final version thesis carolien lindeman - thesis repository
Post on 23-Jan-2018
387 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
@JHabermas: How Twitter Functioned as a
Democratic Tool During the 2012 #Egypt Protests
Carolien Lindeman S1565419
MA Journalism
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Supervisor: Prof. Dr. M.J. Broersma
Second Reader: Dr. A. Heinrich 31 August, 2015
1
Abstract
Twitter’s democratic potential was first considered on a large scale after its visible role during
protests of the Arab Spring in 2010 and 2011 when citizens and journalists used it as a tool to connect. Using public sphere theory, this thesis also explores this democratic role. I argue for the existence of a virtual public sphere where citizens meet and deliberate so as to come to
well-informed opinions and decisions about the democracy they live in. I furthermore argue that the presence of network journalism is conducive to a well-working virtual public sphere.
Network journalism means the interaction between, among others, journalists and citizens who together in a processual nature bring and alter the news through Twitter.
Through a grounded theory analysis of fourteen elite tweeters during the November-
December 2012 protests in Egypt, this thesis finds that some of the behavior found on Twitter is in accordance with normative standards for a virtual public sphere. I theorize these to be
information dissemination; the possibility to ask critical questions; equality; accessibility; and the idea that deliberation can end in dissensus. Moreover, the role of network journalism within this virtual public sphere is of vital importance as it means that through the
interconnection of, in this case, citizens and journalists, citizens can come to more informed opinions. Lastly, I extrapolate three theoretical themes – power, emotion and morality – that
are important for a more effective use of Twitter. Exploring Twitter’s potential as a democratic tool for citizens and journalists advances
our theoretical knowledge of potential new public spheres. This leads to new insights of how
Twitter can be most advantageously used by journalists thus improving the quality of the virtual public sphere and democracies in general.
Keywords: network journalism, Habermas, public sphere, Twitter, democracy, Egypt
2
List of Contents
Abstract 1
List of Contents 2
List of Figures 4
“What are you doing?”: Introducing Twitter’s democratic potential 5
Chapter 1 The Public Sphere and the News Media 10
1.1 An Ideal Public Sphere? 1.2 Transformations of the Habermasian Public Sphere
1.2.2 The two critiques 1.3 The News Media and the Public Sphere
1.3.2 Dismissing Lifeworld and System 1.3.3 Multiple Spheres and the Role of Journalism
Chapter 2 A Virtual Public Sphere 22
2.1 A Virtual Public Sphere 2.1.2 Arguments Against a Virtual Public Sphere 2.1.3 The Internet is a Public Sphere
2.1.4 A Normative Vision of the Virtual Public Sphere 2.2 Journalism in a Virtual Public Sphere
2.2.2 User Generated Content 2.2.3 Citizen Journalism 2.2.4 Participatory Journalism
Chapter 3 If Habermas Would Tweet 39
3.1 Twitter 3.2 Twitter as a tool of a Virtual Public Sphere
3.3 Twitter as a Tool in a Network 3.3.2 Journalists and Twitter
3.3.3 Citizens and Twitter 3.4 Twitter and Egypt
Chapter 4 An Egyptian Network: A Methodology 60
4.1 Grounded Theory 4.2 Developing the Codes 4.3 The Dataset
4.3.2 Elite tweeters 4.3.3 The Citizens
4.3.4 The Journalists
3
Chapter 5 #MorsiMubarak: Analyzing the Egyptian Twitter Elite 78
5.1 Results 5.1.2 Citizens and Journalists
5.1.3 Main themes 5.2 Discussion 5.2.2 Twitter is a Tool in a Virtual Public Sphere
5.2.3 Network Journalism on Twitter 5.2.4 Learning from the Themes
5.3 Conclusion
Habermas Should Join: A Look at Twitter’s Democratic Potential 117
Bibliography 121
Appendices 132
Appendix A – Morsi’s consitutional decree issued on November 22 Appendix B – Number of connections between elite tweeters from the sample Appendix C – Coded Documents
Appendix D – Lists of Codes Appendix E – Categories and Themes
4
List of Figures
Figure 5.1 Screencapture of Morsillini interactive poster 78 Figure 5.2 Percentage critical tweets of each user’s overall tweets 83
Figure 5.3 Twitter discussion Gsquare86 84
Figure 5.4 Twitter conversation between SherineT and 87
TheEvertBopp
Figure 5.5 EitenZeerban’s tweet and a four day later reaction 88
Figure 5.6 The interconnection between top citizen and journalist
Tweeters 90
Figure 5.7 Citizen discussion and analysis, including Mosaaberizing 91
Figure 5.8 Discussion between Mosaaberizing and Evanchill 92
Figure 5.9A Photo New York Times 93 Figure 5.9B Photo New York Times 93
Figure 5.10 The interconnection between elite citizen and journalist 94
tweeters from Cairo, Egypt
Figure 5.11 Number of total connections per elite tweeter 95
Figure 5.12 Distribution of categories over themes 97
Figure 5.13 Overview of the theme power and its categories 98
Figure 5.14 Overview of the theme emotion and its categories 101 Figure 5.15 Parody of Morsi’s Time cover 102
Figure 5.16 Overview of the theme morality and its categories 104
Figure 5.17 Percentage of tweets about the Egyptian political situation 111
5
“What are you doing?”: Introducing Twitter’s democratic potential
A global community of friends and strangers answering one simple question: What are you doing?1
This was Twitter’s original tagline when it was launched in 2006. It was developed as a micro
blogging tool to stay in touch with friends. By posting 140 character messages users could let
their followers know what they were up to. These humble beginnings, however, have led to a
medium being used for far more wide-ranging political goals than simply letting each other
know what you are doing. In 2009 Twitter’s tagline had evolved to the question “What’s
happening?” thus subtly changing the focus from only personal experiences to engagement in
everything happening outside your own experience. This modification of the phrase was
mirrored by a changed use of the medium during protests in dictatorial countries. During the
2009 Iranian’s protests against their authoritarian government, Twitter was called the
“Medium of the Movement” as it functioned as a source for people to both post and read news
about the otherwise heavily censored protests.2 Similarly the protests of the Arab Spring in
many Arab countries were coined as the Facebook and Twitter Revolutions by many
observers.3 During these instances Twitter turned out to be the best place to get on the ground
reports that were not being censored. As such it was a source and tool for journalists and a
unique way for citizens to successfully organize and mobilize against repressive regimes.
A medium originally intended for chitchat among friends appears to have become a
powerful tool in the hands of repressed citizens. This could potentially have become the
twenty-first century version of the Habermasian coffee house. Jürgen Habermas theorized the
eighteenth century coffee houses as the ideal site for deliberation between citizens who were
well-informed through the information provision of the news media. Such deliberation and
news formation, Habermas poses, were necessary for what he termed a democratic public
sphere.4 Ever since the eighteenth century this model has been in crisis as citizens’ relation
toward both the state but also the media apparatus has compromised equal and universal
participation in the public sphere. Due to this downturn Habermas, but also other theorists like
Douglas Kellner, Nancy Fraser and Peter Dahlgren have been trying to define a new ideal
type model for democracy.
1 Twitter’s tagline as could be found on its homepage from 2006 until 2009. 2 Lev Grossman, “Iran’s Protests: Why Twitter is the Medium of the Movement,” Time Magazin U.S. June 17,
2009, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905125,00.html (accessed June 6, 2011). 3 Brad Stone and Noam Cohen, “Social Networks Spread Defiance Online,” The New York Times. June 15, 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/16media.html?_r=0 (accessed July 14, 2013). 4 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois
society (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1989), 60.
6
Exploring Twitter’s potential as a democratic tool thus advances our theoretical
knowledge of potential new public spheres, befitting contemporary society instead of
eighteenth century bourgeois society. More practically this leads to an increasing
understanding of how Twitter can be most advantageously used by journalists, those who are
supposed to be information providers in a public sphere. Moreover, such research provides an
overview of how citizens are already using Twitter and thus answers what Twitter’s current
potential as a democratic tool is.
Twitter, despite having only been on the scene since 2006, has nonetheless already
been the subject of extensive research. To put my research within the context of previous
research it is necessary to focus both on the way Twitter has been looked at within the
political sciences and within journalism studies, as this thesis focuses on journalists’ use of
Twitter and democratic theoretical ideas of the Habermasian public sphere. Within the
political sciences, research on Twitter has been focused on Twitter’s democratizing role.
Twitter in this case has often been linked to Habermas in the sense that the interactions on it
reminds of the Habermasian eighteenth century coffee houses populated by citizens engaging
in critical rational deliberation. The coffeehouse served both as a place where citizens became
informed on their public sphere and a space to engage in deliberation with other citizens.
Twitter is also a space where information can be gathered and discussed. Moreover, on
Twitter citizens can also spread information themselves. They are no longer only dependent
on the news media, as was the case in the coffee houses of the eighteenth century. As such
political science research has focused Twitter’s potential to function as a forum for political
deliberation;5 it has discussed a too optimistic vision of the democratizing and empowering
functions of social media;6 and has developed theories on how Twitter might most effectively
help democratic innovation.7
Within journalism studies scholarly work into the democratic implications of Twitter
is also manifold. When considering the renewed interaction possible between journalists and
citizens, the main focus in early research on Twitter has been on its influence on journalistic
practices. This happened in the form of researching the way Twitter is challenging old
5 Andranik Tumasjan, “Predicting Elections with Twitter; What 140 Characters Reveal about Political
Sentiment,” (paper presented at the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media,
George Washington University, Washington, DC, 23 – 26 of May, 2010), 1. 6 Petros Iosofidis, “The Public Sphere, Social Networks and Public Service Media,” Information,
Communication and Society 14, no. 5 (2011), 619. 7 Andrew Chadwick, “Recent Shifts in the Relationship Between the Internet and Democratic Engagement in
Britain and the United States: Granularity, Infromational Exuberance, and Political Learning,” Website New
Political Communication Unit, 2010, http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/storage/ chadwick/Chadwick_Granularity_
Informational_Exuberance_Learning_in_Comparing_Digital_Polit ics.pdf (accessed July 19th, 2011), 30.
7
journalistic values, such as verification;8 but also how journalists who microblog have to
negotiate their professional norms.9 Another type of analysis is how journalism can be
enhanced through the use of Twitter and other social media. For example, different studies
have considered the way Twitter helps with information dissemination;10 how social media
and Twitter can and should be adopted in newsrooms;11 how Twitter changes media ethics;12
in what manner Twitter discusses different topics compared to traditional media outlets;13 and
the effects Twitter might have on the diversity of the audience of news outlets.14
Taking this a step further is the research looking at the influence of Twitter on citizens
as well as journalists, which similar to this thesis automatically also considers the democratic
implications of this interaction. For example, it was researched how Twitter’s set-up
encourages citizens to act as journalists, especially during disasters or terrorist attacks,
therefore enriching and improving the news surrounding such events.15 More specifically,
such studies have considered what kind of news citizens on Twitter are producing and
whether this is so-called hard news or soft news.16
The implications of the use of Twitter by citizens is researched and also often linked to
Habermasian ideas on the public sphere. For example, Peter Dahlgren explores how Twitter
used by both citizens and journalists might enhance civic participation.17 Sue Robinson goes
even further by theorizing the implications of Twitter and social media for journalism. She
argues a new kind of journalism practiced both by journalists and citizens has come into being
largely due to social media and Twitter in the form of journalism as process where both
parties continuously work on and change the news that is available.18 Similar to this idea is
8 Alfred Hermida, “Tweets and Truth,” Journalism Practice iFirst Article (2012), 1. 9 Dominic L. Lasorsa et al., “Journalism Practice in an Emerging Communicaton Space,” Journalism Studies
iFirst Article (2011), 1. 10 Kristina Lerman and Rumi Ghosh, “Information Contagion: an Empirical Study of the Spread of News on
Digg and Twitter Social Networks”, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Weblogs and Social
Media (2010): 1. 11 Nicola Bruno, “Tweet First, Verify Later? How real-time information is changing the coverage of worldwide
crisis events,” Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper (2010 – 2011). 12 Stephen J.A. Ward and Herman Wasserman, “Towards an Open Ethics: Implications of New Media Platforms
for Global Ethics Discourse,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 25, no. 4 (2010), 292. 13 Wayne Xin Zhao and Jing Jiang, “An Empirical Comparison of Topics in Twitter and Traditional Media,”
Singapore Management University School of Information Systems Technical Paper Series (2011), 1. 14 Jisun An et al., “Media Landscape in Twitter: A World of New Conventions and Political Diversity,”
(presented at the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona July, 2011) 18. 15 Dhiraj Murthy, “Twitter: Microphone for the Masses?” Media Culture & Society 33, no. 5 (2011), 779. 16 Tyler J. Horan, “Soft Versus Hard News on Microblogging Networks: Semantic Analysis of Twitter
Produsage,” Information, Communication and Society iFirst Article (2012), 1. 17 Peter Dahlgren, “Online Journalism and Civic Cosmpolitanism: Professional vs. Participatory Ideals,”
Journalism Studies iFirst Article (2012), 1. 18 Sue Robinson, “’Journalism as Process’: The Organizational Implications of Participatory On line News,”
Journalism and Communication Monographs 13 (2011), 202.
8
the concept of network or networked journalism, recently expounded both by Adrienne
Russell and Ansgard Heinrich.19 Russell and Heinrich both posit that journalism within a
networked sphere has become a horizontal instead of a vertical process. Moreover, network
journalism consists of many different players apart from journalists also citizens, NGOs,
government officials and corporations for example. All these actors function as a node within
a network, constantly contributing and changing the news within that network.20
This thesis fits into this earlier work on Twitter, firstly on a theoretical level because it
combines political science ideas about the Habermasian public sphere with the concept of
network journalism from journalism studies. By appropriating Habermas’ theory of the public
sphere and applying it in a new way to Twitter, this thesis contributes to the theory building
efforts surrounding public sphere theory. Moreover, my research adds to the emerging
published research on Twitter as I empirically research how it is being used by an
interconnected group of citizens and journalists. As opposed to most research that either
focuses on how journalists appropriate Twitter into their already existing journalistic practices
or on how citizens use it for mobilizing and information purposes among themselves, my
thesis focuses upon the interrelations between these two groups.
I thus answer the overarching question of how citizens and journalists may use Twitter
in the most democratic manner. To accomplish this, in chapter one I first define and
problematize what a democracy entails according to Habermasian public sphere theory.
Moreover this chapter also presents the normatively appointed role of both citizens and
journalists in such a sphere. Chapter two subsequently presents how this public sphere theory
can be appropriated to fit an idea of the internet functioning as a virtual public sphere. Within
this sphere I again problematize the specific roles of citizens and journalists by defining an
adapted normative vision for this virtual public sphere. This vision borrows from the
Habermasian conception of the public sphere, but incorporates contemporary ideas about the
internet such as the idea that a discussion does not need to take place in a small amount of
time but can be spread over several days or sometimes even weeks. Moreover, I incorporate
the idea that dissensus is also an acceptable outcome for discussions taking place in a virtual
public sphere. Chapter three builds on this by honing in on the specific role of Twitter and
defining how this could normatively be a tool for democracy.
19 Ansgard Heinrich, Network Journalism: Journalistic Practice in Interactive Spheres (New York City:
Routledge, 2011); Adrienne Russell, Networked: A Contemporary History of News in Transition (Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press, 2011). 20 Ansgard Heinrich, “Network Journalism: Moving towards a Global Journalism Culture.” (paper presented at
the RIPE conference in Mainz, October 9-11, 2008), 5-6.
9
Having built up this theoretical framework of Twitter’s potential role within a virtual
public sphere, I then test whether this is actually the case and to what extent. For this I use the
case study of the November-December 2012 protests in Cairo, Egypt. These protests serve as
an example of citizens protesting their democratically elected government. During these
protests Twitter was again used by many citizens, as well as journalists, to connect. Of these
Twitter users I selected fourteen elite tweeters, seven of them citizens, the other seven
journalists. The elite tweeters had a large following, posted often and were retweeted often.
They were also highly interconnected therefore serving as an ideal sample of a close-knit
network. In chapter four I present how a grounded theory approach best suits my purpose of
assessing how Twitter served as a tool for democracy during these protests. By coding the
5299 English-language tweets sent by my elite tweeters I then developed categories as well as
three overarching themes to classify the democratic practices taking place via Twitter.
In chapter five, I present the finding that Twitter indeed contains a potential to act as a
tool for a virtual public sphere as the sample showed the presence of five requirements of
such a sphere, namely the presence of information dissemination; the possibility to ask critical
questions; equality; accessibility; and the idea that deliberation can end in dissensus.
Moreover, I also show that Twitter proves to be an effective tool for journalists seeking to
connect in a networked manner. Lastly, I pose that the three themes I extrapolated from the
tweets through the grounded theory approach – power, emotion and morality – provide useful
normative guidelines for journalists’ use of Twitter. My conclusion puts these findings in the
context of democracy and the public sphere and, more specifically, Twitter’s democratic role
within that sphere. As Twitter is thus a new space for critical rational debate, which
journalists can promote through specific networked use of the medium, I pose that it is a
valuable new medium to improve the quality of the public sphere and consequently the
quality of democracy. Now, however, it is first time to set up my specific take on public
sphere theory.
10
Chapter 1 The Public Sphere and the News Media
Communication via the mass media plays an important role in the normative vision I advocate.21
Habermas’s initial theory about the public sphere, which he presented in his 1962 work The
Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere reserved a special place for the news media,
as can be seen in abovementioned quote. However, the Habermasian public sphere could not
have been meant as a normative model of the connection between social media, journalism
and democracy. Nevertheless, Jürgen Habermas as well as many other critical theorists since
the 1960s have developed and expanded on the original theory of the public sphere. Those
advances provide a useful theoretical framework to identify that a possible interplay of social
media users and journalists might improve the quality of democracy. In order to arrive at this
conclusion, however, it is first necessary to establish the claim that a certain kind of public
sphere is necessary for a healthy and thriving democracy.22
In this chapter I discuss Habermas’ theory of the public sphere and how within that
sphere democracy can be achieved. The main purpose of this chapter is to posit Habermas’s
theory as a normative ideal type for democracy that can similarly serve as a normative model
for contemporary journalism. This is the basis from which I will argue in the second chapter
that Habermas has indirectly also provided a normative model for new forms of journalism
which, among others, includes contributions to Twitter by both citizens and journalists during
the November-December revolts in Egypt. For now, however, I focus on Habermas’ original
theory of the public sphere and the additions and changes necessary for it to be normatively
applicable to contemporary societies and journalism.
