Signed: Cortney Copeland. 9/1/2012.

Copeland 1

Hypermedia space in the Occupy movement: A sociological analysis of new media, its uses, and

its implications for the news industry

“Crowd chanting ‘media stay’.”

On December 4th, 2011, an individual tweeted this update as police asked reporters to

move away from the front lines of a standoff with Occupy DC protesters camped in a public

square (twitter.com/#!/search/OccupyDC 2011)1. This single act distils some of the most

significant current questions about media, technology, and society into less than a few seconds

and 140 characters. Perhaps the most central and contentious question is whether new media will

render established media industries obsolete, ushering in a more democratic media, or instead

will only be taken over by existing power structures.

The Occupy movement that swept across the US and the world in the latter part of 2011

was born with a Twitter presence. The social networking website allows users to post and receive

“tweets” of 140 characters or less from a variety of devices including computers and mobile

phones. Mobile devices, live online video streams, and websites like YouTube and Twitter have

been extremely important in coverage of the Occupy movement, making the communication

surrounding it a prime example of what Kraidy and Mourad (2010) call “hypermedia space”.

Yet even as people use technology to bypass traditional media channels, protesters and citizen

journalists alike acknowledge the established news media’s significance. Sweeping claims that

new media will either disintegrate existing media industry structure or be tamed by it are

necessarily complicated when a tweet comes to the defence of television camera crews, revealing

the need for a new kind of discourse. Such a discourse must “explicate and theorize the ways in

which a variety of ‘new’ and ‘old’ media connect to each other, rather than celebrating the rise of

new media or lamenting the decline of the old” (Kraidy & Mourad 2010, p. 13). This discourse

finds a firm basis in sociology. Taking the Occupy movement as a case study, this paper assesses

the relationship between new and established media through the application of a sociological

model proposed by Croteau and Hoynes (1997). Viewed from this perspective, the use of media

1 As social media is an emerging field, there are currently no published standards for citation. Furthermore, tweets and video streams quoted in this paper may no longer be accessible due to the fact that these media are naturally live and are not automatically archived or stored. The author recommends to any researching in this area that they self-archive all data as it may be difficult to reference later. Some citations in this paper are based on author observation of media that can no longer be accessed. In these cases, as much reference information as possible has been given.

Copeland 2

in the Occupy movement reveals the constructive potential of Kraidy and Mourad’s view of

hypermedia space as the integration of new and old media structures, as opposed to the battling

theories in which one must dominate the other. Furthermore, application of the sociological

model demonstrates both the usefulness of such a model, and the updates and improvements that

can be made to it.

A sociological approach: Balancing technological determinism with social shaping

The sociological framework modelled by Croteau and Hoynes (1997) integrates and

balances the conflicting theories that gave rise to the dichotomous debate criticised by Kraidy

and Mourad. Present questions of whether professional news and journalism will become

obsolete at the hands of democratised new media or co-opt its potential echoes the decades-old

core debate between technological determinism and social shaping theories. Technological

determinism, espoused by scholars such as Marshall MacLuhan and Nicholas Negroponte,

assumes that technology is a fairly autonomous force that inevitably impacts society. Both

MacLuhan and Negroponte have provided predictions about the way new media technologies

will radically alter or even eradicate existing social structures. For instance, MacLuhan

envisioned electronic media leading to “tribal-like participation in the ‘global village’” as a

direct result of its “connecting and unifying characteristics” (cited in Lister et al. 2008, p. 82).

Likewise Negroponte predicted the obsolescence of nation-states, cities, and even retirement and

alarm clocks (1998). Today, predictions include the democratisation of media and empowerment

of the public on the scale of revolution; for instance, an article in The New Leader states that

Twitter has dealt a blow to Iran’s government and promoted democracy (“Iran’s Twitter

Revolution” 2009). Similar rhetoric abounds among many who support the citizen journalists of

the Occupy movement, and will be discussed further on.

