93% Opinion
twitter.com/guar Grenfell Tower survivors 'too dian/status/8779 scared to seek help' because of 2554956549734 Fear for victims
5 Guardian immigration status 4 16 64 45 13 138 9.42% 11.59% 46.38% 32.61% from status
twitter.com/guar May says Grenfell Tower dian/status/8778 survivors will not be subject to 1024283005747 Immigration
6 Guardian immigration checks - Politics live 2 14 38 18 4 74 5.41% 18.92% 51.35% 24.32% amnesty
Fears more Grenfell Tower victims unaccounted for because twitter.com/Inde immigration status meant they pendent/status/8 'officially didn't exist' 7689434902346 Fear for victims
7 Independent http://ind.pn/2sthf0n 9568 12 136 70 9 227 3.96% 5.29% 59.91% 30.84% from status
twitter.com/Inde Grenfell Tower residents 'afraid pendent/status/8 to seek help' because of 7698113423575 Fear for victims
8 Independent immigration status 8592 12 50 46 4 112 3.57% 10.71% 44.64% 41.07% from status
Home Office admits Grenfell twitter.com/Inde victims aren't coming forward to pendent/status/9 claim so-called immigration 0368601549960 Fear for victims
9 Independent amnesty 8065 11 28 10 5 54 9.26% 20.37% 51.85% 18.52% from status
twitter.com/guar Girlfriend of ex-Ukip leader dian/status/9666 defends Grenfell immigrants 5125922167603
10 Guardian remark trib.al/QzWgbBR 4 9 12 12 6 39 15.38% 23.08% 30.77% 30.77% Ex-UKIP remark
twitter.com/Inde Ex-UKIP leader's girlfriend pendent/status/9 defends calling Grenfell Tower 6673252056916
11 Independent 'nest of illegal immigrants' 3777 8 11 12 6 37 16.22% 21.62% 29.73% 32.43% Ex-UKIP remark
twitter.com/guar Grenfell: 12-month immigration dian/status/8825 amnesty for survivors 9596378490060 Immigration
12 Guardian announced 9 5 23 35 5 68 7.35% 7.35% 33.82% 51.47% amnesty
twitter.com/Inde The Government's immigration pendent/status/8 amnesty for Grenfell survivors is 8445879387414 Immigration
13 Independent 'a trap', says human rights group 1184 2 32 11 2 47 4.26% 4.26% 68.09% 23.40% amnesty
twitter.com/Daily MailUK/status/8 Judge fears immigration issues 9743321151671 Fear for victims
14 Daily Mail could hamper Grenfell Inquiry 9104 0 1 5 1 7 14.29% 0.00% 14.29% 71.43% from status
59
2. Secondary Tweet Data
Tweet Primary No. Category Pos/Neg category
Tick, Tock.. Coming at you, mysterious tower block fires. 100 flats 600 residents.. Aye Immigration 1 Other comment Pos/Neg amnesty
BTW we've got like 10 or more Grenfell Towers. Which one are we talking about? Immigration 1 Response/question Pos/Neg amnesty
Undocumented people die everyday in Britain. They inhabit serf/dark economy nothing said. Their burial places Immigration 1 unknown. Unplug this avenue. Additional argument Pos amnesty
#GrenfellTower not immigration matter but criminal failing of British State to keep people safe. State corruption Immigration 1 sting will not be drawn. Additional argument Pos amnesty
Scruples aside(subletting council property,jumping housing waitlists by dubious declarations of homelessness Immigration 1 not acceptable)may be useful Additional argument Pos amnesty
That typically meets our defence and our diplomacygates. For such questions:-) Army. Immigration 1 Additional argument Pos amnesty
It's the least the UK government can do but western governments are increasingly inhumane. Immigration 1 Agreement Pos amnesty
Government faces calls to grant #GrenfellTower survivors total immigration Immigration 1 Reiteration Pos amnesty
What a load of bollocks! Immigration 1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
Why? Immigration 1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
I know I'm going to regret saying this, but I'm not following the logic here. Immigration 1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
If the Cunts are here illegally they have no rights ?!! Immigration 1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
No doubt @lilyallen will agree - temporary amnesty yes but total absolutely not. Sends a completely wrong msg Immigration 1 out for more illegals Disagreement Neg amnesty
Would be funny, if not dangerously illogical, and symptomatic of this liberal, globalist world cabal and MSM Immigration 1 lackeys Disagreement Neg amnesty
Hard to believe the utter crap of the Guardian Immigration 1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