1.1 An Ideal Public Sphere?
Habermas’ conception of the ideal public sphere is based on the social, political, economical
and historical situation in England, France and Germany in the eighteenth century. He poses
that in this time, for a short while, an effective bourgeois public sphere existed within these
three countries. This meant that a relatively large group of middle class men was able to come
together and engage in reasoned debate over key issues, resulting in new ideas, practices and
reasoned criticism of the state. The public sphere, consequently, was an effective place of
mediation between the state and the private individual. Habermas defined this ideal bourgeois
21 Jürgen Habermas, Time of Transitions (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006), 9. 22 It is important to note that even though Habermas is not the only one to theorize and certainly not the one to
coin the term ‘public sphere’ he has been the main theorist to recognize the integral role of the (mass) media
within that sphere. It is also important to note that this thesis only considers the part of Habermas’ theory on the
political public sphere as opposed to the cultural public sphere in which literature and art play an important part.
11
public sphere “above all as the sphere of private people com[ing] together as a public; they
soon claimed the public sphere regulated from above against the public authorities
themselves, to engage them in debate over the general rules governing relations in the
basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor.”23
While Habermas’ definition of the public sphere offers the basis of the discussion in this
chapter, for the purpose of this thesis a good working definition is provided by Peter
Dahlgren, who states that the public sphere is a “realm of social life where the exchange of
information and views on questions of common concern can take place so that public opinion
can be formed.”24 This means that a public sphere exists when citizens are able to interact and
discuss issues of political concern to reach informed decisions and conclusions. Participation
needs to be universal and equal.
John Michael Roberts and Nick Crossley succinctly summarize the four most
important factors that allowed for the rise and existence of the bourgeois public sphere. First,
a differentiation of society, especially in the form of a separation of political authority from
that of everyday life provides the free space for citizens to deliberate. Secondly, the self and
subjectivity were newly privatized, effectively creating a self-conscious public seeking self-
cultivation and thus forced to rationally and reasonably think about and argue for their
specific private interests. Third, the emerging art and literature scene as developed in the
salons of the eighteenth century led to literary debate which generated the abilities and skills
for critical and rational political debate. Lastly, the new printing technologies and coming into
existence of popular newsletters and journals provided relative spaces of debate. What makes
these four factors important for Habermas is that they facilitated, generated and fostered what
he calls critical rationality, meaning a space that exists through critical rational deliberation.
Furthermore this space is relatively powerful and able to put pressure on the state and cause
political, social and economical change.25
The goal of identifying this functioning public sphere was for Habermas to criticize
contemporary democracies. He identifies an almost immediate downturn of the effective
bourgeois public sphere in the eighteenth century, which continues to modern day. Roberts
and Crossley summarize the four contributing factors to this downturn. First, the
differentiation between state and society almost immediately started to blur, resulting in an
23 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989), 27. 24 Peter Dahlgren, Television and the Public Sphere: citizenship, democracy and the media (London: SAGE
Publications, 2000), 195. 25 John Michael Roberts and Nick Crossley, “Introduction”, in After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public
Sphere, ed. Nick Crossley and John Michael Roberts (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 2-4.
12
infiltration of the state in private interests. A dependency of individuals on the state has
created a client, or consumer, relationship between state and individual, instead of critical
citizens. Within this relationship interests in money and power have largely replaced critical
rationality, both are not conducive for a rational democracy. Secondly, politicians who are
part of the state have appropriated argumentation and debate; consequently debate has also
become subordinated to interests in power and money. Third, professional scientists have
degraded public opinion by reducing it to mere opinion polls. Fourth, media markets that are
supposed to provide a relatively free and open space for deliberation have been corrupted and
hijacked for the purpose of selling goods. In other words they have also been corrupted by the
power of money.26 In short this means that equal and universal participation in the critical
rational public sphere that Habermas imagines has become impossible.
One could easily dismiss Habermas’s view of the public sphere as mere nostalgia and
a doomsday image of contemporary democracy, but this would be too simple. Luke Goode
suggests that the theory of the public sphere offers a frame of reference for our current model
of democracy.27 Or as Nicholas Garnham puts it, it might be wise “not to see the public
sphere as a concrete space or set of discursive practices, but as a perspective from which to
think about the problem of democracy in the modern world.”28 The Habermasian public
sphere is therefore a normative ideal type of how a rational democratic should best be served.
The purpose of discussing this theory so far is to propose that the discussion of the
public sphere as a critical theoretical concept provides a fitting context to discuss the
democratic potential of social media. This is based on the premise that social media, through
the kind of new space it provides, has the potential to revive aspects of the long lost bourgeois
public sphere. On the internet citizens have the potential of letting their voice be heard and
deliberate critically because of the kind of forum, potentially free from the influence of the
state, that social media provide. It furthermore has the potential of allowing a semblance of
universal and equal participation in the public sphere. Also, deliberations on this forum could
possibly lead to social change. Because of the role that Habermas theorizes for the news
media, this discussion simultaneously also includes the role of journalists. Pulling social
media into the discussion of the public sphere therefore serves a dual purpose, not only to
ascertain a normatively proper role for citizens, but similarly for journalists.
26 Ibid, 4-6. 27 Ibid, 4. 28Nicholas Garnham, “Habermas and the public sphere,” Global Media and Communication 3, no. 2 (2007): 203.
13
1.2 Transformations of the Habermasian Public Sphere
This section discusses two big scholarly critiques on Habermas that both add some more flesh
to the theory of the public sphere so that it is more applicable to the role of both journalists
and citizens in our contemporary world. The first critique entails the idea that Habermas’s use
of specifically the bourgeois public sphere as an ideal type is false and participation has never
been universal and equal. In the small discussion that follows, the two main proponents of
these critiques, Douglas Kellner and Nancy Fraser, offer a solution to these critiques in the
form of a conception of multiple public spheres. The second critique is on the validity and
practicality of Habermas’s conception of critical rationality as a normative ideal type of
communication as expounded mainly by Nicholas Garnham and Seyla Benhabib.29 Habermas
has, in the course of the development of his theory acknowledged these critiques and has
subsequently made his theory more applicable to contemporary society. As Habermas puts it
himself: “My own theory, finally, has […] changed, albeit less in its fundamentals than in its
degree of complexity.”30 This increasing complexity of his theory means that it is also
applicable to multifaceted societies such as the Egyptian one during the protests of November
and December, 2012.
1.2.2 The Two Critiques
Most prominent and possibly the easiest criticism has been the clamor about his historical
misrepresentation of the bourgeois public sphere. First of all, Douglas Kellner argues that it is
unlikely that the ideal rationality Habermas subscribes to the bourgeois public sphere has ever
existed, “politics throughout the modern era have been subject to the play of interests and
power as well as discussion and debate.”31 This means that neither in the bourgeois public
sphere, nor in subsequent forms of the public sphere, has everybody participated in critical
rationality, but rather a privileged few. Nancy Fraser strengthens this argument by pointing
out that several historiographies prove that only a certain class of men participated in the
bourgeois public sphere.32 Furthermore, Fraser voices the concern that in the Habermasian
ideal public sphere women were excluded and uses Mary Ryan’s historiographies which
document “the variety of ways in which nineteenth century North American women of
29 Nicholas Garnham, “Habermas and the public sphere,” Global Media and Communication 3, no. 2 (2007):
207. 30 Jürgen Habermas, “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. by
Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 422. 31 Douglas Kellner, “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention,” in Perspectives on
Habermas, ed. by Lewis Edwin Hahn (Chicago: Open Court Press, 2000), 267. 32 Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing
Democracy,” Social Text, no. 25/26 (1990): 60.
14
various classes and ethnicities constructed access routes to public political life, even despite
their exclusion from the official public sphere.”33 Rational public participation has proven to
be possible then even if one is not part of the official public sphere.
In order to answer to this critique both Douglas Kellner and Nancy Fraser propose that
the existence of a single public sphere is insufficient. Kellner posits that “rather than
conceiving of one liberal or democratic public sphere, it is more productive to theorize a
multiplicity of public spheres, sometimes overlapping but also conflicting.”34 Within those
different public spheres different (excluded) groups, perhaps through the use of new
technologies, as for example new media, can express themselves and interact with each other.
Habermas eventually also addressed the issue himself and argues that his model works if
“from the very beginning one admits the coexistence of competing public spheres and takes
account of the dynamics of those processes of communication that are excluded from the
dominant public sphere.”35 With this exclusion he hints at those groups who might not be part
of the hegemonic public sphere but “additional subcultural or class-specific public spheres
[that] are constituted on the basis of their own and initially not easily reconcilable
premises.”36 In his latest book Time of Transitions Habermas recognizes that because of
globalization, taking as his main example the European Union, different public spheres need
to cooperate.37
Before presenting the second critique of the public sphere, that on the practical
application of rationality in it, it is helpful to understand the necessity of rationality in the
public sphere for Habermas, for this explains why the concept is still important to include but
perhaps in a different form. For Habermas rationality plays an important role in the public
sphere for, according to Nicholas Garnham, it provides “a normatively defensible form of
‘solidarity among strangers’ in modern conditions”38. Only through the existence of
rationality is it possible for Habermas to find a common ground and therefore a situation in
which informed public opinion comes into existence. For him the only possibility to come to
rational public opinion within the complex relations people maintain in current society is
through discourse and critical rationality. Garnham goes even further to suggest that only
33 Ibid, 61. 34 Douglas Kellner, “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention,” in Perspectives on
Habermas, ed. by Lewis Edwin Hahn (Chicago: Open Court Press, 2000), 267. 35 Jürgen Habermas, “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. by
Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 425. 36 Ibid, 425. 37 Jürgen Habermas, Time of Transitions (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006), 76. 38 Nicholas Garnham, “Habermas and the public sphere,” Global Media and Communication 3, no. 2 (2007):
210.
15
through discourse citizens are able to identify themselves as opposed to others within that
society. Habermas himself poses that “the human mind encounters itself only indirectly
through symbolically mediated relations to the world; it does not exist ‘in the head’ but in the
totality of publicly accessible and intersubjectively comprehensible symbolic expressions and
practices.”39
Discourse allows anybody to participate in any public sphere, be it the political, but
also, for example, the cultural public sphere. It is necessary for the universal participation that
Habermas is seeking within his model. And as Seyla Benhabib points out, this model is
intended to function “democratically as the creation of procedures whereby those affected by
general social norms and by collective political decisions can have a say in their formulation,
stipulation and adoption”40. Also, “there may be as many publics as there are controversial
general debates about the validity of norms”41 which means that even though those discourses
are aimed at agreement, disagreement is fitted very well into the model as well. Habermas
himself posits that “This entropic state of a definitive consensus, which would make all
further communication superfluous, cannot be represented as a meaningful goal because it
would engender paradoxes” since disagreement is necessary for discourse to exist, the
existence of universal agreement would abolish the need for discourse.42 With this then
Habermas concedes that in addition to agreement, disagreement is a necessity within his
model of the public sphere.
Even though it is clear that Habermas’s perspective on discourse and critical
rationalization are not as naive as pictured, they do pose a problem for practical application
within a democratizing public sphere. Habermas concedes in 1992 that he has “considered the
state apparatus and economy to be systematically integrated action field that can no longer be
transformed democratically from within, ... without damage to their proper system logic and
therewith their ability to function.”43 In short this means that he does not see a possibility for
his public sphere that critical rationality employed by citizens will be able to cause real
change. The result of this is that “discourses do not govern. They generate a communicative
power that cannot take the place of administration but can only influence it. This influence is
39 Jürgen Habermas, Time of Transitions (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006), 56. 40 Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), 105. 41 Ibid, 105. 42 Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy.
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996), 101. 43 Jürgen Habermas, “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. by
Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 444.
16
limited to the procurement and withdrawal of legitimation.”44 In his changed model citizens
have lost a large part of their democratizing power.
These additions and caveats resulting from the two big critiques on his public sphere
theory have resulted in some interesting facts to be reconsidered when applying Habermas’
public sphere theory to the role of citizens and journalists and their use of social media. The
multiple public spheres give the opportunity to conceive of different counterpublics that can
manifest themselves online. And the focus on rationality and the concession of Habermas that
the power of citizens to cause actual change has diminished is interesting to compare and
contrast with the repercussions of the revolts in Egypt around January 25, 2011. I will
therefore now first incorporate these adaptations to the Habermasian public sphere in greater
detail with especially the normative role of journalists in mind.
1.3 The News Media and the Public Sphere
In the eighteenth century the news media in combination with critical rational citizens in “the
coffeehouses in Britain, salons in France and table societies in Germany” were the basis of
Habermas’ ideal public sphere.45 Within those coffee houses, newsletters and journals
encouraged critical rationalization among citizens by informing them and by providing a
forum for discussions. Those journals, or the early news media, provided a rational free space
for deliberation and information dissemination. This would allow citizens to be both informed
and to critically discuss key issues and subsequently be able to bring about societal change.
As Habermas put it: “The press was for the first time established as a genuinely critical organ
of a public engaged in critical political debate: as the fourth estate.”46 Stuart Allan poses that
“by conceiving of the news audience as citizens engaged in public dialogue, bringing to bear
the force of public opinions upon authority relations,”47 citizens supported and maintained a
perfect democratic system.
Unfortunately this ideal situation that presumably existed in the eighteenth century,
was maintained only temporarily, and it is questionable if it existed in the way Habermas
suggested as discussed in previous sections. What is certain, however, is that he paints a
rather grim picture of the role of the news media after the downfall of the bourgeois public
sphere:
44 Ibid, 452. 45 Lasse Thomassen, Habermas: A Guide for the Perplexed. (London: Continuum International Publishing
Group, 2010), 38. 46 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an inquiry into a category of
bourgeois society (Cambridge MA: MIT Press , 1989), 60. 47 Stuart Allan, News Culture. (Maidenhaid: McGraw-Hill Open UP, 2010), 4-5.
17
The communicative network of a public made up of rationally debating private
citizens has collapsed; the public opinion once emergent from it has partly decomposed into the informal opinions of publicistically effective institutions. Caught
in the vortex of publicity that is tagged for show or manipulation the public of non organized private people is laid claim to not by public communication but by the communication of publicly manifested opinions.48
Habermas contends that citizens who should behave in a rational-critical manner have become
mere consumers of news that has been offered to them by the commercial news media, which
in turn are not functioning the way they should be. Jürgen Gehrards and Mike Schäfer pose
that “the mass media drastically reduce social complexity - only a fraction of all available
topics, actors and arguments can get published.”49 In this public sphere Habermas recognizes
a shift away from critical publicity to manipulative publicity, meaning that those individual
preferences that people will expound in public are being influenced not by critical reflection
but by the whims of publicity industries, including the mass media.50 This growing uncritical
stance of citizens and badly functioning news media is what Habermas calls the
refeudalization of the public sphere.
This refeudalization of the public sphere results in public sphere that is no longer
universally accessible and does not promote equality among those who participate.
Incidentally, those are two important premises of a healthy democratic public sphere. The
non-universality means that the public sphere is no longer a place in which all citizens are
able to discuss and deliberate issues that are important to everyone, but now due to “the
growing concentration of conglomerations of ownership in the media sectors of most
industrialized societies” it is the news media, motivated by interests in money and power,
instead of critical rational citizens, who decide what the content of the public sphere will be.51
These practices threaten the universality of the public sphere, but the equality within it
is also below par. First of all Stuart Allan rightly poses that “it is evident that the social
division between those with ‘information capital’ and those without are widening.”52
Especially because of rapid technological developments not everybody has equal access to or
the right knowledge of participation on, for example, the internet. This leads to inequality in
participation and therefore results in little or no participation in the sphere that has come into
48 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an inquiry into a category of
bourgeois society (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1989), 247-8. 49 Jürgen Gerhards and Mike S. Schäfer, “Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in
the USA and Germany,” New Media and Society 12, no. 1 (2010): 144. 50 Luke Goode, Jürgen Habermas: Democracy and the Public Sphere (Pluto Press: London, 2005), 24. 51 Stuart Allan, News Culture. (Maidenhaid: McGraw-Hill Open UP, 2010), 16. 52 Stuart Allan, News Culture. (Maidenhaid: McGraw-Hill Open UP, 2010), 16.
18
existence online: the virtual public sphere. This both means that not everyone has equal
access to online forms of journalism that should inform them, but also that not everyone can
participate as a critical rational citizen online by contributing material themselves or reacting
to others. Moreover, Nancy Fraser points out that the news media are generally in the hands
of the dominant groups, which means that the mass media in this way stifles the voices of
subordinated groups.53
Habermas concludes thus that the public sphere is in crisis. In the last pages of
Structural Transformation, however, he takes up a hopeful tone when he poses that
institutions that are part of the public sphere could and should try to enact critical publicity,
this includes the news media.54 This would mean, for example, that journalists should adhere
to certain moral and ethical norms to promote open dialogue amongst members of the public
sphere. Following, therefore, is a discussion of the different ways that the notion of the public
sphere has been reworked to accommodate contemporary changes in the public sphere. I
moreover discuss why the Habermasian theory remains a useful analytical tool not only to
envision a well working democracy but also as a normative model for the functioning of
journalism in such a democracy. More precisely the following discussion conceptualizes the
role of journalism in a public sphere permeated by new technologies such as the internet.
1.3.2 Dismissing Lifeworld and System
While Habermas contends that the public sphere is in crisis and that the media play a crucial
role both in being the cause of that crisis but also partly in solving it, he fails to give a
sufficient theoretical framework on how the media, or other forms of journalism could do this.
In Between Facts and Norms he again discusses the media and the public sphere, but
according to Douglas Kellner “he does not discuss the normative character of communication
media in democracy or suggest how a progressive media politics could evolve.”55 Kellner
therefore argues that for the public sphere theory to work in the current age of new media a
shift in Habermas’s theoretical framework is necessary.
In order to succinctly explain and lay out Kellner’s critique let me define the
definitions of the lifeworld and the system in the public sphere. The lifeworld encompasses all
the societal processes that are being produced by social actors’ intentions. The result of those
53 Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing
Democracy,” Social Text, no. 25/26 (1990): 64. 54 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989), 198. 55 Douglas Kellner, “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention,” in Perspectives on
Habermas, ed. by Lewis Edwin Hahn (Chicago: Open Court Press, 2000), 275.
19
intentions might surpass the intentions of active agents, that is, the system in which social
actors live and that transcends their purposeful actions. It is in the system that Habermas
locates such inevitable steering institutions like money and power. This concept is applicable
to the interplay of social media, journalists and democracy in the sense that specific actions
either by citizens or journalists online have the potential of systemically influencing society
even though the online environment in which they have been made would be counted as the
lifeworld.