Social shaping theorists, however, directly challenge the idea that technology can change

society at all. MacLuhan’s contemporary Williams asserts that social needs, groups, and power

relations determine the technologies that are created, the ways in which they are used, and who

uses them (cited in Lister et al. 2008, p. 86). Winston (1998) takes a similar approach, arguing

further that while technologies and their uses arise from social circumstances, social institutions

counteract the potential they may have to enable change. Discourse about a “digital divide”

reveals how existing economic and social inequality is only widened by the poor’s lack of access

to new technology (Murthy 2011). Technology, according to these thinkers, only reinforces the

Copeland 3

status quo that gave rise to it. In the case of Twitter and citizen journalism, Murthy writes that

while Twitter has to a degree enabled citizen journalism, citizen journalists and their work are

quickly subsumed by the traditional mass media and thus not truly empowered by new

technology. Rather than becoming known in their own right, citizen journalists simply provide

information and disappear when this information makes its way into the established media

channels (Murthy 2011, p. 12).

Croteau and Hoynes, however, provide a framework that balances both technological

determinism and social shaping by recognising the agency of both technology and of people.

Their model goes beyond debating whether technology influences society or vise versa,

integrating both viewpoints to portray a network of mutual influences. It is this mutuality that

allows for a discussion of new media more cognizant of the complex realities reflected in cases

like the Occupy movement.

Croteau and Hoynes’ sociological model

(Croteau and Hoynes 1997, p. 25, Simplified Model of Media and the Social World, Exhibit 1.5)

The grey-shaded portion of the model represents the social world, in which technology,

the media industry, media messages, and media audiences are all immersed and in which they all

participate. Arrows represent potential relationships, and it is worth noting that all arrows denote

two-way relationships. In the case of the Occupy movement, the social world consists of the

people and actions of the movement and the larger US social context (including events like the

economic recession).

Copeland 4

The fundamental assumption behind this approach reveals its grounding in social shaping

theory: “we cannot understand the media without looking at them as one aspect of a larger social

world” (Croteau & Hoynes 1997, p. 24). However, in a revision of adamant social shaping

theory’s claim of that technology causes no changes at all (Livingstone 2002, p. 3), the model

does recognise technology as an actor, incorporating some of the important contributions of

thinkers like MacLuhan. In the current study, technology is particularly important as the toolset

for creating and accessing hypermedia space.

It is worth quoting Kraidy and Mourad’s description of hypermedia space in full: “the

emergent global media environment is best understood as a transnational ‘hypermedia space’ in

which so-called ‘old’ media like television and newspaper join emergent media like mobile

devices, social media, video on the Internet, and others to create a communication space the

social and political implications of which we are only beginning to discern” (2010, p. 1). The

Occupy movement provides many examples of this, the quote that starts this paper being one of

the most compelling. An individual at a protest tweeted from a mobile device to share online that

protesters did not want the police to force mainstream media’s video cameras to move. In this

single instance, the different media of human voices, television cameras, mobile Internet devices,

and social networking all interacted to form a hypermedia chain that both created and told a

story. This story would later be told through the Internet, television, and print media alike.

Kraidy and Mourad’s ideas about creating a communicative “space” can build upon, or

perhaps update, an interesting feature of the Croteau and Hoynes model: its separation of

messages from media industry, technology, and audiences. This stands in contrast to

MacLuhan’s commonly quoted statement that “the medium is the message” (cited in Lister et al.

2008, p. 76). Rather, the media create a space for messages, and it is this space rather than the

technology alone that is particularly influential. As the model acknowledges, while media

industries along with individuals construct and distribute messages, these messages then enter

the social world to be shared, interpreted, absorbed, critiqued, etc., by others. In hypermedia

space this happens more rapidly than ever before, and distance has become largely irrelevant.

The author was able to watch Occupy DC’s December 4th protests live from several thousand

miles away, view the comments given by people around the world in real time, and

simultaneously browse news coverage about recent events and background information related to

the movement. These various media are all copresent in the communicative realm of hypermedia

Copeland 5

space, and often linked to one another through hypertext. Thus, though Croteau and Hoynes’

model largely pre-dates the rise of social networking and the idea of “hypermedia space”, this

concept is useful in understanding how messages can exist, change form, and spread when they

are no longer tied to the medium in which they originate.