Not sure I agree with that. Immigration 1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
If we are picking which laws to obey, I fell off my bike recently so do I still have to pay my tax bill that is due t the Immigration 1 end of the month. Disagreement Neg amnesty
Fuck that Immigration 1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
Its getting insane! It says that many "undocumented" immigrants will get a free pass.. pretty sure they need to be Immigration 1 deported! Illegals! Disagreement Neg amnesty
Why? If you are not living legally then why should honest taxpayer should bare their cost. Immigration 1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
No! Immigration 1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 2 It will useful to know if the original tenants making money out of subsequent subletting? Response/question Pos/Neg amnesty
It's a start. Hopefully it comes with full support and provision for PTSD therapy in first language due to the added Immigration 2 trauma. Agreement Pos amnesty
Public service Immigration 2 Never. Read. The. Comments. comment Pos amnesty
Public service Immigration 2 Be careful. Comments below almost entirely from White male bigots comment Pos amnesty
Ridiculous, selective law. Watch more tenements go up in flames now when some illegals realise that it's their Immigration 2 way in... Disagreement Neg amnesty
This is fantastic news that any and all ILLEGAL immigrants are given an amnesty without ANY checks. That's Immigration 2 how SECURITY is done right! Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 2 You just knew it would start in 3...2...1 Disagreement Neg amnesty
As an English woman born and bred, worked for 40 years and paid my taxes, please can you tell me WHY? Immigration 2 @theresa_may Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 2 You only need an amnesty if the number breaking the rule is massive....total joke Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 2 WHY ???? if they are here illegally they are here illegally whatever the circumstances Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 2 Don't get this. How r the 2 issues even related? Response/question Neg amnesty
60
Immigration 3 Please don't sue us. Joke Pos/Neg amnesty
Immigration 3 To the comments! Joke Pos/Neg amnesty
Immigration 3 If I was an illegal I’d be torching my tower block tonight Joke Pos/Neg amnesty
Immigration 3 The replies to this towards a group of people who nearly burnt to death is sickening and imhumane. Additional argument Pos amnesty
Immigration 3 State of the replies on this. Didn't take long for victims of capitalism to be known as scroungers and criminals Additional argument Pos amnesty
To the proud English xenophobes in this thread; CHILDREN Died in that fire. If You and your vile opinion is what Immigration 3 England is now,ROT IN HELL Additional argument Pos amnesty
Immigration 3 The effort and care they're putting forth for the people is commendable. Agreement Pos amnesty
The responses to this tweet are…well…wow. If you want to bear witness to the politics of hate, fear, and Public service Immigration 3 ignorance, check it out. comment Pos amnesty
I still don't think that being in a tragedy, however terrible, should make you above the law. This sets a very bad Immigration 3 precedent. #GrenfellTower Disagreement Neg amnesty
@BBCNews Weak country that promotes illegal scrounges to cripple our country for our children’s future. Kick Immigration 3 them all out!! Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 3 Just gets weirder this whole affair ... Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 3 ..Lead story on Sky news in 12 months !!! .. ‘Grenfell fire illegal immigrant in Isis attack’ .. remember this tweet! Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 3 Who would have thought the Tories would do something like this? They really do want to be voted out of power Disagreement Neg amnesty
I would be happy to swap them, their relatives and even bogus claimants for the nasty people on here who don't Immigration 3 see why we should do this. Disagreement Neg amnesty
Now that Grenfell Tower fire survivors have been granted permanent UK residency, you watch a load more Immigration 3 tower blocks go up in flames Disagreement Neg amnesty