Habermas, in his critique of the current public sphere is sceptic of the critical and
potentially democratic role that citizens can play through their actions in the lifeworld. As for
the news media, he places these as functioning only on a systemic level, meaning that they are
driven by abstract systemic forces, such as money and power, instead of being checked and
influenced by citizens in the lifeworld. Habermas therefore overlooks the influence the news
media have in both the lifeworld and the system. Kellner argues that “new technologies are
permeating and dramatically transforming every aspect of what Habermas discusses as system
and lifeworld, or earlier production and interaction, and that such a dualistic and quasi-
transcendental categorical distinction can no longer be maintained.”56 According to Kellner, it
is possible for the news media, while being part of the system to still influence democracy
within the lifeworld. He suggests a model for a so-called radical democracy in which “the
media are part of a constitutional balance of power, providing checks and balances against the
other political spheres and should perform a crucial function of informing and cultivating a
citizenry capable of actively participating in democratic politics.”57
At the same time Kellner also imagines individuals organizing “democratically to
transform the media, technology and the various institutions of social life.”58 Theoretically
this is an opportunity for subordinated groups, as mentioned by Nancy Fraser, to mobilize,
educate and organize opposition from within the lifeworld to the public sphere and therefore
contribute to the democratization of that sphere. Kellner envisions this to be possible through
the use of new media, including the internet, he argues that new media has “multiplied
information and discussion, of an admittedly varied sort, and thus provide potential for a more
informed citizenry and more extensive democratic participation.”59
56 Douglas Kellner, “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention,” in Perspectives on
Habermas, ed. by Lewis Edwin Hahn (Chicago: Open Court Press, 2000), 271. 57 Ibid, 269. 58 Ibid, 269. 59 Ibid, 278.
20
Kellner goes even further by suggesting that not only new media will empower
citizens, but that in order for it to do so and to be explained theoretically Habermas’s model
needs to be adapted. Habermas’s strict division of lifeworld and system does not work in the
time of new technology. As Kellner has posed, citizens are able to influence the system
through their actions in their lifeworld, in other words critical rationality is permeating the
system through information technology. These same information technologies hold a promise
in them for individual journalists to escape the systemic forces of which news media are a part
and instead contribute to a critical rational debate in the lifeworld as envisioned by Habermas.
This different conception of Habermas’ theory turns it from a theory that conceives citizens as
disempowered into one in which they are empowered. Within this different understanding of
the theory subordinate groups are able to discuss and actively challenge the goings on in the
public sphere with the help of new technologies. An example of how this might play out is
embodied by the use of Twitter and Facebook during and leading up to the revolts against the
authoritarian government in Cairo that started on January 25th, 2011 in Cairo and are still
continuing as of writing this thesis. However, not only the dismissal of a strict boundary
between system and lifeworld is necessary, the acknowledgment of multiple spheres is also
vital to incorporate both the role of journalists and citizens in contemporary society.
1.3.3 Multiple Spheres and the Role of Journalism
To conceive of a normative role for journalism within Habermas’ public sphere, we need to
look further than just the interplay between system and lifeworld. The existence of multiple
spheres, as argued for both by Kellner and Fraser, and conceded to be necessary within his
theory by Habermas himself, is the second necessary re-interpretation to the public sphere
theory. When acknowledging that the public sphere exists of different spheres this leaves
space for a normative model of how the news media should act in contemporary society. At
first glance such a conception opens the opportunity for different kinds of media operating in
different spheres. These counter public spheres could include opportunities for discourse
between the members of a specific counter public. These members could consist not only of
specific citizens but also of certain parts of the news media, such as online journalists and
citizen journalists who are active online.60
Taking this a step further, Curran conceptualizes a model to foster democracy that
theorizes the role of the news media more explicitly. Taking Great Britain as an example, he
60 Paul Jones, “Democratic Norms and Means of Communication: Public Sphere, Fourth Estate, Freedom of
Communication,” Critical Horizons 1, no. 2 (2000): 315.
21
theorizes that the public service broadcasting should provide the core of the media system,
which is the public dialogue. Then he envisions four big sectors, or alternative spheres if you
will, that “serve ‘decentred’ publics.”61 Within these alternative spheres he reserves key roles
not only for professional journalism and commercial journalism, but also within the civic
media sector for citizens who want to make contributions to journalism. The intention is that
those spheres around the core “would need to provide and circulate inwardly affirming
discourses within the emergent social grouping, but, equally, their members would also need
to find a means of addressing the broader public of which they are also members.”62
The big difference here with Habermas is not the fact that there are multiple spheres,
but that those spheres interact. Habermas focused not on this interaction but on the role of
professional journalism as gatekeeper, through the use of professional norms, between the
counter public spheres and the political public sphere. In Curran’s and Fraser’s conceptions,
however, it is an interaction between those spheres, meaning that, as Kellner suggests,
citizens can influence the political sphere through their actions such as education and
mobilization. This opens up the possibilities for the democratizing role of new media like
Twitter and Facebook in the hands of both citizens and journalists.
In short, this chapter has added three important ideas to the public sphere theory of
Habermas. First, that multiple spheres exist and can interact. Secondly that critical rationality
in the practice of the lifeworld has its limits and needs to be re-interpreted in contemporary
society. And lastly that journalism can be active both in the system and the lifeworld through
practices of both journalists and citizens. With this basis it is possible to proceed to the next
chapter where the Habermasian theory will be set up as a theory suitable for the conception of
a virtual public sphere.
61 Ibid, 314. 62 Ibid, 315.
22
Chapter 2 A Virtual Public Sphere
The age of the public sphere as face-to-face talk is clearly over: the question of democracy must henceforth take into account new forms of electronically mediated discourse.63
Mark Poster stated this back in 1995. And while this might be too crude there is no denying
that people all around the world are connected and communicating through an intricate
network stretching from so-called democratic countries to those ruled by dictators. This
interconnectedness suggests a renewed possibility of critical rational debate among citizens
who are no longer bound by space and to a lesser degree time. This leaves a lot of room to
discuss the possible democratic implications of the internet and demands an answer to the
question if the internet in any way can be regarded as a virtual public sphere. While
Habermas’ public sphere theory is based on the bourgeois discussions that took place in
coffee houses, he also poses how the public sphere could blossom through contemporary new
techniques. He envisions that “a dispersed public interconnected almost exclusively through
the electronic media can keep up to date on all kinds of issues and contributions in the mass
media with a minimum of attention,”64 which can lead to democratic public opinion
formation. The fact that he proposes this himself shows that his theory needs some more
additions than only those discussed in the past chapter where it was established that there are
multiple spheres and that there is no strict dualism between system and lifeworld.
In this chapter I therefore continue with the adaptation of the Habermasian public
sphere theory to fit contemporary society. Building on the idea that the public sphere consists
of multiple public spheres, I present and elaborate on a specific shape one of those spheres
can take, namely the virtual public sphere. As I cannot discuss all scholarly positions to the
fullest I focus on those that are specifically related to the place of journalism in that virtual
public sphere. This means that this chapter is an exploration of the kinds of journalism that
have come into existence or have flourished due to the existence of the internet, such as
online professional journalism and citizen journalism. The idea is that these different forms of
journalism are the key ingredients for a new healthy virtual public sphere.
2.1 A Virtual Public Sphere
As mentioned in the previous chapter, Habermas sees the possibility of the existence of a
virtual public sphere, he however doubts its democratic potential:
63 Mark Poster, “CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere.” Website of University of California, Irvine,
1995, www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html (accessed July 19th, 2011), 8. 64 Jürgen Habermas, Time of Transitions (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006), 9.
23
Of course, the spontaneous and egalitarian nature of unlimited communication can have subversive effects under authoritarian regimes. But the web itself does not
produce any public spheres. Its structure is not suited to focusing the attention of a dispersed public of citizens who form opinions simultaneously on the same topics and contributions which have been scrutinized and filtered by experts.65
Believing this, Habermas has not explored the possibility and width of a virtual public sphere
as a normative model for contemporary democracies. However, considering the three big
conclusions of the last chapter and seeing the possibilities offered by the internet it is not far-
fetched to argue the existence of a virtual public sphere. First of all, one of the multiple
spheres of the public sphere could be the virtual public sphere in which online critical
rationalization could reverberate in the offline spheres of the public sphere.66 Furthermore,
new forms of interaction that have come into existence on the internet allow for new ways to
interpret critical rationalization as it is taking form in contemporary society. Lastly, the
interaction of, among others, citizens and journalists online fit well with the idea that
journalism can be active both in the system and the lifeworld.
Because of these connections between the Habermasian theory of the public sphere
and the aspects of the internet, and then mainly social media, there have already been debates
on the existence of a virtual public sphere. Mark Poster, Zizi Papachirissi, Jane B. Singer,
Peter Dahlgren, James Slevin and Andrew Chadwick lead the discussion among others. I
therefore address those different scholarly standpoints through a literature review. This allows
for a conception of how such a virtual public sphere should at least normatively look.
2.1.2 Arguments Against a Virtual Public Sphere
The first main argument against the possible existence of a virtual public sphere is the idea
that it does not live up to the standards of critical rational debate that Habermas has set for a
healthy public sphere. Firstly, there are dominating elites, which are also present in the offline
public sphere, who do not allow for a healthy environment for critical rational deliberation.
Zizi Papacharissi poses that most discussions on the internet are “amorphous, fragmented,
dominated by a few, and too specific to live up to the Habermasian ideal of rational accord.”67
65 Stuart Jeffries, “A rare interview with Jürgen Habermas,” Financial Times Magazine April 30, 2010,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eda3bcd8-5327-11df-813e-00144feab49a.html#axzz2Z7a9p5gA (accessed 15
July, 2013). 66 To take this thinking even further I could also suggest that there are multiple spheres within the virtual public
sphere. However, to keep this discussion a little more simple I will address the issue as if there is merely one
virtual public sphere. 67 Zizi Papacharissi, A Private Sphere: Democracy in a digital age. (Cambridge: Polity, 2010),122.
24
Secondly, Mark Poster also poses that Habermas envisions a public sphere as a homogeneous
place inhabited by citizens on a quest for consensus.68 However, Poster supposes this situation
is not the case on the internet because “it installs a new regime of relations between humans
and matter and between matter and nonmatter, reconfiguring the relation of technology to
culture and thereby undermining the standpoint from within which, in the past, a discourse
developed.”69 By this he means that the internet shapes its users instead of it being a tool for
the critical discourse necessary for a well functioning public sphere. Thirdly, Peter Dahlgren
argues that deliberation on the internet is taking place in fragmented forums among groups of
people who are already working towards a consensus.70 This means that discussions will
rarely go in-depth in the critical-rational manner that Habermas advocates because those
involved in the forum already greatly share the same opinion.
A second major argument against the existence of a healthy virtual public sphere is the
so-called digital divide which seems to influence the democratic potentiality of the internet.
The digital divide means that equal access does not exist on the internet or in social media. In
2005 Bart Cammaerts and Leo van Audenhove already stressed that “online engagement in
forums is cyclical, tends to be dominated by those already politically active in the offline
world and functions within a homogeneous ideological framework.”71 Gehrards and Schäfer
also point out the lack of inclusion in the virtual public sphere by comparing inclusion of
minor actors both in the print media and on the internet. They conclude that there is “minimal
evidence to support the idea that the internet is a better communication as compared to print
media. In both media, communication is dominated by (bio- and natural) scientific actors;
popular inclusion does not occur.”72 Their conclusion is based on the fact that search engines
on the internet exclude much of the diversity of opinion on the internet which consequently
leads to a framing of search results supported by the dominant culture. This makes it harder
for small actors to be heard on the internet.73
In addition to difficulties with accessibility and real critical rational debate,
commodification is also viewed as a major factor in diminishing the internet as a public
68 Mark Poster, “CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere.” Website of University of California, Irvine,
1995, www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html (accessed July 19th, 2011), 8. 69 Ibid, 4. 70 Peter Dahlgren, Television and the Public Sphere: citizenship, democracy and the media , (SAGE Publications:
London, 2000), 158. 71 Bart Cammaerts and Leo Audenhove, “Online Political Debate, Unbounded Citizenship, and the Problematic
Nature of a Transnational Public Sphere,” Political Communication 22, no. 2 (2005): 193. 72 Jürgen Gerhards and Mike S. Schäfer, “Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in
the USA and Germany,” New Media and Society 12, no. 1 (2010): 155. 73 Ibid, 155.
25
sphere. Habermas already theorized commodification of the public sphere, he concedes the
public sphere has two functions: self-regulation and inclusiveness and he states that “while
those aiming to influence are implemented by organizations that aim to promote purchasing
power, loyalty or conformist behavior. These two functions compete with each other. The
principle of publicity turns ‘against itself and thereby reduces its critical efficacy’”74 As for a
possible digital public sphere W.L. Bennett stated: “The great weakness of the idea of
electronic democracy is that it can be more easily commodified than explained.” 75 By this he
means that when it is suggested that the internet is inherently democratic instead of
recognizing that it is its participants that should make it democratic through hard work, they
can become agents of commodification.
2.1.3 The Internet is a Public Sphere
While commodification, the digital divide and a potentially hostile environment for critical
rational discussions are all valid arguments against a virtual public sphere, the following
section discusses scholar’s counter-arguments to these critiques. By discussing these it is
possible to set up a model of a virtual public sphere that is still in accordance with the basic
principles of the Habermasian public sphere as established in the first chapter of this thesis.
First, I briefly point out the counter-argument against the danger of commodification
of the internet. Alinta Thornton counters Bennett’s doomsday idea of the internet as a
commodified virtual sphere. She does concede that within political rhetoric and decision-
making citizens are often viewed as consumers, however, she believes that the internet offers
the possibility to subvert this effect because there is room for dissenting voices that are not
backed by commercial interests.76
Apart from arguments against the commodification of the virtual public sphere, many
scholars also theorize how this sphere can actually be a breeding ground of critical rational
debate. Firstly, James Slevin discusses the possibility of the internet being a forum of critical
rational debate, something which Papacharissi, Poster and Dahlgren hold impossible. Slevin,
however, makes a strong case for the existence of what he calls a “deliberative conception of
mediated publicness” on the internet.77 He does concede that the internet as a public space is
74 Jürgen Habermas, “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. by
Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 437. 75 W. Lance Bennett, “New Media Power: The Internet and Global Activism,” in Contesting Media Power, ed.
Nick Couldry and James Curran (Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 248. 76 Alinta Thornton, “Does Internet Create Democracy?” Equid Novi: South African Journalism Studies 22, no. 2
(2002): 138. 77 James Slevin, The Internet and Society. (Cambridge: Polity, 2000), 185.
26
problematic because of its size. Firstly this size means that there is no central authority to
steer the discussion. Secondly this size entails that online discussions are of a mediated
nature, meaning that most information on the internet is not produced for immediate
response.78 Discussions are not likely to play out at one place and time. Nevertheless, he
argues that the internet offers a space where people can find information; differing views and
they are able to construct their own informed decisions. However, as many arguing for the
internet as a public sphere he also theorizes that behavior and relations within the digital
public sphere have to meet certain criteria: keeping open the possibility of controversial
questions, criticizable rationality, equality among participants and skills to recognize moral
standpoints.79
James Bohman adds to Slevin’s arguments of the possibility of critical rational debate
in a virtual public sphere by posing that we need to step away from the face-to-face
deliberative model that would fit the coffee house or the market place. Once we accept that on
the internet different rules of time and space exist than in real life, it is, according to him, not
difficult to argue that the internet provides ample opportunity for democratic rational critical
discussion. An answer to a comment can come much later, given by someone who the initial
speaker was not directing his or her attention to.80
Both Slevin and Bohman see a real possibility for critical rational debate on the
internet. Unfortunately they do not elaborate from their rather theoretical positions to specify
practical ways of how this critical rational debate can be realized. Their arguments are
backed, however, by such empirical research as has been done by Renée van Os et al. who
conclude that politicians’ websites during the 2004 European election contributed to a
European public sphere. Those politicians addressed those issues that were not being covered
by the news media and got them to be part of the public debate.81 Cammaerts and Van
Audenhove conclude after researching three different internet forums that already politically
active citizens “contribute to ongoing debates within the public sphere on local, but also on a
whole range of transnational or unbounded issues.”82 In my own analysis in this thesis I also
seek to show that such a critical rational debate was set up on Twitter during the Egyptian
revolts of November and December, 2012.
78 Ibid, 185. 79 Ibid, 187. 80 Ibid, 134. 81 Renée Van Os et al., “Political communication about Europe on the Internet during the 2004 European
Parliament election campaign in nine EU member states,” European Societies 9, no. 5 (2007): 11. 82 Bart Cammaerts and Leo Audenhove, “Online Political Debate, Unbounded Citizenship, and the Problematic
Nature of a Transnational Public Sphere,” Political Communication 22, no. 2 (2005): 194.
27
Lastly, Luke Goode adds the insight that through using the internet, people are
confronted with other opinions and thoughts which will have the effect of making them accept
that dissent and difference are part of a functioning public sphere. 83 This means that within
that public sphere there is space for dissensus, which can bring, according to Goode, “new
possibilities for self-understanding, reflection and adjustment.”84 These are all things that are
necessary within a public sphere according to Habermas. No longer, if it has ever been, is the
goal of the public sphere for citizens to reach total consensus, but it has to become a forum in
which people have the freedom, space and opportunity to engage with those who have other
opinions so as to understand that dissent is also a part of a healthy democracy.
Having conceived of these ways of constructing real critical rational deliberation,
Lincoln Dahlberg automatically also incorporates an answer to the critique of the digital
divide. By using Goode’s model as a starting point he argues that such an agonistic
understanding of the public sphere is necessary in order for the public sphere theory to be
properly theorized for democratic uses of the internet. By this he means that one of the major
roles of the public sphere should be the producing of counter-publics that will challenge
dominant discourse. 85 Consequently he argues that the internet through fostering counter
publics enables those publics to produce a counter-hegemonic discourse to oppose dominant
discourse. This disruption of dominant discourse is the only way, he argues, to produce
legitimate critical-rational debate, which is essential to a healthy public sphere.
Also countering the arguments of the digital divide is Andrew Chadwick. He
recognizes that the internet is encouraging what he calls informational exuberance which is
“the increasing willingness of novelties to contribute to the collective production, reworking,
and sharing of media content, with the conscious or unconscious aim of creating public
goods.”86 The internet, by its open character encourages citizens who normally would not
have contributed to a discussion to do so now. Since participation is one of the requirements
for a functioning public sphere it is certainly a good start when the internet is encouraging
this.