Sociological model of the Occupy movement

This analysis of the Occupy movement begins with a description of the social world,

followed by technology, as it has perhaps seen the most dramatic changes in recent time. The

categories of audience and media industries are arguably no longer as clearly defined as they

were even several years ago; therefore, audiences are instead considered “users” categorised on

the basis of how they use new media and the type of media discourse their messages express.

Media industries are then considered as they relate to these new users, while the final portion of

the paper addresses an emerging vision of the media as an integrative network of industries and

new media users.

The Social World

The Occupy movement emerged in a context of severe economic recession and perceived

injustice. Beginning in 2008, the mainstream media revealed scandals and irresponsible policies

of the banks, developers, and mortgage lenders behind the economic crisis that cost many people

their homes, and the repercussions and legal proceedings are still ongoing at the time of writing

(“Financial Crisis” 2011, Goodman & Morgensen 2008, Story 2008, Streitfield & Morgensen

2008). Hence the general focus of the Occupy movement is the economic inequality that has

become more obvious in the recent years of economic crisis, and much of the anger among

Occupiers is directed at banks and lenders who have not been prosecuted or punished- indeed,

many CEOs have continued receiving large bonuses (Eisinger 2011, Story & Morgensen 2011,

Story 2008). The wealthiest members of society have come under intense criticism from much of

the public, particularly with the slogan “We are the 99%”. The phrase acknowledges the

disproportionate economic and social power held by the top 1% of earners, although some

wealthy Americans have joined in with a rallying cry of “We are the 1%. We stand with the

99%”. Pictures on their Tumblr website show wealthy people declaring their solidarity, many

even saying that their taxes are unfairly low (westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com). Occupy

protests are based in urban tent encampments, typically in locations near centres of financial or

Copeland 6

political power like banks. While the movement has been largely peaceful, arrests and demands

from cities and police to relocate encampments have been far from uncommon

Additionally, 2010 and 2011 were years of worldwide unrest as protests in Egypt and

Libya turned into revolutions and are still ongoing in Syria (topics.nytimes.com 2012a, 2012b,

2012c). Youth with access to mobile technology and social media were particularly influential in

these movements.

Technology

Today’s social world is permeated with and connected by technology, and especially by

mobile technology and the Internet. Some of the most significant characteristics of new media

technologies, especially for their uses related to the Occupy movement, are interactivity,

mobility, instantaneousness, and the capacity for social networking. Additionally, a term that can

be used to describe hypermedia space in particular is co-presence, referring to the presence of

multiple kinds of media text in one communicative space (Bentivegna 2002, p. 6). This is made

possible by digitalisation, which has provided a common language in which multiple devices can

share media of multiple forms (video, audio, text, etc). Hypermedia space results from this

ability of multiple media channels to form communicative chains, linking “once-discrete media

… into a single seamless web of digital-electronic-telecommunications” (Deibert cited in Kaidy

& Maroud 2010, p. 2).

In the Occupy movement, mobile technology has been particularly important as people

use their mobile devices to tweet, stream live video, or take and instantly share pictures.

Ustream, an online network of live streaming channels, lists 198 streams from US Occupy

camps- with many additional international streams (ustream.tv/occupytogether). A link below the

video channels allows viewers to tweet them, sending links to the video into their Twitter feed.

In an example of this “seamless web”, one comment posted on the OccupyDC Ustream channel

chat feed on 3rd January 2012 declares, “I saw posts about this channel on Twitter, Facebook,

Myspace, and AIM! Nuts!”( www.ustream.tv/channel/somd-at-occupydc). Through the Internet

and social networking, one person with a mobile device can reach thousands of people

worldwide with instant live information. When Time Video covered the work of citizen journalist

Tim Pool, his Ustream channel was drawing over 6,000 viewers (“Occupy Wall Street’s Live

Streamer Tim Pool” 17 Nov. 2011), and Captain (2011) reports that during a raid of Occupy

Wall Street’s Zucotti Park camp he had over 20,000 simultaneous viewers.