Well @KTHopkins that's set a precedence for illegal immigrants...buy a fridge on eBay, burn down your home Immigration 3 and get your permanent residency. Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 3 #ffs Disagreement Neg amnesty
Immigration 3 You've nowhere to live but you're now allowed to live there. How magnanimous. Other comment Neg amnesty
Immigration 3 How did illegal inmigrants get tenancies ? Response/question Neg amnesty
4 not just migrants, #Britain has failed her religious and ethnic minorities too #GrenfellTower Additional argument Pos Opinion
4 This needed to be said. I am glad it has been. Agreement Pos Opinion
"In Britain we talk about immigration in sanitised ways. In numbers, in terms of what migrants contribute and take 4 out of the system" Quote Pos Opinion
"On the north Kensington streets, the truth of multicultural London is apparent – there is no cheaper life than that 4 of a poor refugee..." Quote Pos Opinion
4 "If life is cheap, there is no cheaper life than that of a poor migrant." Quote Pos Opinion
4 Should I even touch this article?? Disagreement Neg Opinion
4 So easy to be on a island no ? Other comment Neg Opinion Fear for Many people seeking asylum too scared to complain about poor council treatment or report racism. Some proof victims from 5 their fears are substantiated Additional argument Pos status Fear for Human rights should be the focus for all victims. The law should empower us and protect us. All of us! victims from 5 Regardless of "status" Additional argument Pos status Fear for victims from 5 The tories are perfidious miscreants and some may be going to jail soon. Additional argument Pos status Fear for DEHUMANISED - that's the word. well that's helped with your fuckin' numbers May, hope you're proud of victims from 5 yourself and your GO HOME Vans? Additional argument Pos status Fear for Always thought this might be a subtext to the aftermath. A genuine test of compassion & tolerance. They're all victims from 5 people in crisis ffsake. Agreement Pos status Fear for And many of those 'officially' non-existent Grenfell Tower victims (who survived) are now 'too scared to seek victims from 5 help' Agreement Pos status Fear for What an outrage, first almost burned to death, possibly mourning relatives and friends, on top of that worrying victims from 5 whether or not you can stay. Agreement Pos status
61
Fear for victims from 5 I suspected this would be the case. Prob alot of sublets etc... Agreement Pos status Fear for victims from 5 More and more awful Emotional reaction Pos status Fear for victims from 5 Terrible Emotional reaction Pos status Fear for victims from 5 too scared to seek help' because of immigration status Quote Pos status Fear for victims from 5 if they are illegal immigrants they shouldn't be here. Disagreement Neg status Fear for victims from 5 that's how the system works for everyone. when in Rome.... Other comment Neg status
Immigration 6 Thread. May's form shows she can't be trusted on migration Additional argument Pos amnesty
What a compassionate Govt. Families burnt to death & Tories make a virtue out of not criminalising victims. Immigration 6 #GrenfellTowerFire Additional argument Pos amnesty
Immigration 6 #GrenfellTower Hashtag share Pos amnesty
Immigration 6 Wtf? Much inspiration for arson attacks on own homes by illegal immigrants #GrenfellTower Disagreement Neg amnesty Fear for victims from 7 Hmmmm Other comment Pos/Neg status Fear for The great&good, celebrities, reporters & hangers on r going leaving homeless 2 rot. WHY SHOULD IT HAVE victims from 7 BEEN ANY DIFFERENT THIS TIME Additional argument Pos status Fear for victims from 7 No surprise there Agreement Pos status Fear for victims from 7 this is just terrible. Emotional reaction Pos status Fear for victims from 7 #GrenfellTower terrible loss of life, Emotional reaction Pos status Fear for victims from 7 "Officially don't exist" digest that. Quote Pos status Fear for victims from 7 This is scary stuff... Numbers undoubtedly much higher than being published. Will the truth out? Response/question Pos status Fear for Why should ppl living in uk illegally be given amnesty to then receive State aid from ppl living,working & paying victims from 7 tax in the country legally Disagreement Neg status Fear for victims from 7 Really you do not count everyone Other comment Neg status Fear for Immigration defines as: 'Where did you choose to be born'? Chose wrong? No Entry. No more borders. One victims from 8 world. Additional argument Pos status Fear for victims from 8 Emotional reaction Pos status Fear for Met police have given their word no action will be taken....refugee amnesty ....go to @NorthKenLC Public service victims from 8 ....