83 Luke Goode, Jürgen Habermas: Democracy and the Public Sphere . (Pluto Press: London, 2005), 119. 84 Ibid, 76. 85 Lincoln Dahlberg, “The Internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere,”
International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 3, no. 1 (2007): 60. 86 Andrew Chadwick, “Recent Shifts in the Relationship Between the Internet andDemocratic Engagement in
Britain and the United States: Granularity, Informational Exuberance, and Political Learning,” Website New
Political Communication Unit, 2010.
http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/storage/chadwick/Chadwick_Granularity_Informat ional_Exuberance_ Learning_in_
Comparing_Digital_Politics.pdf, (accessed July 19th, 2011), 4
28
2.1.4 A Normative Vision of the Virtual Public Sphere
Summarizing, a normative form of a virtual public sphere can be extrapolated from the
different scholarly debates discussed in the previous two sections. The pitfalls that should be
looked out for in this sphere are that the fragmented, open character of the internet should not
be hijacked by dominating elites who are not discussing in a critical rational manner.
Moreover, and really a similar problem, is the danger of commodification of the internet
which could potentially also stifle real critical rational deliberation and counterhegemonic
voices which are so necessary for a healthy public sphere, or perhaps better put, within an
interacting healthy public spheres.
Therefore, a virtual public sphere should first of all lend room for dissenting voices
that are not backed by commercial interests so as to oppose commodification. The open
character of the internet allows for this, and I pose in the third chapter of this thesis that
especially the way that Twitter is built up allows for these non-commercialized voices to take
an important part in the public discussion. This open character similarly counteracts the fear
of a so-called digital divide in that it potentially gives access to anyone willing to participate
in discussions.
Then, in order to reach a satisfactory level of critical rational debate the internet
should allow firstly for information dissemination; the possibility to ask controversial
questions and thus acceptance that dissensus is also a valid outcome of deliberation;
accountability among participating members in the form of criticizable rationality; equality
among participants and skills to recognize moral standpoints. Lastly, it is necessary in
conceiving this critical rational debate to let go of the idea of face-to-face deliberation and
therefore accept a different model of space and time where comments and reactions are
fragmented.
2.2 Journalism in a Virtual Public Sphere
Having established that a virtual public sphere is a theoretical possibility when the
Habermasian conception of such a sphere is slightly altered, we now also need to summarize
the role and requirements for journalism within that virtual public sphere. For this sphere to
be healthy, journalists have to encourage critical rationalization which they can do first of all
through informing citizens, and secondly by providing forums for discussion. Furthermore,
journalism should act like a fourth estate, a concept I have not really delved too deeply into in
the past paragraphs. This means that the news media have to act as a kind of checks and
balances on governments, big business and other powerful players in society. Consequently
29
the news media as a fourth estate, or watchdog, means journalists have to commit to “critical
scrutiny of the powerful, be they in government, business or other influential spheres of
society.”87 This is a strong countercurrent to the fears of commodification of the virtual public
sphere. Lastly, when informing and providing forums for public discussion, journalists have
to try and be as accessible as possible so as to cross the digital divide. In short, for a healthy
public sphere the news media have to: inform, provide a forum, be a fourth estate and
encourage equal and universal participation. Having these concepts in mind we can now move
on to the actual role of the media within the virtual sphere.
There have been many conceptions of how journalism should function and what place
it should take within society so as to enable and encourage the existence of a healthy virtual
public sphere. I have divided these conceptions up into three main themes, all three of which I
will address. The first is user generated content (UGC) which lends itself to the notion of
newsrooms adopting UGC. By UGC is meant all the content produced by non-professional
journalists on the internet. This, for example, includes movies put on YouTube, profile pages,
including pictures on Facebook and MySpace, Tweets on Twitter and blogs made by citizens.
The second theme on journalism in the virtual sphere is journalism conducted by citizens
themselves, also called citizen journalism. And the third is a hybrid of the two: a journalism
created by professional journalists and citizens together within a network: participatory
journalism. All three insinuate the participation of citizens in news making instead of
journalists simply providing news to users. They also imply a big role for the internet, and
such services as Twitter, as a tool for both professional journalists as citizens. Therefore all
three different conceptions of the modern role of journalists and citizens within journalism are
relevant for a discussion of the democratic potential of the internet within Habermasian public
sphere theory.
2.2.2 User Generated Content
The upcoming popularity of the internet and its promises of interactivity, speed and space
have prompted discussion on how the internet might change professional journalism. Joyce
Nip poses that because of the interactive opportunities of the internet, newsmakers are being
forced to include the user in their news making.88 This has important implications for an
improvement of the public sphere since inclusion of citizens, or accessibility, is one of the
87 Brian McNair, “Journalism and Democracy,” in The Handbook of Journalism Studies, ed. Karin Wahl-
Jorgensen and Thomas Hanitzsch (New York: Routledge, 2009), 239. 88 Joyce Y.M. Nip, “Exploring the second phase of public journalism,” Journalism Studies 7, no. 2 (2006):
230.
30
necessary features of a well-functioning public sphere. Or in even more utopian views: the
internet provides citizens with the tools to “get a better, timelier report. It’s also learning how
to join the process of journalism, helping to create a massive conversation and, in some cases,
doing a better job than the professionals.”89 I will call this form of journalism: user generated
content (UGC). In the case of UGC “members’ contributions take place within the framework
of professional journalism; news organizations control the audience involvement and
participation.”90
While inclusion of citizen’s opinions and arguments by professional journalists might
theoretically seem easier with the internet as a tool, it is hard to find many practical examples
of journalists actually doing so. Wilson Lowrey and Jean Burleson Mackay offer one of those
few examples. They argue that bloggers are capable of influencing the media’s agenda. They
state: “Journalists working in a community with active bloggers are more likely to track
blogging commentary as they work to determine what news to provide the community.”91
John O’Sullivan and Ari Heinonen also find that journalists have little trouble adopting the
internet as a source, a research tool, a way to connect to audiences and “overall, they do not
perceive a threat from the internet to the quality of journalism.”92 Leopoldina Fortunati et al.
underscore this finding since their research pointed out that when it comes to practical matters
editors view the internet as a helpful tool for “speed, breadth of diffusion, additional
information and interactivity with readers.”93 Furthermore, Mark Deuze et al. give examples
of online projects set up by newspapers in different countries proving that certain UGC
projects are already working. Within those projects citizens are adding to mainstream news
media, for example, by fighting the so-called hard-news bias as citizens seem to focus more
on soft news items to contribute.94 Jönssen and Örnebring pose that this user focus on soft
news has “democratic potential in terms not of political influence but instead of cultural
equality.”95 This means that by redefining private issues, that would normally be considered
89 Dan Gillmor, We the media: grassroots journalism by the people, for the people . (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly,
2004), xiv. 90 Mervi Pantti and Piet Bakker, “Misfortunes , memories and sunsets: Non-professional images in Dutch news
media,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 12, no. 5 (2009): 474. 91 Wilson Lowrey and Jenn Burleson Mackay, “Journalism and Blogging: A test of a model of occupational
competition,” Journalism Practice 2, no. 1 (2008): 75. 92 John O’Sullivan and Ari Heinonen, “Old Values, New Media: Journalism role perceptions in a changing
world,” Journalism Practice 2, no. 3 (2008): 367. 93 Leopoldina Fortunati et al., “The influence of the Internet on European Journalism,” Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 14 (2009): 935. 94 Mark Deuze et al., “Preparing for an age of participatory news,” Journalism Practice 1, no. 3 (2007): 334. 95 Anna Maria Jönsson and Henrik Örnebring, “User-generated content and the news,” Journalism Practice 5,
no. 2 (2011): 140.
31
soft news and therefore less important, citizens reposition those issues as public concern. By
doing so they are influencing the subjects that are being talked about within the public sphere.
However, many scholars have found unwillingness among professional journalists to
adopt the internet as a tool and to include UGC in their news making. O’Sullivan and
Heinonen, for example, found that even though, as stated above, journalists do feel free to
adopt the internet in certain ways, many of the most important journalistic practices are not
associated with the internet, such as face-to-face communication and telephone conversation.
And, more importantly, professional journalists tend to mistrust UGC and the quality of
online research methods, which leaves food for thought in considering how flexible
journalists would be in adopting UGC in their news reports and articles.96 Fortunati et al. even
go as far to say that most journalists are not willing to work together with citizens.97
Journalists seem to generally adopt a stoic stance when it comes to the changes that the
internet is potentially offering for a renewed journalism. Or as Fortunati et al. put it, they have
failed to put “themselves in a new leading role i.e. as professionals who are the principal point
of reference, able to select, to frame, and to interpret relevant news within the overwhelming
chaos of information.”98
Steve Paulussen and Pieter Ugille found that mainstream journalists had trouble
integrating user generated content in their news making because of three factors:
organizational structures, work practices and professional attitude.99 Especially difficulty with
adapting to the technical aspects of online reporting is holding journalists back in
incorporating users in their news making process. Interaction with users, either offline or
online, is simply not part of the journalist’s tasks and is hard to incorporate now.100 And then
lastly, journalists are afraid if they do use UGC it does not comply to their own standards of
objectivity, independence and accountability.101 It is not necessarily journalists’ skepticism
but the entire existing institution of journalism that is holding back quick adoption of online
UGC. Neil Thurman adds to this that cost limitations and legal liabilities are holding
journalists back in using user generated content. Costs are high since most websites want to
96 John O’Sullivan and Ari Heinonen, “Old Values, New Media: Journalism role perceptions in a changing
world,” Journalism Practice 2, no. 3 (2008): 368. 97 Leopoldina Fortunati et al., “The influence of the Internet on European Journalism,” Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 14 (2009): 953. 98 Ibid, 954. 99 Steve Paulussen and Pieter Ugille, “User Generated Content in the Newsroom: Professional and
Organisational Constraints on Participatory Journalism,” Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5,
no. 2 (2008): 32. 100 Ibid, 33. 101 Ibid, 36.
32
moderate user comments.102 At the same time journalists also want to use contributions as a
valuable and plentiful source for stories, which leaves them in a bind and generally leads them
choosing not to use user generated content.103
When professional journalists do successfully and consistently include online user
generated content it mainly stays limited to just one aspect of journalism, namely that of
interpretation. In practice this means letting users comment on articles in a comment thread
underneath an article or letting them discuss it in a special forum provided for online by the
newspaper in question.104 Hermida et al. conclude that even though many projects and
initiatives exist to include citizens in online publications of newspapers, journalists are still
unwilling to hand over editorial power of the news.105
Summarizing the primary thrust of these findings, we could say that when one speaks
to journalists about their recognition of the value of UGC, the journalistic process has
definitely not been democratized. As a matter of fact, such studies more often state that
journalists have made a conscious effort to “[retain] control over the stages of identifying,
gathering, filtering, producing and distributing news.”106 Jönssen and Örnebring go even
further in assessing that by asking citizens to comment, news organizations are trying to brand
themselves as democratic organizations. At the same time, however, since citizens are only
allowed to comment or just marginally contribute to the news making process, Jönssen and
Örnebring pose that “users are identified as consumers but approached as citizens.”107
The consequences these developments have for our normative vision of a healthy
virtual public sphere are that journalists in this setting do not include citizens in their
contribution to the public sphere by dismissing a role for citizens within news making, or
within the discussions that ensue after that news making. Consequently they are not
encouraging online critical rationalization as necessary for a well functioning virtual public
sphere. Moreover, journalists do not manage to cross the digital divide by not properly
including citizens. Only the role as a fourth estate is potentially, and probably partly, fulfilled
by merely trusting on one’s own standards of objectivity, independence and accountability.
102 Neil Thurman, “Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news
media,” New Media and Society 10, no. 1 (2008): 24. 103 Ibid, 23. 104 David Domingo et al., “Participatory Journalism Practices in the media and beyond: An international
comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers,” Journalism Practice 2, no. 3 (2008): 338. 105Alfred Hermida et al., “The Active Recipient: Participatory Journalism Through the Lens of the Dewey -
Lippmann Debate.” (paper presented at International Symposium on Online Journalism 2011, University of
Texas, Austin, April 2011), 16. 106 Ibid, 16. 107 Anna Maria Jönsson and Henrik Örnebring, “User-generated content and the news,” Journalism Practice 5,
no. 2 (2011): 141.
33
All in all, this set-up of the relation between citizens and journalists and the way it has been
practically applied is not the best form to encourage a healthy virtual public sphere.
2.2.3 Citizen Journalism
A far more radical view of the place of journalism and its practices in the public sphere is that
of citizen journalism. To define it I will use the one formulated by Bowman and Willis: “The
act of a citizen, or a group of citizens, playing an active role in the process of collecting,
reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information ... [in order to] provide
independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy
requires.”108 While there are many different terms for citizen journalism, I will use this term
since it highlights the civic role of citizens in journalism. Seen by some as a positive addition
to mainstream media, many also see citizen online journalism as a contestation of traditional
journalism. According to proponents of citizen online journalism it is ideal to contest the
supposed corrupt mainstream news media because it is a democratic counterweight to
mainstream journalism, fulfilling the roles that that journalism should actually be fulfilling.109
As Ronald Jacobs rightfully notes: “A civil society consisting of multiple publics requires a
media system consisting of multiple media,” not merely the dominant mainstream
journalism.110 New technological developments online are allowing for alternative discourses.
This section will explain in which ways citizen journalism is proposed to improve the public
sphere.
A first role of citizen journalism on the internet is its provision of a forum of
deliberation. As citizen journalists are taking on the role of gatekeeper by highlighting,
commenting and discussing journalistic material, they have found a platform for deliberation
as well as providing context to news stories in a way professional journalists could never
provide by themselves. 111 Axel Bruns even suggests a so-called deliberative journalism that
assumes that the framing of an issue can take place after reporting on it. Macy Grace Antony
and Ryan J. Thomas, for example, point out that the discussions they found going on in the
108 S. Bowman and C. Willis, “We media: How audiences are shaping the future of news and information.”
NDN. Available at: www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.pdf (accessed April 29th, 2011), 9. 109 Donald Matheson, “Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: some trends in online journalism,” New
Media and Society 6, no. 4, 2004: 452. 110 Ronald N. Jacobs, Race, Media, and the Crisis of Civil Society: From Watts to Rodney King. (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2000), 25. 111 Axel Bruns, “News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: new Direction for e-journalism,” in E-Journalism: new
Directions in Electronic News Media , ed. by K. Prasad (New Delhi: BR Publishing, 2008), available at:
http://spurb.info/News%20Blogs%20and%20Citizen%20Journalis m.pdf (accessed August 13th, 2011), 5.
34
comment section of YouTube reminded them of the Habermasian rational critical
deliberation.112
Only when citizens participate in news making does a real critical rational debate
come into existence. Robinson found that during the reporting on the disaster caused by
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 citizen journalists re-articulated the narrative of the disaster. Not
only were they expounding what the disaster was about in their own words they also “wrote
about the press as an entity whose authority is not inevitably entrenched in society.”113 This
suggests that in some cases citizen journalists manage to re-articulate their own role, not
merely as commentator on news provided by mainstream journalists, but as active producers
of news themselves. In other words: the public, in a process, form the news. The traditional
model, of professional journalists as producers and citizens as mere consumers of their
product, is done away with when one conceives of journalism as a process, a view that fits
better in the Habermasian conception of the public sphere since that eschews the idea of
citizens as consumers.
A second role of citizen journalists is taken on in the task of further discussing,
analyzing and critiquing reports made by professional journalists, which Bruns believes will
act as a correction of the mainstream media.114 As mainstream journalism was meant to act as
a fourth estate but has failed to do so, Bruns, as well as Jane Singer, argue that citizen
journalism could take on that responsibility, becoming, as Singer calls it, Estate 4.5.115 And as
pointed out by Bruns: “user-led gatewatching is by no means incompatible with conventional
journalism, but may instead serve as an additional source of information,” which is necessary
for quality control of writing, accuracy and balance.116 Donald Matheson researched the
impact of weblogs on mainstream journalism and agrees with Bruns and Singer when stating
that “weblogs are seen as marshalling the knowledge and resources of large numbers of
people and thereby displacing elite sources.”117 The same seems to be the case during crises:
“The internet allows both organizations and the general public to bypass the traditional
112 Mary Grace Antony and Ryan J. Thomas, “‘This is citizen journalism at its finest’: YouTube and the pu blic
sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident,” New Media Society 12, no. 8 (2010): 1291. 113 Sue Robinson, “‘If you had been with us’: mainstream press and citizen journalists jockey for authority over
the collective memory of Hurricane Katrina,” New Media and Society 11, no. 5 (2009): 808. 114 Ibid, 8-9. 115 Jane B. Singer, “Journalists and News Bloggers: Complements, Contradictions and Challenges,” in Uses of
Blogs, ed. Axel Bruns and Joanne Jacobs (New York: Peter Lang, 2006), 28. 116 Axel Bruns, “News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: new Direction for e-journalism,” in E-Journalism: new
Directions in Electronic News Media , ed. by K. Prasad (New Delhi: BR Publishing, 2008), available at:
http://spurb.info/News%20Blogs%20and%20Citizen%20Journalis m.pdf (accessed August 13th, 2011), 6. 117 Donald Matheson, “Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: some trends in online journalism,” New
Media and Society 6, no. 4, 2004: 453.
35
media’s gatekeeper function and enables them to communicate without the intervention of
organized journalism, albeit with uneven quality.”118
Lastly, online citizen journalism appears to be improving political participation, both
on- and offline. Mohammed el-Nawawy and Sahar Khamis found that bloggers in the virtual
public sphere are enhancing popular participation in political life “through encouraging a
more active and dynamic civil society, as well as bringing to life the concept of citizen
journalism.”119 In the case of the Egyptian blogs studied by el-Nawawy and Khamis, bloggers
try to encourage citizens to take on both the government and the mainstream media in
improving the democracy in Egypt.120 Kelly Kaufhold et al. pose that people who trust the
information of citizen journalism “are motivated to seek it out, engage with it, and may feel
more compelled to mobilize accordingly.”121 This might have something to do with the
oftentimes hyperlocal nature of citizen journalism, which makes political mobilization easier
for some.122 Nevertheless, Rodriguez suggests that actually being a citizen journalist is more
important than the persuasiveness of the output of citizen journalists. One of her respondents
of a community radio station states that “it’s more important to get five new people to
participate than to get a thousand new listeners.”123
Clearly this form of journalism is far more effective than UGC in creating the critical
rationalization advocated by theorists of a healthy virtual public sphere. Citizen journalism is
mainly very strong in helping to construct critical rationalization among those citizens
participating. The problem remains with this form of journalism, however, that there is little
to no cooperation with journalists, even though Habermas and other theorists advocate an
important role for the news media, especially as informers but also as catalysts of ongoing
deliberations in the public sphere.
2.2.4 Participatory Journalism
Many scholars theorize in which way citizen journalism can be a useful addition to
mainstream news. The answer can be found in what will be termed participatory journalism.