Copeland 7

As Tim Pool tells Time Video, the interactivity of new media is one of its most important

features. Not only can a citizen journalist broadcast a video stream to thousands of online

viewers, but viewers can post comments live. Pool says, “One of the great things about the

Ustream is that I have a chat feed on my phone, and people can ask questions and I can respond,

or people can ask me to do something and I can do it” (“Occupy Wall Street’s live streamer”

2011). His viewers even compare the interactive nature of watching Pool’s live stream to a video

game (Anderson 2011). Such interactivity has long been an object of attention for new media

theorists. Sparks contrasts “dialogic” Internet communication to “monologic” mass media,

stating that the former “permits the possibility of interactivity to a much greater extent than do

the existing media” by virtue of its development as a means for point-to-point communication.

For many new media scholars, this interactivity is conducive to a more democratic media and a

more active public sphere cite from Red Book).

Technology thus seems to have given the public- at least the members who can afford

digital and electronic communication technology- an ability to broadcast news that is comparable

to well-established mass media organisations. Many online user comments compare the amateur

coverage done with handheld mobile devices favourably to the television coverage created by

mass media companies’ expensive equipment. One early December comment on the YouTube

channel belonging to ajm72222, a live streamer from McPerson Square in DC, reads, “The few

seconds on CNN made me laugh at the pathetic job a multimillion dollar company can do” (cited

in Copeland 2011, p. 1). Similar discourse is common, with the viewers of live streams

comparing the work of a single person with a handheld camera to news groups with scrambling

production crews and large setups. In his article about Tim Pool and business partner Henry

Ferry, Captain proclaims, “With little more than mobile phones they’ve offered a perspective

that the mainstream media can’t match” (Captain 2011).

Mainstream media seems to have followed public lead in its adoption of new media

technologies. Twitter feeds related to the Occupy movement feature tweets from newspapers,

television networks, and individual journalists who tweet live as they cover their stories, which

are often re-tweeted and shared by other Twitter users. Andy Carvin from National Public Radio

(NPR) says he sees Twitter as an “open source newsroom” when he is in the field, relying on the

interactivity and social networking functions of the Internet and mobile technology to get

2 Abandoned 2nd December; Broadcasting resumed via AJwatchDC on Ustream.

Copeland 8

information from his Twitter followers (Sonderman 2012). Some news organizations have

started their own live streams, although interestingly, many, including Al Jazeera English, have

also used Pool’s footage as well (Captain 2011). The re-broadcasting of Pool’s live stream by

mainstream television news exemplifies the integration of new and old media that Kraidy and

Mourad call “hypermedia space”, and it is made possible by mobile digital technology, wireless

Internet, and social networking.

To assume that technology alone is responsible for changes in the media, however, is to

fall into technological determinism. As Croteau and Hoynes point out in contrast to more

deterministic claims, new technologies do not determine their own uses; they rather form a

“structural constraint” that can both “enable and limit human action” (1997, p. 263). In fact,

when Twitter was first launched, its potential role as a news source was not widely considered.

In 2007, New Media Age addressed Twitter it as nothing more than a medium for mundane

tidbits and social communication (Butcher 2007). Thus, as Croteau and Hoynes assert, a

technology’s impact significantly depends on how audiences and industries choose to use it, and

this in turn depends on the needs and ideas present in the social world.

No longer just audiences: Media users and the messages they create

Croteau and Hoynes describe two kinds of media user: the media industries who make

messages, and the audiences who interpret them. This limited acknowledgement of audience

agency is now outdated. The active role people play in today’s highly interactive communication

sphere has caused many to feel that the lines between those who create media and those who

consume it have been significantly blurred (Fancher 2009, Kraidy & Mourad 2010, Stelter 2011).

The present document therefore addresses “users” related to the Occupy movement, grouped

according to the kind of discourse about new media they seem to demonstrate or espouse. This

classification therefore addresses messages as well.

One major user group of hypermedia space has been the Occupy protesters themselves.