#refugeeweek comment Pos status Fear for Tragic fire does not change the fact they have absolutely no rights to be in this country. Give them counseling & victims from 8 deport them. Disagreement Neg status Fear for Given that the incompetent, shambolic Home Office is sending deportation letters to people born here you can victims from 9 understand their reticence. Additional argument Pos status Fear for Well DUH! Come forward and we'll send you back to the decimated, poverty-stricken war zones you call home victims from 9 after you escaped with your lives. Additional argument Pos status Fear for A '12-month period of limited leave to remain in the UK' Pretty disingenuous of the Home Office to call it an victims from 9 amnesty. (1/3) Additional argument Pos status Fear for It's almost as if we've allowed a culture of suspicion, scapegoating and exclusion to arise such as immigrants no victims from 9 longer trust the state… Additional argument Pos status Fear for victims from 9 Shameful treatment of survivors and their loved ones Personal stance Pos status look i don’t want to make this purely physical…actually yes i do. UKIP hold themselves up as real britons and all that shit, but if being a real briton means having a small bird’s nest stuck to your head then we might need to Ex-UKIP 10 reassess things https://twitter.com/guardian/status/966651259221676034 … Additional argument Pos remark
62
Ex-UKIP 10 Repellent #ukip couple Emotional reaction Pos remark
Ex-UKIP 10 Immigrant fetish. Plain and simple. Public response Pos remark
Ex-UKIP 10 Who even cares? Ugh. Emotional reaction Neg remark
Ex-UKIP 10 Racist defends being racist, in shocker of a headline. Joke Neg remark
Some please explain to me why a failed leader of a failed political party is getting so much TV time. @JagM_85 Ex-UKIP 10 fancy a go? Personal stance Neg remark
Ex-UKIP 11 #FFS Emotional reaction Pos/Neg remark
Ex-UKIP 11 One hopes that’ll be the last time #JoMarney gets media training from @KTHopkins Joke Pos/Neg remark
Wo man hinschaut, menschenverachtende Rassisten. Für Zeitgenossen, die sich noch etwas Humanismus Ex-UKIP 11 bewahrt haben, wird es Zeit, bewusst auf Distanz zu gehen. Disagreement Neg remark
Ex-UKIP 11 I don't know who she is, I don't even know the ex-UKIP leader. Why are you printing and publishing this? Public response Neg remark
Ex-UKIP 11 STOP PLATFORMING THESE RACIST WHITE PEOPLE Public response Neg remark
Why are we giving these people a platform? Not even read the article but can guess she was on some sort of Ex-UKIP 11 shitty breakfast radio show or something Public response Neg remark
Immigration 12 As Diane Abbott points out, this should be indefinite, not restricted to 12 months. Additional argument Pos amnesty
Immigration 12 Says it all. Agreement Pos amnesty
Immigration 12 Bon prince... quelle générosité ! Agreement Pos amnesty
Very very welcome news indeed #amnesty on #Immigration for #Grenfell #GrenfellTowerFire survivors. Immigration 12 @ukhomeoffice #LondonIsOpen Agreement Pos amnesty
New govt guidance issued following announcement re temporary leave for residents of Grenfell Tower & Grenfell Public service Immigration 12 Walk https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11507/ … comment Pos amnesty
Immigration 13 Disgraceful. Another u turn by this wicked witch of Westminster. Emotional reaction Pos amnesty
Government’s 12-month #immigration amnesty offered to #GrenfellTower survivors is a 'trap' to collect their data, Immigration 13 warns Liberty Reiteration Pos amnesty Fear for Well there is more than one crime here all the tenants who sub let.council for allowing it,immigration service for victims from 14 not deporting illegals. Additional argument Pos status
63