118 Michael Bo Karlsson, “Participatory Journalism and Crisis Communications: A Swedish Case Study of
Swine Flu Coverage,” Observatorio Journal 4, no. 1 (2010): 203. 119 Mohammed el-Nawawy and Sahar Khamis, “Political Blogging and (Re) Envisioning the Virtual Public
Sphere: Muslim-Christian Discourses in Two Egyptian Blogs,” The International Journal of Press/Politics
(2010): 15. 120 Ibid, 15. 121 Kelly Kaufhold et al., “Citizen Journalism and Democracy: How User-generated News Use Relates to
Political Knowledge and Participation,” J & MC Quarterly 87, no. 3/4 (2010): 524. 122 Ibid, 524. 123 C. Rodriguez, “The bishop and his star: Citizens’ communication in southern Chile,” in Contesting media
power: Alternative media in a networked world , ed. N. Couldry and J. Curran (Lanham: MD, 2003), 191.
36
By this I mean “the idea of collaborative and collective – not simply parallel – action. People
inside and outside the newsroom are engaged in communicating not only to, but also with,
one another. In doing so, they are all participating in the ongoing processes of creating a news
website and building a multifaceted community.”124 This way of collaborating has been
theorized to have many advantages that I will expound in this section.
First of all, participatory journalism might result in a more interactive and therefore
democratic form of journalism. Luke Goode envisions a future democratic role for social
media through what he calls metajournalism of social news. He suggests a complementary
role for citizen journalists active on social media.125 Professional journalists still provide the
biggest bulk of the news but it is then mediated by citizens through ratings, blogposts, tweets,
likes and dislikes or even just simple linking on social networking websites. News in this case
has changed from a top-down process into a conversation between different actors:
professional journalists, citizens, celebrities, organizations and the government, to name a
few.126 This has democratic implications because it provides the opportunity for genuine
conversation, and hopefully deliberation among citizens.
Furthermore, it is believed that citizens through their participation in the newsmaking
process on all kinds of levels can be a check on the mainstream media. Bill Kovach and Tom
Rosentiel propose that journalists should include and invite citizens into the process of news
production. By being as transparent as possible, citizens can keep a check on mainstream
journalism. As a result journalism will be a more valid part of democracy.127 Also Bowman et
al. suggest that if news companies want to be successful in their interaction with the public on
the internet, they should make sure that they support social interaction around their stories.
They argue that “media whose primary value lies in its ability to connect people will win.”128
Bowman et al. envision several positive effects of citizen participation through user-
generated content. First, they imagine that a crowd knows more and that this wisdom of the
crowd will yield better stories. Secondly, citizen participation means in effect that you have a
large number of cheap reporters since you can ask anyone, anywhere to contribute. And lastly
and most in keeping with the Habermasian ideal of critical rationalization: “An audience that
124 Jane B. Singer et al., “Introduction” in Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online
Newspapers. (Malden, Ma: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 2. 125 Luke Goode, “Social news, citizen journalism and democracy,” New media & society 11, no. 8 (2009):1291. 126 Ibid, 1293. 127 Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel. The elements of journalism: what newspeople should know and the public
should expect, (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007), 13. 128S. Bowman and C. Willis, “We media: How audiences are shaping the future of news and information.” NDN.
Available at: www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.pdf (accessed April 29th, 2011), 53.
37
participates in the journalistic process is more demanding than passive consumers of news.
But they may also feel empowered to make a difference.”129
Those suggesting the existence of network journalism make the most radical shift in
the discussion on the virtual public sphere and forms of participatory journalism. Papacharissi
poses that “democratizing potential rests not solely with net-based citizen media, but rather
with the collaborative environments created.”130 Because journalists and citizens are
“networked” through the internet they are able to collectively “record, reflect on, and react on
our collective existence.”131 However, taking the theory further is Ansgard Heinrich who
holds that professional journalism is merely a part of an intricate network, or a journalism
sphere. She formulates it as follows:
a shared information sphere in which ‘traditional’ journalistic outlets such as corporate or public service news providers operate side by side with an innumerable number of
other information providers from citizen journalists to alternative news organizations. Each of these information providers in fact constitute a node within an ever more complex system of information exchange.132
This suggests a radical change in thinking about journalism, instead of it being a top down
process with professional journalists acting as gatekeepers and agenda-setters, it has become a
horizontal process in which different actors, or nodes, add and alter the information provision
within that system. Heinrich argues that when conceiving of network journalism as a global
communication space this results in multilayered and multiple interpretive frameworks for
news stories.133 This means that network journalism enriches the debate because of the
multiple standpoints presented. These are so rich because they are no longer simply presented
by professional journalists but also by citizens, or re-interpreted and discussed by those same
citizens.
Network journalism is a form of journalism that, through its set-up has the most
potential of approaching the norms of a healthy virtual public sphere. The idea of UGC still
puts this task of encouraging critical rationalization in the sole hands of journalists and in the
case of citizen journalism there is little to no interaction between journalists. The idea of
network journalism, however, gives this responsibility both to citizens and journalists,
129 Ibid, 53 - 55. 130 Zizi Papacharissi, A Private Sphere: Democracy in a digital age. (Cambridge: Polity, 2010), 157. 131 Ibid, 157. 132 Ansgard Heinrich, “Network Journalism: Moving towards a Global Journalism Culture.” (paper presented at
the RIPE conference in Mainz, October 9-11, 2008), 5-6. 133 Ansgard Heinrich, “Foreign Reporting in the Sphere of Network Journalism,” Journalism Practice iFirst
Article (2012), 2.
38
interacting in a network. The activities of citizens in this case are not necessarily actively
encouraged by journalists, they are already present and engaging in critical rationalization
simply because they are using Twitter as a tool. I must point out that this is the ideal situation
and that more often than not interaction on the internet does not adhere to these norms. My
case study in the fifth chapter of this thesis will show, practically to what extent there is
critical rational interaction on Twitter between journalists and citizens.
As for the digital divide that needs to be bridged through the accessibility of
journalists, while realistically only a portion of citizens will be active on the internet, this
form of journalism still includes most citizens who then have access to at least an interaction
with journalists. Lastly, commodification, a threat to a healthy virtual sphere, is best battled
by network journalism. Because not only mass media and journalists who possibly have a
commercial interest in using the internet but also citizens who are not backed by commercial
interests are active on the internet. Different interests are represented.
Concluding, of all three types of journalism possible in a virtual public sphere,
network journalism is most suited to live up to the normative requirements of such a sphere.
While this networked interaction can take place through many different tools, such as
Facebook, Youtube and internet forums, I will delve deeper into its execution on Twitter. The
next chapter will therefore specifically expound the role of Twitter in the formation of a well-
working virtual public sphere and the manner in which journalists should be using this tool in
order to connect to citizens and for it to be a tool for a well-working virtual sphere.
39
Chapter 3 If Habermas Would Tweet
@acarvin: Tunisia: 4 weeks. Egypt: 4 days. Will the next revolt wherever it may be take only 4 hours? #jan25
This tweet by journalist Andy Carvin on January 25th, 2011 shows the possible speed of
revolutions in a digital age. And, as of writing this thesis, Egyptians have again been revolting
against their government and toppled it. These revolts are not only taking place in the streets
but also online on social media, such as Twitter, where journalists, but also citizens, are still
asking questions like Carvin did in 2011. In this respect, Egypt provides a salient case study
to show whether and how technological shifts, such as a growing use of Twitter, can influence
democratic processes. Carvin, furthermore, shows there is a role for journalists within these
relatively new technologies.
Social media can provide new interpretations on the democratic potential of the
internet. This is the case, first of all, because through user generated content, people are
creating their own virtual public space. Tools such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube make
that possible.134 Moreover, these tools provide users with new ways of connecting and
communicating with each other. This means that citizens can gain access to information with
which they can influence both media and governments. Someone, for example, could tweet
and comment on a mistake in a journalistic article from a mainstream media source after
which this is changed. Or much attention for faulty government policy on Twitter can lead to
offline public discussions or even changes in such policy. This thesis therefore wants to
explore the changing ways that Twitter impacts journalism and discussions in the public
sphere. Indirectly Twitter might thus impact democracy.
Twitter is specifically under scrutiny here for it has played a ubiquitous role within
many of the revolts that belong to the Arab Spring. The uprisings in Iran are an example in
2009 and the revolts during the Arab Spring in such countries as Egypt, Libya and Syria also.
Some have even called these revolts the Twitter uprisings or Facebook uprisings because
many protesters used these social media for communication, information dissemination and
mobilization.135 The more recent November-December 2012 revolts in Egypt also provide a
salient case study for this democratic potential of Twitter as both citizens and journalists used
Twitter to connect, inform, mobilize and organize.
134 Axel Bruns et al., “Mapping the Australian Networked Public Sphere” (paper presented at the International
Communication Association conference, Singapore, 25 June, 2010), 9. 135 Walid El Hamamsy, “BB = BlackBerry or Big Brother: Digital media and the Egyptian revolution,” Journal
of Postcolonial Writing 47, no. 4 (2011): 454.
40
Before getting to this specific case study, however, this chapter continues the debate
that I put forward in the first two chapters of this thesis. Where the first and the second talked
about the public sphere and subsequently the virtual public sphere, I will continue in this
chapter to discuss the specific democratic potential of Twitter as a tool for both citizens and
journalists in a virtual public sphere. As such, in this chapter I first explore how tweeting
complements journalism and how interaction between professional journalists and Twitter-
users enhances democracy. I do this by contrasting Twitter’s characteristics to the necessary
qualities of a healthy virtual public sphere that I extrapolated in chapter two. By doing this I
can pose that Twitter, when fulfilling these criteria, can potentially be used as a tool for
healthy participation in the public sphere. In the end, such healthy participation is the goal of
a well-working, democratic Habermasian public sphere. Having established this I move on to
a literature review of the use of Twitter in earlier revolts in Egypt. This literature review sets
the scene for the situation in Egypt during the November-December 2012 revolts, and thus
allows me to segue into that specific case study in the chapters after this one.
3.1 Twitter
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary describes to twitter as: “utter[ing] successive chirping
noises”136. In a sense, this is what users of Twitter do. Tweeters are allowed to post 140-
character tweets. Anyone who follows the person posting them can read those tweets. This
means a Twitter-user follows others to read their tweets and also has followers of his or her
own. This is how Twitter was essentially meant to be used: tweeting your messages about
what you were doing so your friends, or followers, could read them. At the same time, it is
possible to see the tweets of people you are not following, as long as the tweeter has not put
his or her account on private. Twitter in this sense only vaguely reminds of the bourgeois
coffee house that Habermas imagined to be ideal for the critical rational debate necessary for
a well-functioning public sphere. Nevertheless I argue in this section that Twitter has some
inherent traits that do potentially make it suitable to function as such a tool.
The first of such a trait is the “@-sign”, this sign allows users to address each other or
include other people in a post. I might for example post “@acarvin where will the next revolt
be?” and this way journalist Andy Carvin (whose Twitter-alias is @acarvin) will see this on
his own Twitterpage. In the same way one could include multiple names of Twitter-users to
include them in a conversation, or make them aware of something happening on or outside
136 www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twitter
41
Twitter. Moreover, others can also read these discussions or questions and can join by
replying to them. Thus enabling the possibilities of conversations on Twitter. Whenever users
are in a conversation anyone else can re-read this conversation easily by clicking “view
conversation” which appears underneath every tweet from the specific conversation. This
relatively new feature did not yet exist during the 2010 revolts in Egypt, but it did during the
2012 November-December protests and thus easily allows for conversations to be seen. The
value of this for a virtual public sphere is that people can really address each other, thereby
slightly organizing that disorganized digital coffee house.
What makes Twitter more special that the bourgeois coffeehouse, however, are two
other features that allow conversations to be spread quickly and easily among thousands or
even millions of tweeters. The first of these features is the hashtag. In the case of the
November-December protests the hashtag #Egypt was mainly attached. This meant that
whenever anyone was interested in tweets about the events in Egypt they could search #Egypt
and find tweets about Egypt. The results either show the top tweets, so those that are most
often retweeted or responded to, or the most recent tweets with that hashtag. Finding these
tweets also implicates that you have found the conversations on the same subject. The hashtag
thus ensures the quick dissemination of conversations among a large group of tweeters. The
earlier mentioned retweet does something similar. By retweeting a message, and thus
indirectly a conversation whenever people have reacted to that tweet, it is spread among a
larger network.
The technology has thus been provided for. Twitter offers the possibility of addressing
each other, easily finding tweets on one conversation topic, and even finding specific
conversations between two or more tweeters. Moreover, conversations are easily and quickly
spread over a network thus enabling others to also join in. Such conversations make Twitter a
tool for possible critical rational debate. I use the word possible, because the technology in
itself certainly does not make up for a well-functioning virtual public sphere. Twitter is
merely a tool that should be appropriated in a specific manner by, for example, citizens and
journalists. The next section therefore addresses how Twitter, theoretically, extends beyond
merely being a purveyor of chirping sounds into a tool that enhances democracy.
3.2 Twitter as a tool of a Virtual Public Sphere
The way Twitter is built up allows it to be a tool for a well-functioning virtual public sphere.
Reiterating my summary in the section on a normative vision of the virtual public sphere in
42
the second chapter of this thesis, a well-working virtual public sphere should include the
following five requirements:
1. information dissemination
2. the possibility to ask controversial questions and thus acceptance that dissensus is also
a valid outcome of deliberation that will lead to new forms of self-understanding,
reflection and adjustment
3. accountability among participants
4. equality among participants
5. a letting go of face-to-face deliberation and thus an acceptance of a different model of
space and time, meaning that deliberation does not necessarily have to happen in a
fixed place during a specific amount of time. Instead it can happen between several
geographically separated individuals over a larger span of time than say, a few hours.
Firstly, Twitter offers possibilities for quick and often effective information dissemination.
The extent to which Twitter is facilitating the exchange of information is necessary to
ascertain, since the quality and quantity of this exchange influences public opinion formation.
First of all, both retweets and linking allow for quick information dissemination. When a
tweet, retweeted often, can travel with great speed across Twitter, it soon reaches many
people, spreading information quickly. Moreover, Kristina Lerman and Rumi Ghosh found
that news stories produced by the mainstream media spread easily and especially for a long
time, through a heterogeneous network of Twitter users.137 By retweeting tweets that contain
links to mainstream productions tweeters spread the information that is contained in them
through a large network of other Twitter users. As a result those publications are read more
widely and information is similarly spread more widely as well. This implicates that Twitter
improves the information dissemination of mainstream media.
Information dissemination is especially effective when such a tweet also contains a
link to a longer article or other information source. This is the case because that way not only
the 140 characters of the tweet are spread but an entire article or other mainstream news
production. Hashtags also encourage easy and quick information dissemination, someone
seeking information on the November-December 2012 Egyptian revolts would quickly find
137 Kristina Lerman and Rumi Ghosh, “Information Contagion: an Empirical Study of the Spread of News on
Digg and Twitter Social Networks”, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Weblogs and Social
Media, 2010, 7.
43
out that a major hashtag people used to report about this was #Egypt. They would as most
people in their timeline either tweeting or retweeting about these events would have used that
hashtag. Or, if someone’s timeline does not already include tweets with such a hashtag, such a
major event will most probably be a trending topic. Trending topics are the ten most used
hashtags of that moment. While you can set them for a specific region, there is also a
worldwide trending topic list. If this list does not contain the hashtag a last option would be to
do the search by yourself through the search option by for example looking for posts
containing the words protest, Egypt, Cairo or Morsi. This all essentially means that when
someone is looking for information about a certain subject it is easily found on Twitter,
making it a well-functioning information disseminator. When someone knows the popular
hashtag for a certain subject allows anyone to request tweets by everyone made with that
hashtag. As explained in the earlier section this results in either a list of the most popular
tweets with that hashtag or the most recent ones. Thus, anyone interested in a certain subject
may easily find information on it through Twitter.
Besides the hashtag and the retweet, the @-sign also potentially allows people to
disseminate information more quickly. For example, a tweeter with a smaller following might
address someone on Twitter with a larger following. When doing this they can share
information with that person in the hope that that more influential tweeter might also retweet
the post and thus spread it among a larger network of people. Moreover, even when this more
influential person does not retweet the post it will appear in their timeline for their entire
following to see.
Several researchers have proven that many tweets are in fact sent for informational
purposes and Twitter is thus already being used as a tool for information dissemination.
Ashkay Java et al. found, for example that Twitter users’ main intention, after daily chatter, is
sharing information.138 Amanda Hughes and Leysia Palen similarly concluded that during
emergency events a large percentage of tweets is sent for informational purposes. They draw
this conclusion because many of the tweets contained links to websites providing more
information about the emergency event.139 I can thus briefly conclude that Twitter not only
provides useful tools for information dissemination, tweeters are also using them. This fits
with the finding that one of the main intentions of tweeters is to dispense information.
138 Ashkay Java et al., “Why we Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities,” (paper
presented at the Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop, San Jose, California, 12 August, 2007), 8-9. 139 Amanda Lee Hughes and Leysia Palen, “Twitter Adoption and Use in Mass Convergence and Emergency
Events,” (paper presented at the 6th International ISCRAM Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 2009), 9.
44
Information dissemination alone does not create a well-working tool for a virtual public
sphere. Therefore, there is the second requirement of asking controversial questions, and in
line with that, the acceptance of dissensus. In light of Kellner and Fraser’s idea of multiple
public spheres, the necessity of asking controversial questions for a healthy virtual public
sphere becomes obvious. This is the case because only asking such different and controversial
questions allows for other public spheres to exist. The theory of multiple public spheres holds
that several different public spheres can exist next to each other, sometimes conflicting. In
those alternative public spheres, different groups can voice their concerns, ask controversial
questions and therefore oppose dominant discourse. In this way such an alternative public
sphere can become a place for counter-publics. This ties in with the idea that dissensus is also
part of a public sphere.
Proof that Twitter is already being used as a tool for an alternative sphere, are the
continuous revolts that were part of the Arab Spring. Those revolts in many Arab countries
offer concrete examples of citizen-organized initiatives through Twitter (and also Facebook)
as a tool for opposition to oppressive governments. In a research report on the use of social
media in the Arab world Jeffrey Ghannam concludes: “These social networks inform,
mobilize, entertain, create communities, increase transparency, and seek to hold governments
accountable.”140 José van Dijck opposes this view when she poses that social media
platforms, instead of fostering critical rational debate, merely “formalize and inscribe a
heretofore informal discourse that was always already part of the public sphere.”141 Van Dijck
is thus saying that Twitter is not functioning as a tool for a well functioning virtual public
sphere, but as a tool for informal conversation that has nothing to do with democratic
deliberation.