Thus the Occupy movement cannot solely be considered as the social world and a subject of

media messages, but also as group whose members use technology to produce messages. In the

hands of Occupy activists and people disillusioned with the US economic system, social

networking and mobile media have become the means for organising, spreading, and publicly

representing a nationwide protest movement. The Occupy movement essentially began online.

Berkowitz writes, “From a single hashtag, a protest circled the world” (2011). (A hashtag is a

Copeland 9

Twitter feature that designates a particular topic for a tweet, so all tweets with the same hashtag

can be viewed in the same stream.) “It all started innocuously enough with a July 13th blog post

urging people to #OccupyWallStreet, as though such a thing (Twitter hashtag and all) were

possible. It turns out, with enough momentum and a keen sense of how to use social media, it

actually is” (Berkowitz 2011, parentheses included in original). Note that according to Berkowitz

it was the conscientious use of social media, not necessarily the media itself, that made it a

mobilising force, reiterating Kraidy and Mourad’s point that the most important factor in the use

of hypermedia space “people willing to use various connected media for specific social or

political purposes” (2010, p. 6). Thus Occupy protesters not only constitute the social world, but

they turn media to their own purposes of changing it and of representing themselves to the

broader public. Though Croteau and Hoynes’ model does not specifically account for this new

scale of self-representation, their determination to study not just technology but “what people do

with technology” provides the basis for beginning to understand it as a product both of

technological capabilities and human motives (1997, p. 267).

Occupy protesters’ use of media fits with the vision many new media scholars have had

of “a new model of democracy, a digital democracy” (Bentivegna 2002, p. 1). According to these

theorists, the Internet and related new media have an inherent democratic potential that must be

released by motivated, politically minded users in wishing to change the status quo of the current

social context (Bentivegna 2002, Kraidy & Mourad 2010). Otherwise, the double-headed sword

of technology may be turned against them. There is a call for activism and involvement in these

visions that emphasises user importance and responsibility, along with a complete transformation

of the established media which lacks the same potential for democracy as the new media

(Bentivegna 2002, p. 5). Along these lines, some Occupy protesters have expressed their desire

to create a new media system. An organiser interviewed in a New York Times article stated,

“we’re fighting a system, and this media is a part of the system … and when this media doesn’t

cover us in a fair light, the desire isn’t to shame them, it’s to create an alternative” (Stelter 2011).

Some of the most well known citizen journalists covering Occupy- the second group of

media users- see a different role for themselves, however. Tim Pool, for instance, not only shares

the widespread critical attitude toward mass media, but is also critical of bias in the media

coming from the Occupy movement itself (Anderson 2011). The messages surrounding Occupy

often fall into the categories of support or opposition, as demonstrated by the divergence

Copeland 10

between mainstream and Occupy coverage of police action. Tweets from the Occupy-

sympathetic Huffington Post and describe the December 4th Occupy DC standoff as a

confrontation between respectful protesters and un-American police who “threw down the

American flag” from the protesters’ structure and searched tents “without probable cause”

(twitter.com/#!/occupydc, cited in Copeland 2011, p. 1). An article in Campus Progress portrays

the police as absurdly over-responding with large, heavy equipment to a small number of

protesters (Crockett 2011). The Washington Post, on the other hand, features several blogs and

stories emphasising the restraint and professionalism of the police during the same standoff as

they faced defiant protesters (Bolden, Craig, Klein, Rosenwald, & Tomassoni 2011, Dvorak

2011). Frustrated by such bias, Pool aims to cover all sides of a story equally, not shying away

from the less admirable actions of Occupy protesters or of police. And while another live

streamer, AJ of AJwatchDC, does in his commentary share some of the emphasis on police

violence prevalent in pro-Occupy coverage, through the perspective of his live Ustream coverage

viewers see both the spatial and temporal context of all that happens. Through their largely

unedited live streams and willingness to respond to viewer comments and requests (AJ, like

Pool, responds to his Ustream chat feed comments) citizen journalists have created a role for

themselves as mostly unbiased observers willing to act as the eyes for the public and provide raw

first-person footage that people trust. For citizen journalists, media is a mirror of society, and

their work demonstrates ideals seemingly left behind by mainstream and alternative media alike.