Nevertheless, Twitter’s design supports the possibility of posting anonymously thus
making it easier on those living under repressive regimes to either ask controversial questions
or at least be confronted with them when others ask them on Twitter. Similarly, the
anonymity on Twitter allows users, especially in repressive regimes, to take a position
opposed to that of their government or other large, influential groups. People can disagree and
argue their disagreement on Twitter without being afraid that opponents might target them in
real life. While this makes these same people less accountable, it does provide a relative free
space for discussion and deliberation, also in a dissenting form. Moreover, the discussions
140 Jeffrey Ghannam, “Social Media in the Arab World: Leading up to the Uprisings of 2011. A Report to the
Center for International Media Assistance,” Washington DC: Center for International Media Assistance, 2011: 4. 141 José van Dijck, “Facebook as a Tool for Producing Sociality and Connectivity,” Television and New Media
13, no. 2 (2012), 165.
45
that are held on Twitter sometimes end in consensus but also many times in an agreement that
the participants disagree. Twitter’s design thus enables users to ask critical questions and
accept dissensus, meaning that it theoretically can act as a tool for such goals. In my case
study of the November-December 2012 protests I ascertain whether or not such a level of
deliberation is taking place through Twitter.
The third aspect of a virtual public sphere is accountability among participants, a
requirement that is not easily reached on Twitter. Accountability is low, because anyone can
create an anonymous Twitter-account and make claims. In the case of the 2012 revolts in
Egypt it was easy to pose as someone present on for example Tahrir Square (the most well-
known place in Cairo where people protested), while not actually being there. Adi Kuntsman
and Rebecca Stein, furthermore, rightfully point out that “banished from popular discussion
was a sense of the ways in which the digital documents emanating from Tahrir Square …
were often the subject of considerable negotiation and contention…Largely missing was a
sense of the interpretive communities that these tools and documents produced.”142 This
critique of the lack of accountability on Twitter also extends to the insufficiency of the news
media to critically interpret this lack of accountability present on the internet. An example of
this is the A Gay Girl in Damascus-hoax. This was a blog allegedly written by a homosexual
Syrian girl during the Arab Spring. The blog was quickly picked up by the international news
media and she was heralded as an example of a “hero of the social media revolution.” The
real author turned out to be a Scottish blogger, Tom MacMaster.143 This example and
Kuntsman and Stein’s critique thus show that the general lack of accountability on the internet
is worsened through uncritical appropriation of internet information by the news media. This
thus poses a double problem with regard to unaccountability.
When appropriating this to the specific case of Twitter it seems that the problem of
accountability can only be partly bypassed. The individual user who wants to know if he or
she is reading verified information on a certain topic should, when possible, always check if a
tweeter who has proven trustworthy in the past is also tweeting about that subject. This is a
space that could be most logically occupied by both professional and amateur journalists.
Andy Carvin is an example of a journalist who is already functioning as a trustworthy tweeter
who verifies things he posts on Twitter, often through the use of his own following.
142 Adi Kuntsman and Rebecca L. Stein, “Digital Suspicion, Politics, and the Middle East,” Critical Inquiry
(2011), 1. 143 Jeffrey Ghannam, “Social Media in the Arab World: Leading up to the Uprisings of 2011. A Report to the
Center for International Media Assistance,” Washington DC: Center for International Media Assistance, 2011: 4.
46
At the same time any tweeter who has built a large following and a good reputation could
occupy this space. Furthermore, tweeters can also crowdsource their own Twitter followers by
asking them if they know a certain issue to be true or whether someone can verify this. Lastly,
as I will show in chapter five, there are several elite tweeters who are known outside of
Twitter and therefore have a reputation to uphold, it is likely that these tweeters are more
careful about what they tweet and who they retweet. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is
rather easy to post hoaxes or untruthful things on Twitter thereby damaging the potential
critical rational debate.
The fourth requirement, equality, is also difficult to reach. Twitter’s design is not
conducive to this requirement as tweeters need access to the internet to be able to participate.
This means a user needs at least access to a device that allows him or her access to the
internet. Moreover and maybe more importantly, a user also needs the necessary skill set to
understand and work with Twitter. A further restraint to equality on Twitter is the presence of
commercialization. Bernard Jansen et al., for example, show how companies can use Twitter
as an electronic word-of-mouth, in short: how to use Twitter for marketing purposes.144 Such
commercialization means there are players on Twitter who are not participating in potential
critical rational debate but with commercial purposes, potentially harming critical rational
debate. This is the same process of commodification that Habermas criticized about the public
sphere, he states that “while those aiming to influence are implemented by organizations that
aim to promote purchasing power, loyalty or conformist behavior. These two functions
compete with each other. The principle of publicity turns ‘against itself and thereby reduces
its critical efficacy’”145
At the same time I pose that while it is relatively easy to recognize trustworthy
tweeters, it is similarly possible to weed out most untrustworthy tweeters. Moreover, Axel
Bruns and Jean Burgess make a valid point in assessing that the bottom-up nature of Twitter
and its use by so many different actors means that not one institutional participant can
dominate or effectively influence the discourse.146 This would mean that commercialization is
not a main threat to a well-working virtual public sphere. This does not mean, however, that
Twitter provides entirely equal opportunities for everyone. The mere use of the words elite
144 Bernard J. Jansen et al., “Twitter Power: tweets as Electronic Word of Mouth,” Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 60, no. 11 (2009): 2169. 145 Jürgen Habermas, “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. by
Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 437. 146 Axel Bruns and Jean E. Burgess, “The Use of Twitter Hashtags in the Formation of Ad Hoc Publics”, (paper
presented at the 6th European Consortium for Political Research General Conference, University of Iceland,
Reykjavik, August 2011), 7.
47
tweeter in this thesis shows that hierarchy exists on Twitter, similar to the offline world. The
most that can be strived for with regard to equality on Twitter is thus the formation of
networks of users who are relatively equal within such a network. For this reason I analyze a
small group of users in this thesis who are equal in their use and popularity on Twitter.
The fifth and last requirement of a well-working virtual public sphere that I
summarized in chapter two is a letting go of face-to-face communication that should result in
the acceptance of a different model of space and time. As I posed in chapter two, this different
model of space and time is necessary for discussion to even exist on the internet as much
interaction is fragmented and happening over a large span of both time and space. At the same
time Twitter is also a tool that actually allows for a form of face-to-face communication,
namely through the @-sign, albeit not in the strict physical sense of the term. At the same
time Bernardo Huberman et al. pose that “a link between any two people does not necessarily
imply an interaction between them.”147 Courtenay Honeycutt and Susan Herring, on the other
hand, argue that by using the “@ symbol” users of Twitter are engaging in conversations and
collaboration.148 This is based on their finding that when users use the @-sign in their posts
they are mostly replying or addressing another specific Twitter user.149 They do concede,
however, that especially a better archiving of tweets would improve such interaction since
that would enable users to look back further and re-read discussions they can in turn respond
to.150 After their research this has in fact become a feature of Twitter. By clicking on “show
conversation”, the discussion belonging to the tweet expands underneath it. This allows any
Twitter user to follow a discussion or conversation after it has been constructed. Moreover,
anyone, at any time, can also contribute to these discussions, resulting sometimes in page-
long deliberations on certain issues. Such conversations, as argued earlier in this chapter, have
the potential of being the kind of critical rational debate that is necessary for a healthy virtual
public sphere. Twitter thus holds this potential in its design.
Similarly this design satisfies the requirement of the acceptance of a different model of
space and time. A tweet can linger for a long time when retweeted, thereby defying the
original space and time it was posted in. An example is a tweet made by an Egyptian
revolutionary that may be retweeted for days by people all over the world and perhaps later
147 Bernardo A. Huberman et al., “Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope,” First Monday 14,
no. 1 (2009): 8. 148 Courtenay Honeycutt and Susan C. Herring, “Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via
Twitter,” (paper presented at the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii,
January 5-8, 2009), 9. 149 Ibid, 5. 150 Ibid, 10.
48
repeated by news outlets on radio, television or other websites than Twitter. In this manner
one tweet can create a far greater impact beyond the original space and time in which it was
created. Furthermore, Sartia Yardi and Danah Boyd have analyzed tweets and have come to
the conclusion that Twitter-users are confronted with many different views, also those
opposing their own. This has the potential of influencing the way they think, the information
they themselves spread and it can widen the group of people they interact with.151 The large
space over which tweets travel likewise enlarges the possible views and thoughts that Twitter
users come into contact with. In the Twitter sample of this thesis, for example, there is a small
deliberation and exchange of information between a Dutch man wondering about the situation
in Egypt and an Egyptian journalist explaining it to him. As such, both the lingering of tweets
and their digital travel over long distances makes Twitter a potentially valuable tool for online
critical rational debate that is more diverse than offline deliberation.
Concluding, I pose that Twitter, despite some of its weaker aspects is a promising tool
for a well-working virtual public sphere. It does not score well on the aspects of equality and
accountability but in return it is a real space to ask controversial questions and argue along the
lines of dissensus. It is a strong tool for information dissemination and allows us to embrace a
new use of space and time. Do all these aspects in itself make it a well-working tool for a
public sphere though? Not necessarily. It all depends on who is wielding this tool and why.
As Zizi Papachirissi concludes about all digital technologies, and therefore also about Twitter:
They “create a public space, but do not inevitably enable a public sphere.”152 For example, the
fact that users are active on Twitter and therefore active within a public space does not
automatically mean that this space adheres to all or several of the requirements for a well-
working virtual public sphere. Who or what is it then that changes such a digital public space
into a public sphere? At least one important factor is its users, as we have assessed in the case
of Twitter. In Habermas original theory this more specifically means citizens, as those are
supposed to benefit from critical deliberation and consequently live in a more democratic
public sphere. However, equally important contributors to a healthy public sphere, as already
posed by Habermas, are professional journalists. In his conception journalists are to provide
citizens with the information needed in order to engage in critical rational deliberation.153 In
151 Sartia Yardi and Danah Boyd, “Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on
Twitter,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 30, no. 5 (2010): 325. 152 Zizi Papacharissi, A Private Sphere: Democracy in a digital age. (Cambridge: Polity, 2010),124. 153 Lasse Thomassen, Habermas: A Guide for the Perplexed. (London: Continuum International Publishing
Group, 2010), 38.
49
the next section I will therefore discuss how this role can be construed when both those
journalists and citizens are active on Twitter.
3.3 Twitter as a Tool in a Network
Within a virtual public sphere, the ideal role of news media has changed. In chapter two I
summarized that in order to encourage critical rationalization journalists have to inform,
provide a forum be a fourth estate and encourage equal and universal participation. Of the
different types of journalism possible through the internet, namely user generated content
(UGC), citizen journalism and participatory journalism, the last turns out to be best suited for
these four requirements. In short, the use of UGC by journalists, and the participation of
citizens through citizen journalism are both too one-sided. The one focuses still on the
gatekeeping function of journalist, not including citizens. At the same time the other does
away with the role of journalists, even though journalists are important within the
Habermasian normative idea of a public sphere. Participatory journalism, and then
specifically in the form of network journalism fits best within the idea of a virtual public
sphere. To recapitulate, I use Ansgard Heinrich’s concept of network journalism in this thesis.
In short it means that different information providers interact within a shared information
sphere as specific nodes in a complex system of information exchange.154 The information
providers within a network are not only professional journalists but also citizens who are
active on the internet. The encouragement of critical rationalization is thus in the hands of
both actors. Moreover, journalists keep their informative and watchdog function as a fourth
estate but include citizens in this process thus at the same time improving their accessibility
and equality in participation. Most importantly for this thesis network journalism holds the
biggest potential for successfully including increasingly significant digital social networks
such as Twitter as this medium encourages horizontal instead of vertical participation. All
users on Twitter are theoretically participating under the same conditions.
In the upcoming two sections I therefore discuss how this interaction between citizens
and journalists should normatively play out for Twitter to be a tool of a networked sphere. I
namely pose that conceiving and theorizing Twitter as a tool within a network can help create
a new and more elaborate normative model for a Habermasian public sphere. In order to think
of the place of Twitter and its relation to professional journalism within a network, one should
envision a field existing of several interconnected nodes. One of those nodes represents
154 Ansgard Heinrich, “Network Journalism: Moving towards a Global Journalism Culture.” (paper presented at
the RIPE conference in Mainz, October 9-11, 2008), 5-6.
50
Twitter-users and another one professional journalists.155 It is interesting to discuss these two
specific nodes since there is so much interaction between the two. Other nodes that one could
imagine on Twitter are government officials, politicians or even celebrities. Adrienne Russell
also points out there is important interaction between activists, specifically, and journalists
from traditional news sources. She describes how these two groups reported news during the
2011 UN Climate summit. She found that unlike mainstream media sources “NGO coverage
was exhaustive and included the actions and comments of high-profile international and
national officials, scientists, civil society, and locally focused grassroots groups.”156 Such
activist coverage was of such high quality that mainstream sources even started referring to it
as better sources for certain parts of the Summit. Russell thus shows how activists can provide
both additional news sources while all the while also interacting with journalists from
mainstream media.
For the purpose of this thesis, however, I choose to limit the scope to citizens and
professional journalists. The main reason for this limitation is because these are the two most
important groups within Habermasian public sphere theory. Citizens are important for this
theory because they can, and normatively should, benefit most from a democratic sphere. It
should also be noted that because the line between activist and citizen is vague it could be
argued that the citizens from the sample that I use in my analysis in chapter five are actually
activists because they are so intent on changing aspects of their society. This means that
involved citizens can be given the label activist, this nevertheless changes nothing about their
actual action in the public sphere, namely that of a citizen concerned about his or her society.
It is important in this case, though, that such activists are not backed by an organization as
that would mean they could employ the rhetoric and/or tactics of that organization. However,
as long as citizens are engaged on Twitter about issues concerning their own society, without
being backed by an organization, I count them as citizens. Journalists are equally important
for this thesis because they need to interact, inform, act as a watchdog and encourage equal
participation among citizens. Within Habermasian theory citizens and journalists are thus
supposed to already be highly interconnected for such a sphere to be healthy. Thus a focus on
155 This is a very simplified explanation of the nodes within network journalism, in practice the re are many more
nodes. Different news media organizations and citizen groups can belong to different specific nodes within the
network. An obvious example of this could be public service media organizations in one node and commercial
media organizations in another. A certain group of civically organized citizens could also belong to a specific
node. However, for the sake of clarity this discussion will conceive of citizens who use Twitter as one node and
media organizations as another. While this simplifies the discussion it does sufficiently show the interplay
between citizens and journalists. 156 Adrienne Russell, “Innovation in hybrid space: 2011 UN Climate Summit and the expanding journalism
landscape,” Journalism published online (2013), 14.
51
these two actors results in rearticulating their places within a networked, and preferably well-
working virtual public sphere, through their use of Twitter.
3.3.2 Journalists and Twitter
Journalists are already increasingly using Twitter in their news making. Nic Newman, utilized
the Iranian street protests of 2009 as a case study, and poses that Twitter makes
newsgathering easier, it saves time and gets more visitors to a news website through links on
Twitter.157 Alfred Hermida summarizes that in the United States, already in 2010, all but one
of the top 198 TV stations and newspapers had an official Twitter account.158 However, only
using Twitter to gather news or find contacts is not enough for it to be a tool of a virtual
public sphere. The entire idea is that such a sphere will only exist when there is network
journalism, meaning that journalists themselves are only one part of the equation. Journalists
merely represent one node within an information network that also includes many others.159
In order to understand the paradigm shift in which journalists now find themselves
entangled it is helpful to understand journalism within a network as, what Sue Robinson
coins, journalism as a process. She argues that journalists should accept that their product is
never finished and will be commented on, reinterpreted, re-published and disseminated
online. She argues that they should therefore have an active presence online, not just on the
website or through the official Twitter feed of their medium, but also by commenting and
posting in different places.160 This could be a Facebook page or through their personal Twitter
account. The fact that many journalists are not ready for such a role is supported by research
by Dominic L. Lasorsa et al.. They pose that the journalists from their sample had trouble
letting go of their gatekeeping position as they were making little use of the tweeting,
retweeting and linking features to “open the gates to non-professional participants in the news
157 Nic Newman, “The rise of social media and its impact on mainstream journalism: A study of how newspapers
and broadcasters in the UK and US are responding to a wave of participatory social media, and a historic shift in
control towards individual consumers,” Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Working Paper, 2009,
http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/The_rise_of_social_media_and_its_im
pact_on_mainstream_journalism.pdf, accessed October 12, 2009. 158 Alfred Hermida, “Tweets and Truth: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification.” Journalism
Practice iFirst Article (2012), 4-5. 159 As mentioned earlier, due to the scope of this thesis the only other players accounted for are citizens, even
though there are many more such as politicians, NGO’s, grassroots organizations and large corporations. 160 Sue Robinson, “’Journalism as a Process’: The Organizational Implications of Participatory Online News,”
Journalism & Communication Monographs 13, no.3 (2011), 202 – 203.
52
production process or to offer information that could contribute to their accountability or
transparency.”161
Andy Carvin is an example of a journalist who has found a productive way of
participating in the manner Robinson is propagating. He is a journalist for National Public
Radio in the United States. Ansgard Heinrich analyzes him as an example of a journalist who
has altered his journalistic practices so as to fit the new possibilities of a networked sphere.
During the uprisings that were part of the Arab Spring he used Twitter as a tool to “distribute
news, gather information, verify and knit together many large and small nodes.”162 He does
this by creating lists of tweeters in specific regions thereby building a vast network of
information gatherers. He filters this information by retweeting and he even goes as far as to
ask his followers to help establish the accuracy of tweets that he retweets.163 Hermida et al.
found that Carvin in his sourcing through Twitter used a much wider variety of voices than
would normally happen in the mainstream media. And many of those voices were non-elite.
Hermida et al. conclude: “The analysis of his choice of actor types and the frequency of
citation suggest there was a new paradigm of sourcing at play.”164 Carvin is an example, then,
of a journalist acting as a node within the information network on the internet, using Twitter
as the ultimate tool for information dissemination, prompting discussion, equality and
assessing accuracy. These are all important aspects of a virtual public sphere. He has also
found a way to integrate traditional news making values such as sourcing, filtering and fact
checking into his interaction with other tweeters. Carvin is thus an example of a journalist not
only using Twitter as a tool for a well-functioning public sphere, but going further by
integrating traditional news values within this interaction.
Peter Dahlgren also recognizes the monumental shift in journalism due to the
influence of the internet. He therefore theorizes a new journalistic practice which he calls
cosmopolitan reflection, meaning that anyone active online, be it professional journalists or
citizens, need to mentally understand and respect that everyone’s reality is shaped by a range
of factors and that this results in alternative ways of looking at the world.165 This should
161 Dominic L. Lasorsa et al., “Normalizing Twitter: Journalism Practice in an Emerging Communication
Space,” Journalism Studies iFirst Article (2011), 13. 162 Ansgard Heinrich, “Foreign Reporting in the Sphere of Network Journalism,” Journalism Practice iFirst
Article (2012), 7. 163 Ibid., 8. 164 Alfred Hermida et al., “Sourcing the Arab Spring: A Case Study of Andy Carvin’s Sources During the
Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions,” Paper presented at the International Symposium on Online Journalism,
University of Texas, Austin (2012), 11. 165 Peter Dahlgren, “Online Journalism and Civic Cosmopolitanism,” Journalism Practice iFirst Article (2012),
13.
53
automatically result in an understanding of the different viewpoints as they are presented
online, at least adding to the arguably more limited viewpoints presented by the mainstream
media. As an example of this understanding already being enacted he gives Al Jazeera, a
news station located in the Middle East that makes use of bloggers and reporters of many
different nationalities, resulting in news broadcasts that appeal to many globally.166
Hermida recognizes the same paradigm shift but has a less positive outlook on the way
journalists are handling this shift. He does acknowledge that journalists are adapting to the
fluidity of news subjects through the extensive use of the liveblog. The liveblog is a constant
play-by-play of events surrounding a certain subject, generally on the official website of the
respective news outlet. At the same time he identifies that most professional journalists are
unwilling to go as far as Andy Carvin in using the collective knowledge found online to check
the veracity of certain tweets or information.167 This limitation is worthwhile to notice but
does not mean a well-working virtual public sphere cannot exist as long as there are
journalists such as Carvin who do take their place within the network. When there are only a
few key journalists who act as connecting nodes between other nodes interacting in a
network, say on Twitter, they are still connecting a large group of people and other interested
parties. As such, they act as both source and catalyst of information and deliberation.
3.3.3 Citizens and Twitter
So far I have accounted for the role of journalists within a virtual public sphere using Twitter
as their tool, but what about citizens? It is first worthwhile to note that worldwide only ten
percent of all Twitter-users produce ninety percent of all the content.168 This means that most
people on Twitter do not actively participate in the making and maintaining of a virtual public
sphere. However, those who do participate tend to become more committed in their
interaction the longer they have been active on Twitter. This means that the network of such a
tweeter grows, that he or she produces more on Twitter and also posts more.
Then a second note is that the majority of those who produce on Twitter do certainly
not do so with the goal of acting as a concerned citizen. The earlier cited research by Ashkay
Java et al. found, for example that Twitter users’ main intention is daily chatter. However,
166 Ibid., 14. 167 Alfred Hermida, “Tweets and Truth: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification.” Journalism
Practice iFirst Article (2012), 6 – 8. 168 Tyler J. Horan, “’Soft’ Versus ‘Hard’ News on Microblogging Networks: Semantic Analysis of Twitter
Produsage,” Information, Community and Society iFirst Article (2012), 14.
54
their second main intention is the sharing of information.169 While this is one of the
requirements for a virtual public sphere it does not mean that citizen users who are spreading
this information are necessarily doing this with the intention of letting their civic voice be
heard. It is likely that most tweeters are participating on Twitter never have the intention to
democratically contribute to a discussion like the bourgeois coffee house visitors of
Habermas’ ideal public sphere must have had. Then why am I discussing their democratic
role in a virtual public sphere if the majority of tweeters probably do not have the intention of
democratically participating? Because their initial intention does not mean that their actual
behavior on Twitter is not contributing to critical rational debate. The point of this section is
thus to formulate how citizens’ current behavior is, sometimes indirectly, contributing to a
well-working virtual public sphere.
As summarized earlier in this chapter Twitter allows users to participate in
information dissemination, they can ask controversial questions, embrace a new use of space
and time and argue along the lines of dissensus. These four aspects are more likely met when
considering that those participating are confronted with many different standpoints, as
Michael Conover et al. found that the use of hashtags results in a heterogeneous public as
opposed to the normally very polarized groups in society. They do point out that in the end
Twitter-users still tend to look up and address those who already agree with them, which
limits discussion.170 Nevertheless, the Twitter’s technology allows for a heterogeneous public
necessary for information dissemination, critical questions and dissensus.
The kinds of users described so far are thus, while maybe not all intending to do so,
contributing to a virtual public sphere because their posts are part of critical rational debate or
encouraging such debate. However, a different group of citizens on Twitter might feel or want
to function as co-creators of news. The citizens from the sample of this thesis, for example, all
had some extracurricular activities as opinion writer or guest editorialist in both national and
international media. This group of tweeters is more familiar with journalistic mores and may
consciously want to function as co-creators of news using Twitter as one of their tools. When
participating on Twitter with this intention Robinson poses that these citizens need to find
their civic voice, meaning that they should be able to gauge credibility and to not be satisfied
169 Ashkay Java et al., “Why we Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities,” (paper
presented at the Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop, San Jose, California, 12 August, 2007), 8-9. 170 Michael D. Conover et al., “Political Polarization on Twitter,” (paper presented at the Fifth International
AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, July 17-21, 2011), 95.
55
with just one source and follow other links in pursuit of knowledge and information.171 This
responsibility is thus no longer only that of journalists but has become a shared responsibility
with a group of citizens on Twitter. This is also something that Andy Carvin as a journalist
encourages through his collaboration with anyone willing to find out the accuracy of a tweet.
Concluding, both journalists and citizens are part of a network in which each plays
their own role. The journalists’ role within such a sphere is much clearer to formulate, as it is
possible to define a normative vision from a professional viewpoint. When doing the same for
citizens, this all to soon leads to a far too media-centric moral vision for behavior that is in
large part done with the intention to socialize. Therefore I have summarized in this section
that citizens can be grouped into three kinds of tweeters. The first are those using Twitter
mainly for daily chatter and thus as a social tool. Secondly, tweeters participating in the form
of critical rational debate as it can be found on Twitter. This means that they are also using
Twitter mainly as a social tool but with indirect political implications. And lastly, there are
those who, in the relatively new tradition of citizen journalism, act as co-creator of news. It is
specifically this last group and their potential as co-constructors of a healthy virtual public
sphere that I am interested in. As such, the group of citizens that I analyze in chapter five are
all elite tweeters who belong to this last group. Before going into this analysis, however, I set
up a section that discusses the general internet use and the role of Twitter in Egypt in the
period before the November-December 2012 protests.
3.4 Twitter and Egypt
Setting the scene for the start of the revolts at the end of 2012, it is necessary to consider the
role that the internet already played in Egypt. The fact that Twitter could even be a tool during
the revolts finds its basis in an earlier government policy based both on censorship of the
national media and promotion of internet technologies. The Egyptian dictatorial government
promoted information technologies early on for socio-economic development. The
telecommunication industry was liberalized, skills training were initiated nationwide and a
free access to internet model was established, among others.172 At the same time the
government censured national television news stations and newspapers, giving citizens a
171 Sue Robinson, “’Journalism as a Process’: The Organizational Implications of Participatory Online News,”
Journalism & Communication Monographs 13, no.3 (2011), 203. 172 Naila Hamdy, “Arab Citizen Journalism in Action: Challenging Mainstream Media, Authorities and Media
Laws,” Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 6, no. 1 (2009), 98.
56
strong incentive and also the skills, to search for credible sources of information.173 These
sources could be found through satellite television in the form of Al Jazeera. Satellite
networks such as Al Jazeera had already broken the state’s monopoly on information
dissemination.174
However, the internet also became a potent source. In 2011, already a quarter of the
Egyptian population was connected to the internet, of which five percent of the population
had a Facebook account.175 During that same time an estimated 1,1 million unique Egyptian
users were actively participating on Twitter. 176 As the government tried to control the internet
and thus social media, the image of such media as a conveyer of an honest and accurate
picture of the events in Egypt was strengthened among its citizens.177
The earlier mentioned government’s promotion of communication technologies
resulted in a relatively large amount of social media users, when compared to other countries
in the Arab world. Egypt, for example, constituted about a quarter of the total Facebook users
in the Arab world in 2011.178 At first this became apparent through a rich blog culture.
Egyptian bloggers are among the first in the Arab world. Egypt has even been called the
blogosphere’s breeding ground because of its effectiveness in 2005 in the organization of the
protests by the Kefaya movement.179 The blogosphere that started to come into existence was
very effective both within as well as outside of Egypt. Examples of blog posts that eventually
influenced national laws are ones on police brutality and sexual harassment.180 So-called
public sphere bloggers used their blogs to function as a type of forum to engage in issues
surrounding activism in Egypt. Moreover, Egyptian bloggers were not only influential in their
own country, many of them were so-called bridge-bloggers, meaning that they blogged
deliberately in English in order to advance Egyptian issues.181
173 Philip Howard et al., “Opening Closed Regimes: What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab
Spring?” Working Paper 2011.1 http://pitpi.org/index.php/2011/09/11/opening-closed-regimes-what-was-the-
role-of-social-media-during-the-arab-spring/ (accessed September 14, 2012), 6. 174 Halim Rane and Sumra Salem. “Social Media, Social Movements and the Diffusion of Ideas in the Arab
Uprisings,” Journal of International Communication 18, no. 1 (2012), 102. 175 Ibid, 104. 176 Essam Mansour, “The role of social networking sites (SNSs) in the January 25th Revolution in Egypt,”
Library Review 61, no. 2 (2012), 145. 177 Halim Rane and Sumra Salem. “Social Media, Social Movements and the Diffusion of Ideas in the Arab
Uprisings,” Journal of International Communication 18, no. 1 (2012), 104. 178 Jeffrey Ghannam, “Social Media in the Arab World: Leading up to the Uprisings of 2011. A Report to the
Center for International Media Assistance,” Washington DC: Center for International Media Assistance (2011),
12. 179 Naila Hamdy, “Arab Citizen Journalism in Action: Challenging Mainstream Media, Authorities and Media
Laws,” Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 6, no. 1 (2009), 94. 180 Ibid, 102. 181 Ibid, 95.
57
Egypt is also well known for its examples of successful Facebook activism, for
example a general textile worker strike was organized through the Facebook group The April
6 youth Movement and rapidly attracted 70,000 persons.182 Moreover, one of the main tools
in mobilizing people during the first revolts in 2011 is said to be the Facebook page “We are
all Khaled Said”, this page referred to the man who had been beaten to death by the police
just weeks earlier.183 It functioned as one of the focal points from where the 2011 protests
were planned online.184
Thus, right before the first protests in 2011 that toppled Hosni Mubarak’s regime, both
blogs and Facebook had become main staples for internet savvy Egyptians. Activists who
wanted to cause change within their oppressed society used both tools. Here again it is
important to note that the blogs and Facebook pages that caused change were used by citizens
who were doing this from an activist standpoint with the deliberate goal of letting their civic
voice be heard. This thought is supported by Sahar Khamis and Katherine Vaughn’s position
that social media was a catalyst for the revolts, but argue they were only effective tools
“because of the willingness of large numbers of people to physically engage in and support
peaceful social protest.”185 These people using Facebook, Twitter and other internet tools
represent a specific group of activist citizens, willing to also go into the streets to physically
fight for change. This group is only a very small portion of all Egyptians. This becomes clear
when you consider that social media is the source of information for only eight percent of
Egyptians. This not only includes Twitter but also Facebook, YouTube and Flickr.186 While I
do not have a percentage, the number of active users on these social media tools is thus even
smaller. However, Twitter does appear to be used as a tool for democracy by a minority of
activist Egyptian citizens. It is the use by this group of citizens, and their interaction with
journalists and the media that is of particular interest to this thesis.
The 2011 revolts are a good example of how these activist Egyptians used Twitter and
what their interaction with journalists was. Merlyna Lim summarizes that social media were
crucial during these protests: “Social media functioned to broker connections between
182 Ibid, 99. 183 Sahar Khamis and Katherine Vaughn, “’We Are All Khaled Said’: The potentials and limitations of
cyberactivism in triggering public mobilization and promoting political change,” Journal of Arab and Muslim
Media Research 4, no. 2 and 3 (2011), 146. 184 Essam Mansour, “The role of social networking sites (SNSs) in the January 25th Revolution in Egypt,”
Library Review 61, no. 2 (2012), 135. 185 Sahar Khamis and Katherine Vaughn, “Cyberactivism in the Eygptian Revolution: How Civic Engagement
and Citizen Journalism Tilted the Balance,” Arab Media and Society 13 (2011), 25. 186 Halim Rane and Sumra Salem. “Social Media, Social Movements and the Diffusion of Ideas in the Arab
Uprisings,” Journal of International Communication 18, no. 1 (2012), 101.
58
previously disconnected groups, to spread shared grievances beyond the small community of
activist leaders, and to globalize the reach and appeal of the domestic movement for
democratic change.”187 Zeynep Tufekci and Christopher Wilson pose that “social media in
Egypt mediated many kinds of ties and brought individuals news, information, and the social
support needed to spur participation in political protest.”188 Twitter thus first of all functioned
as a tool for information. Moreover, local mobilization and connection between citizens was
also an important feature of Twitter during these protests. More significant for this thesis,
however, is Lim’s observation of Twitter’s globalized reach. By this she means the global
network that can be found on Twitter, causing messages from Egyptians about the revolution
to quickly spread worldwide.
Mark Allen Peterson argues for the importance of international media in shaping
public opinion outside of Egypt, these media helped frame the message that was being spread
on Twitter and in the streets for a global audience. As Al Jazeera framed the protests as a
genuine popular uprising, using Twitter and tweeters as part of its sources, CNN and BBC
also picked this up. This in turn influenced US foreign policy to lessen its support for the
Mubarak government.189 This implies that the interplay of citizens and journalists on Twitter
both had democratic effects, on the one hand within Egypt, on the other outside of Egypt in
the formation of public opinion. Furthermore, Alfred Hermida’s analysis of sourcing by
National Public Radio journalist Andy Carvin, also previously mentioned, shows that he
mainly used non-elite sources.190 This implies that through the interplay between tweeters and
journalists it has become more likely that activist citizens, in this case Egyptians, have more
influence on both national and even international public opinion. This suggests that even
though a relatively small number of Egyptians is active on Twitter with an activist intention,
they influenced public opinion formation. Such an influence had, in the case of the 2011
protests, indirect democratic consequences as the US changed it foreign policy to benefit the
general appeal of the activists, namely no more support for Mubarak’s dictatorial regime.
Therefore, even though only a small portion of Egyptians are active on Twitter, and as
a tool it is mostly used for daily chatter and not democratic purposes, it still does offer
187 Merlyna Lim, “Clicks, Cabs, and Coffee Houses: Social Media and Oppositional Mov ements in Egypt, 2004
– 2011,” Journal of Communication 62 (2012), 244. 188 Zeynep Tufekci and Christopher Wilson, “Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political Protest:
Observations From Tahrir Square,” Journal of Communication 62 (2012), 376. 189 Mark Allen Peterson, “Egypt’s Media Ecology in a Time of Revolution,” Arab Media and Society 14 (2011),
8. 190 Alfred Hermida et al., “Sourcing the Arab Spring: A Case Study of Andy Carvin’s Sources During the
Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions,” (paper presented at the International Symposium on Online Journalism in
Austin, TX, April, 2012), 1.
59
possibilities for anyone who wishes to use Twitter as such a tool. In fact, during the 2011
protests in Egypt, the small portion of activist citizens who chose to try and further their cause
on Twitter, had a relatively large influence on the events unfolding. This was the case even
more so because of the presence of journalists on Twitter who interconnected with citizens. In
the case of Carvin citizens were included in the process of his news making in a manner that
fits the idea of network journalism. A different interplay between large (international)
television networks and tweeters even caused a change in global opinion formation and
subsequent democratic change in Egypt. Twitter thus not only theoretically presents
possibilities as a tool for democracy but has already proven to already do so to a certain
degree during earlier protests in Egypt. However, whether or not Twitter can in fact function
as such a tool while at the same time also being a tool for a well-working virtual public
sphere, meeting the five requirements discussed in this chapter has not been ascertained yet.
Therefore, in the coming chapters I present the case study of the November-December 2012
protests and a sample of seven journalists and seven activist citizens to research whether and
how they are meeting the standards of a virtual public sphere.
j kl
60
Chapter 4 An Egyptian Network: A Methodology
Media content analysis is a non-intrusive research method that allows examination of a wide range of data over
an extensive period to identify popular discourses and their likely meanings .191
This quote by Jim Macnamara neatly captures the methodological goal of this thesis, namely
to infer meanings from popular discourses. As argued in the previous chapters, the popular
discourse found on Twitter can potentially contribute to democracy. In order to test this,
however, I need to empirically research the available data. Therefore a methodological tool is
needed to extrapolate the democratic ideals that a society can live up to, which allows me to
investigate Twitter as a tool of communication and discussion. This chapter presents the
qualitative media content analysis method of grounded theory as such as tool. Grounded
theory is defined as “theory that was derived from data systematically gathered and analyzed
through the research process. In this method, data collection analysis and eventual theory
stand in close relationship to one another.”192 Grounded theory thus allows for a qualitative
extraction of meaning from data. Furthermore, as I will later explain in more detail, through
the coding of data it becomes possible to extract theoretical concepts. As such grounded
theory is an appropriate method to analyze Tweets and extract new theoretical ideas on how it
contributes to democracy.
The protests of the Arab Spring that started in Tunisia in 2010 and spread to many
Arab countries such as Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and Egypt, were one of the first
instances of the role Twitter could play in the organization, mobilization and connecting of
citizens against oppressive regimes. More recent protests in Egypt, namely in November and
December 2012, offer a new opportunity to analyze the role of Twitter. This period marks an
important example of attempts by both citizens and journalists to democratically change and
influence Egyptian society. In this period citizens revolted and protested against their
government as their elected President tried to pass changes in the country’s constitution and
tried to extend his own powers to the judicial and legislative branches of government. As this
period was quite recent it allowed me to gather all the available data from seven elite citizen
and seven elite journalist tweeters. In general Twitter limits the amount of data that can be
gathered from their servers, the way to bypass this was to select these protests and collect the
sent tweets in real-time. The data gained from this period functions as the basis of my
grounded theory analysis in the next chapter.
191 Jim Macnamara, “Media content analysis: Its uses; benefits and best practice methodology,” Asia Pacific
Public Relations Journal 6, no. 1 (2005), 6. 192 Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1990), 12.