Instant, unedited, footage is as close to the truth as their thousands of viewers can get without

being present; on the public’s behalf, citizen journalists use new media technology to bridge

distance and serve as eyes on both the Occupy movement and the media covering it.

Hypermedia space and the changing role of the news industry

Some would take the primacy of independent citizen journalism in the Occupy movement

to be an expression of Bentivegna’s claim that “communication processes have finally been freed

from the arbitration of journalism exercised in traditional media circles” (2002, p. 1). In the case

of Occupy protesters this means they are freer to represent themselves; in the case of citizen

journalists it means that media can be freed from institutional bias and also from the distributive

mechanisms of traditional media. To return to the points made at the beginning of this paper,

however, the mass media industries and their reporting are still relevant. Instead of an idealistic

utopia in which unfair old structures give way to fair new ones, what is emerging instead is a

Copeland 11

communicative sphere in which people using new media can contribute to, benefit from, and

criticise both mass and alternative media coverage. The multitude of perspectives and

information available in hypermedia space allows people to act as “media watchdogs”, and the

public is now “demanding more from mainstream media” (Kraidy & Mourad 2010, p. 10). User

comments criticising CNN (for instance, for covering celebrity functions instead of Occupy

protests, as one reporter condemned in a tweet3) and citizen journalists’ efforts to cut through

bias exemplify these demands. Audience criticism is to some in the media industry indicative of

positive changes to be made, as people’s demands of mass media serve to acknowledge firstly

that they are still watching it, and secondly that they view it as an important potential ally

(Kraidy & Mourad 12). If mass media coverage of Occupy were rendered irrelevant by new

independent media, the nature and amount of its coverage would not be important enough to

come under scrutiny. By creating alternatives, new media users are not so much rendering mass

media industries as irrelevant as they are pressuring them, through competition and criticism, to

adapt to the current social and technological context.

Mass media, in return, is increasingly turning to a less centralised, more interactive model

of news while also partnering with citizen journalists. Michael Fancher, a Pulitzer-winning

journalist and Donald D. Reynolds Journalism Institute fellow, has proposed a new “21st Century

Journalist’s Creed” as a response to the “groundswell” of people creating and sharing news

independently through new media. As people become increasingly able to document and share

news through their own hypermedia channels, journalists must “let go of the sense that we have

control and recognize how much better public service journalism can be when we accept the

public as true partners” (Fancher 2009). Carvin’s collaboration with his Twitter followers is not

unusual. Amateur or independent footage has not only contributed to, but has also been the

starting point for many significant stories in recent years, including the 2009 protests in Iran, the

2008 bombing in Mumbai, and the 2009 plane crash in the Hudson river. (Kraidy & Mourad

2010; Murthy 2011).

Thus, while the upheaval of the news industry that some expected has not happened, nor

has the stifling of new media’s “democratic potential”. What is emerging instead is a public

sphere challenging the news industry to be better, and to work in tandem with the emerging

capabilities of the media-savvy public. Therefore, while Kraidy and Mourad emphasise that “for

3 Tweet from Citizen Radio’s Allison Kilkenny on 5th December 2011 (cited in Copeland 2011, p. 1).

Copeland 12

hypermedia chains to be effective, they must necessarily be integrated in pre-existing social

networks and institutions” (2010, p. 16), it is also the case that for mainstream media to be

effective, it has to integrate with the networks and discourses emerging in public hypermedia

space. As Croteau and Hoynes recognise, technology, society, and industry are all actors that

shape and influence each other. A useful update to their model will be the redefinition of

audiences, perhaps as Fancher proposes: “the public not as an audience but as a community, of

which journalism is a vital part” (Fancher 2009). Hypermedia space has forged connections that

make a clear division of audience and media industries no longer reflective of reality. Yet despite

being somewhat dated, the sociological model used here provides the kind of nuanced

framework that can accommodate an event as complex as Occupy and draw from it an

understanding of media today, in flux and in the hands of many.

Copeland 13

Works Cited

AJwatchDC (2011, 4th December). Live broadcast via Ustream.

Ajm7222 (2011). [User comments on channel homepage]. Retrieved from

youtube.com/ajm7222.

Anderson, D. (2011, 18th November). Q&A: Tim Pool on streaming Occupy Wall Street. [blog]

On The Media. Retrieved from www.onthemedia.org/blogs.

Bentivegna, S. (2002). Politics and new media. In Lievrouw, L.A., & Livinstone, S. (Eds). New

Media Handbook. London: Thousand Oaks.

Berkowitz, B. (2011, 19th October). From a single hashtag, a protest circled the world. The

Brisbane Times. Retrieved from www.brisbanetimes.com.au.

Bolden, M., Craig, T., Klein, A., Rosenwald, A., & Tomassoni, T. (2011, 5th December). Occupy

DC protesters arrested in standoff over makeshift shelter at McPherson Sq. The

Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/local.

Butcher, M. (2007, 17th May). Talk is cheep. New Media Age, 31.

Captain, S. (2011, 21st November). Tim Pool and Henry Ferry: The men behind Occupy Wall

Street’s live stream. Fastcompany.com.

Copeland, C. (2011). Media fight over interpreting Occupy DC raises important questions about

who makes “the real news”. Assignment submitted for CM 369: Feature Writing. Dublin

City University.

Crockett, E. (2011, 5th December). Occupy DC clashes with police over structure, 31 arrested.

Campus Progress. Retrieved from campusprogress.org.

Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (1997). Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Dhiraj, M. (2011). Twitter: Microphone for the masses? Media, Culture & Society, 33, 779-789).

Dvorak, P. (2011, 5th December). Police maintain professionalism in Occupy DC confrontation.

The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/local.

Eisinger, J. (2011, 26th October). In fight against securities fraud, S.E.C. sends wrong signal. The

New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.

Fancher, M.R. (2009, Fall). The 21st Century Journalist’s Creed. Nieman Reports: Online

Exclusives. Harvard University. Retrieved from www.nieman.harvard.edu.

Copeland 14

“Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission” (2011, 25th January). Times Topics. The New York Times.

Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.

Goodman, P.S., & Morgensen, G. (2008, 27th December). Saying yes, WaMu built empire on

shaky loans. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.

“Iran’s Twitter Revolution” (2009, May-June/July/August). The New Leader, 4-5.

Kraidy, M.M., & Mourad, S. (2010). Hypermedia space and global communication studies

lessons from the Middle East. Global Media Journal, 9(15), 1-19.

Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2008). New Media: A Critical

Introduction. 2nd Edition. Abingdon: Routledge.

Livingstone, S. (2002). The changing social landscape. In Lievrouw, L.A., & Livinstone, S.

(Eds). New Media Handbook. London: Thousand Oaks.

Negroponte, N. (1998). Beyond Digital. Wired, 6(12). Retrieved from Nicholas Negroponte

Wired Columns, http://web.media.mit.edu/~nicholas/Wired/.

#OccupyDC (2011). Retrieved from www.twitter.com//#!/search/OccupyDC during time period

4-5th December 2011.

OccupyTogether (2011). Retrieved from ustream.tv/occupytogether.

“Occupy Wall Street’s live streamer Tim Pool” (2011, 17th November). [Video file]. Time Video.

Retrieved from www.time.com.

Sonderman, J. (2012, 3rd January). Andy Carvin explains how Twitter is his ‘open source

newsroom’. Poynter.org.

Stelter, B. (2011, 20th November). Protest puts coverage in spotlight. The New York Times.

Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.

Streitfield, D., & Morgensen, G. (2008, 18th October). Building flawed American dreams. The

New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.

Story, L. (2008, 17th December). On Wall Street, bonuses, not profits, were real. The New York

Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.

Story, L., & Morgensen, G. (2011, 14th April). In financial crisis, no prosecutions of top figures.

The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com.

Winston, B. (1998). Media Technology and Society: A History from the Telegraph to the

Internet. London: Routledge

Copeland 15

Copeland 16