61
This methodological chapter first presents and explains why grounded theory is an
appropriate method for researching my data, outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the
approach. I then continue in further detail to explain how I coded the tweets and why in that
manner. Lastly, I present the choice for my specific dataset. This also includes a short
overview of the Twitter-users whose tweets will be analyzed in the next chapter. This
explains why I chose these citizens and journalists and what I knew about them before coding
their tweets. However, I will now first present my methodological approach.
4.1 Grounded Theory
Even though Twitter has become a major tool for journalists in the past years, methodology
for media analysis of Twitter is still in its infancy. Most research published is of a quantitative
rather than a qualitative nature. Axel Bruns and Jean Burgess have made a thorough overview
of ways to quantitatively research large samples of tweets, identifying methods entailing
either statistical and textual analysis that mainly necessitate the counting of certain tweets,
retweets, or key concepts used in tweets and making inferences from that.193 These
quantitative analysis methods provide clear insights into the scope of actors and their
sentiment of the Tweets as they participate in the Twitter community. They can also help in
identifying the key players within such a community, an essential method when figuring out
the networked nature of a community surrounding a certain subject. However, there is a
necessity to take this even further to be able to say something about the nature of the
interaction of such actors. In that sense the qualitative analysis that I propose now, would be
an enriching addition to the already existing quantitative methods and the insights that those
have brought.
Qualitative analysis will never yield the scientific accuracy of quantitative analysis.
However, the main forte of qualitative analysis is that it allows looking for deeper meanings
of texts.194 Qualitative analysis thus goes further than merely counting, in this case, tweets,
but looks for their meaning and the way they are used in interactions between tweeters. As
such this helps me analyze whether the tweets sent during the period under analysis are in
accordance with the five requirements of a well-working virtual public sphere, namely
information dissemination; the possibility to ask controversial questions and thus acceptance
that dissensus is a valid outcome of deliberation; accountability; equality; and letting go of
193 Axel Bruns and Jean Burgess, “New Methodologies for Researching News Discussion on Twitter,” pape r
presented at The Future of Journalism 2011, 8 – 9 September, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK (2011), 5 – 8. 194 Jim Macnamara, “Media content analysis: Its uses; benefits and best practice methodology,” Asia Pacific
Public Relations Journal 6, no. 1 (2005), 5.
62
fact-to-face deliberation leading to the acceptance of a different model of space and time.
Furthermore, as Macnamara poses: “It is not valid to assume that quantitative factors such as
size and frequency of media messages equate to impact. Nor is it valid to assume that these
quantitative factors are the only or even the main determinants of media impact.”195 This
leads to qualitative analysis as a necessary complement to the already existing quantitative
analysis on Twitter use during the Arab Spring.
Unfortunately, not much research on Twitter using qualitative analysis has been
published. So far I have only encountered Courtenay Honeycutt and Susan Herring’s research
on the possibility that Twitter offers for conversations. They use grounded theory “allowing
categories relevant to @ use to emerge from the data.”196 I use this same qualitative method to
analyze my tweets. However, no definite account of the method exists. Even its creators
Barney G. Glaser and Anselm Strauss could not agree in later publications on a single
approach.197 Even so, Alan Bryman identifies grounded theory as the most often used
approach in qualitative data analysis.198 It should be understood as a method that helps
generating theory out of data. Kathy Charmaz and Antony Bryant specify: “The grounded
theory method consists of a set of systematic, but flexible, guidelines for conducting inductive
qualitative inquiry aimed toward theory construction.”199 Inductive analysis means that theory
is gained from data, this generalization of the data functions as the foundation of theory. Thus
similar to Honeycutt and Herring I let categories emerge from the data. By building levels of
analysis to become ever more abstract I build theoretical concepts from the data, in this case
the tweets. To show how I did this I will now turn to a description of the “set of systematic,
but flexible, guidelines” of which this grounded theory consists.
Since the specific approach of grounded theory is not something that is agreed upon I
borrow from different insights into this method. At the heart of grounded theory lies the
practice of coding. For this research I gathered PDF’s with tweets that I coded by hand.
Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin distinguish between three different kinds of coding, namely:
open coding, axial coding and selective coding. In the next section I explain in more detail
what these stages of coding entail, for now it is enough to understand that each stage means a
195 Jim Macnamara, “Media content analysis: Its uses; benefits and best practice methodology,” Asia Pacific
Public Relations Journal 6, no. 1 (2005), 5. 196 Courtenay Honeycutt and Susan Herring, “Beyond Microbloggin: Conversation and Collaboration via
Twitter,” paper presented at Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , Big
Island, Hawaii (January 5 – 8, 2009), 4. 197 Alan Bryman, Social Research Methods, 3rd ed. (Oxford UP: Oxford, 2008), 541. 198 Ibid. 199 Kathy Charmaz and Antony Bryant, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (London,
Sage Publications, 2008), 375.
63
larger abstraction from the data toward abstract theoretical concepts. Every stage of this
coding process also meant going back and forth between my theoretical concepts and my
data. This results in a strong connection between the two while still allowing the concepts to
be abstract and thus a contribution to the theory building around the possibilities of Twitter as
a tool for democracy.
4.2 Developing the codes
As posed above, at the heart of grounded theory lies the practice of coding. Moreover, in the
case of grounded theory this coding is “the process of generating ideas and concepts from raw
data.”200 Before explaining how I coded the data sample I need to point out that while
grounded theory suggests that theory is extrapolated from data, it is also argued that grounded
theory “often generate[s] grounded concepts rather than grounded theory as such.”201 This is
also the case in this thesis as I extrapolate concepts relevant to the idea of a virtual public
sphere, rather than theory, from the tweets under analysis.
I did this through the use of open, axial and selective coding. However, in the creation
of these codes I used the theory from the first three chapters as a guiding principle so as to
link the theory and data from this thesis. Together they thus contribute new concepts to the
theory on the virtual public sphere. Letting myself be influenced in such a manner by other
theories or theoretical ideas in the formation of my codes would not have been considered to
be grounded theory at the time this approach was designed in 1967. Founders Glaser and
Strauss developed grounded theory as the counterpart of testing hypotheses to existing
theories. As such, researchers employing grounded theory were supposed to construct
“analytic codes and categories from data, not from preconceived logically-deduced
hypotheses.”202 Therefore using my previous theoretical knowledge on virtual public spheres
and network journalism would not have been allowed in the original conception of grounded
theory. However, I employ a newer and more constructivist idea of grounded theory, a
position well argued by Kathy Charmaz. She poses that she reinterprets the original theory by
Glaser and Strauss and says: “I assume that neither data nor theories are discovered. Rather
we are part of the world we study and the data we collect. We construct our grounded theories
through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives and
200 Lucia Benaquisto, “Codes and Coding,” in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods
(Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2008), 85. 201 Alan Bryman, Social Research Methods, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008), 547. 202 Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis , (London:
Sage Publications, 2006), 5.
64
research practices.”203 Within such an idea of grounded theory it is inescapable and even
desirable to use previous knowledge as it enriches the new theoretical concepts that are to
flow from the tweets that I analyze. At the same time the original intention of the theoretical
approach is still honored as it allows me to extract abstract theoretical concepts from data.
Moreover, by including such reflexive factors as prior knowledge and existing literature in the
formation of grounded theory I make my theoretical process more transparent.
Therefore, the five requirements for a virtual public sphere are the theoretical guiding
principle, as I extrapolated them from previous scholarly literature in chapter two. Moreover,
another important idea that informed the codes was network journalism, which in chapter two
I present to be the most constructive form of journalism for a well-functioning virtual public
sphere. Within this idea of journalism co-operation and connection between journalists and
citizens is required. These guiding principles thus give a focus to the developing of the codes
and later the overarching categories and concepts that can be extracted from these codes. And,
perhaps more importantly, they provide help in a theoretical understanding of empirical data
and place this within historical and social contexts.
I began by using open coding which Strauss and Corbin define as “the process of
breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data.”204 In practice
this meant that I first coded the tweets under different kinds of concepts that were not
necessarily specific to every different tweet and were thus mainly overlapping. The purpose
of this is that new ideas and thoughts could occur around these tweets, meaning that many
different codes are possible and sometimes also multiple codes for one tweet. However,
during this stage I did not yet assign these codes to the individual tweets. I did write down the
common codes that would return in a later stage. Moreover, in this stage there were also some
in vivo codes that I extracted. Such codes correspond to certain terms used in the tweets, the
use of this kind of code “help[s] us to preserve participants’ meanings of their views and
actions in the coding itself.”205 In my sample such codes mainly reflected strong emotions
expressed in words such as anger and disappointment.
Most of these in vivo codes I then also adopted in the second stage of coding, axial
coding. This entailed going through all the PDF’s and assigning each tweet a code, meaning
that a tweet could now not have more than one different code. The coding thus becomes more
203 Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, (London:
Sage Publications, 2006), 10. 204 Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques
(London: Sage Publications, 1990), 61. 205 Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis , (London:
Sage Publications, 2006), 55.
65
abstract. Charmaz argues that such axial coding “requires decisions about which initial codes
make the most analytic sense to categorize your data incisively and completely.”206 Appendix
C shows an example of this part of the axial coding stage.
Having established the codes of the tweets I subsequently ordered these under larger
and more abstract categories. That is the last step in coding, called selective coding. This
involves a great deal of analysis as during these steps the codes are linked and contrasted to
each other to form overarching categories. After this the abstraction becomes even larger by
now linking the categories into greater themes. Appendix E shows the categorization of these
tweets and which categories and themes emerged from the tweets that I analyzed. Chapter
five discusses in greater detail how I came to these specific categories and themes. From these
themes, or concepts, I drew inferences about how Twitter contributed to a virtual public
sphere during the revolts in Egypt. More importantly, I was thus able to extract key concepts
that can be added to further research into the democratic potential of Twitter. The following
section presents how and why I chose the dataset from which I extracted these key concepts.
4.3 The dataset
A clearly delimited time in Egypt’s recent history functioned as the period from which I
gathered data. It starts on November 22, 2012, the date that President Muhammed Morsi
issued a decree giving himself “powers above any court as the guardian of Egypt’s
revolution,” thereby eliminating any judicial oversight of him or the constitutional assembly
drafting Egypt’s new constitution.207 On December 8, 2012 Morsi rescinded his decree after
heavy protests that “drew tens of thousands of protesters into the streets calling for his
downfall,” according to The New York Times.208
An English translation of President Morsi’s decree, made by the Egyptian online
newspaper Ahram Online, can be found in Appendix A. The main issues for the opposition
are article II and VI. Article II holds that earlier “declarations, laws, and decrees made by the
president” are binding and not subject to judicial oversight until there is a new Egyptian
constitution.209 Article VI states: “The President may take the necessary actions and measures
206 Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis , (London:
Sage Publications, 2006), 57-58. 207 David D. Kirkpatrick and Mayy El Sheikh, “Citing Deadlock, Egypt’s Leader Seizes New Power and Plans
Mubarak Retrial,” New York Times November 22, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/world/middleeast/
egypts-president-morsi-gives-himself-new-powers.html?_r=0 208 David D. Kirkpatrick, “Backing off Added Powers, Egypt’s Leader Presses Vote,” The New York Times
December 8, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/middleeast/egypt -protests.html?_r=0 209 Appendix A – Article II
66
to protect the country and the goals of the revolution.”210 This in effect means a total
disregard of the democratic idea of checks and balances as all three powers, judicial,
executive and administrative, are in the hands of one single person. The opposition thus
mainly protested against these powers combined in one man. This reminded most of the
sweeping powers the previous ruler, Hosni Mubarak, used to have before he was brought
down with the help of civil revolts.211
I chose this period to study, firstly, for its natural boundaries. The issuing of the decree
and the almost immediate protests that ensued is a clear beginning, while the rescinding of the
decree on December 8, 2012 demarcates a clear boundary to end the period. This means that
the deliberations and posts on this period are easy to find and assess, as they do not continue
over a longer period of time. While Egyptian citizens of course continued and still continue to
discuss the events in their county, the opposition to President Morsi’s government and the
shape this was taking was the main, and in the case of almost all the tweeters that I studied,
only, subject that was discussed on Twitter. This thus results in a rich dataset of which almost
all the tweets gathered pertain to one specific subject.
Another reason to choose this period was the fact that it functions as an example of
civic unrest translated into online discourses on Twitter. This thus provides me with the
opportunity to test whether these discourses were critical in the Habermasian sense of the
word. I ascertain this in the upcoming analysis, by testing whether the kinds of tweets adhere
to the five requirements of a virtual public sphere. I must emphasize that I do not research
whether the online discussion contributed to the rescinding of the decree. This is not possible
for too many factors are potentially responsible for that. The first of which is the physical
violence by protesters that is cited to be an important one, for example in The New York Times
article quoted earlier. Another factor is the international pressure on Morsi to rescind his
decree. During this period the United States, France, Germany, Europe in general and the
United Nations all expressed their concerns over the constitutionality of the decree and the
ensuing unrest.212 Tied in with these concerns in other countries are Egypt’s economic
210 Appendix A – Article VI 211 While the decree was the reason for the initial protests, it should be noted that the vote of the Constituent
Assembly (CA) on the draft constitution on November 30th gave an extra spark to these protests. Similarly,
counter-reactions by Muslim Brotherhood members and other Islamists also influenced the ongoing protests
during this period. While these were all important factors for the protests to continue and at times strengthen, I
keep the explanation in this thesis limited to the decree itself as that was the clear trigger, but also clear end of
the November-December protests. As when it was rescinded by Morsi, the protests stopped even though the draft
constitution and the subsequent controversial referendum on December 15th stayed. 212 Molloy, Connor, “US attempts friendly condemnation,” Daily News Egypt 5 December, 2012
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2012/12/05/clinton-calls-for-two-way-dialogue-in-egypt/; “Merkel expresses
concern over developments in Egypt,” Egypt Independent 26 November, 2012
67
interests. Firstly the protests caused tourism to fall during the period but also led to less
bookings for December and January.213 Moreover, some members of the European Parliament
suggesting cutting aid to Egypt as it was no longer satisfying the conditions for democracy
that the EU had set for it.214 Similarly, IMF funds were being delayed in this period due to the
unrest.215 A last factor influencing Morsi to rescind his decree, were the national political
pressures both from the opposition as well as the powerful army might have contributed to
him rescinding the decree. The opposition led by known leaders such as Mohamed ElBaradei,
Ayman Nour, Hamdeen Sabbahy and Amr Mousa organized the day after Morsi issued his
decree.216 Moreover, as these national players opposed themselves against Morsi, the
judiciary protested his decree by striking.217
Thus, the physical presence of protesters, international and national pressures and
economic considerations were are all factors that contributed to the rescinding of the decree
and which cannot be accounted for in this thesis. However, the separate role of Twitter is still
interesting to research as a tool for a contesting alternative sphere and this analysis does
account for the factors significant for the Twittersphere. As such, a goal of my analysis is to
assess whether the Twitter discourses align with the requirements of online critical rational
debate as argued in chapter two and three. As such I can assess whether and how much
Twitter is living up to this potential of being a tool for critical rational debate.
4.3.2 Elite tweeters
Since I am seeking to research the dimensions of the actual interaction between citizens and
journalists and whether this fits the democratic ideal of a Habermasian public sphere, the data
has been further limited to the top contributors of the Twitter debate during the upheavals.
The analyzed tweets were restricted to those made by the two groups within network
journalism that were the focus of this thesis so far: citizens and journalists. While this
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/merkel-expresses-concern-over-developments-egypt; “France: Europe
to try to convince Morsi to backtrack on new powers,” Egypt Independent 26 November, 2012
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/france-europe-try-convince-Morsi-backtrack-new-powers; “UN
expresses alarm over unrest and draft constitution,” Egypt Independent 7 December, 2012
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/un-expresses-alarm-over-unrest-and-draft-constitution 213 “Tourism falls amid political tension,” Egypt Independent 28 November, 2012
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/tourism-falls-amid-political-tension 214 Joel Gulhane, “EU concerned by Morsi’s decree,” Daily News Egypt 4 December, 2012
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2012/12/04/eu-concerned-by-Morsis-decree/ 215 “Egypt requests delay of IMF loan approval,” Egypt Independent 11 December, 2012
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-requests-delay-imf-loan-approval 216 “ElBaradei, Sabbahy and others call for anti-Morsi protests on Friday,” Egypt Independent 23 November,
2012 http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/elbaradei-sabbahy-and-others-call-anti-Morsi-protests-friday 217 “Judges rise against Morsi’s power grab, announces strike,” Egypt Independent 24 November, 2012
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/judges-rise-against-Morsi-s-power-grab-announce-strike
68
excludes other very important players within network journalism such as NGO’s, social
(grassroots) movements, politicians and government players, it does allow for a focused
analysis of the ways in which these two specific groups are able to interact and contribute on
Twitter. This also excludes all non-elite tweeters thus limiting the analysis of larger Twitter
networks and whether they can function as tools for a virtual public sphere. At the same time,
however, this limitation allows for a focus on the functioning of small networks to satisfy the
needs of such a tool.
I ascertained the so-called Twitter elite, both citizens and journalists, through the use
of the website Tweetgrader (tweet.grader.com). This website calculates what it calls a Twitter
Grade which reflects how influential someone is on Twitter. It is based on an algorithm that
weighs the following factors: number of followers; power of followers (if they also have a
high Twitter grade); number of updates; update recency; follower/following ratio; and
engagement (number of times retweeted and by whom).218 This grade is meant to calculate
the impact of a person’s tweets. It allows for a search based on location and generates the top
fifty elite Twitter users for that location at that specific time. I used this website on December
13, 2012 to ascertain the most influential persons on Twitter with their location settings on
Cairo, Egypt, which gave me a list of the fifty most influential Twitter-users in the period
under analysis.
The specific set consisted of a large quantity of Arabic tweeting users. Unfortunately I
can only analyze tweets made in English as I cannot read Arabic. However, this does not limit
this dataset too severely but merely binds it in a specific way. It does this by allowing me to
focus on a network that was not only local and Arabic speaking, but one that was
transnational and to which actors outside of Egypt were also invited to make a contribution.
Consequently, the result was a dataset consisting of seven Egyptian citizens, some of them
tweeting from Cairo, others from places outside of Cairo, such as Berlin, London and Paris.
Seven journalists, both Egyptian as well as international, were also extrapolated from this list
of Cairo’s Twitter elite.
I did not choose this number of Twitter users randomly. As already explained, these
were the only fourteen from the fifty that tweeted in English. While there were also two extra
journalists, one for CNN and one for The New York Times on this list, both had been recently
transferred to a different location. Therefore they barely tweeted about Egypt anymore during
the period of analysis, which is why I excluded them from the sample. Coincidentally the
218 http://graderblog.grader.com/twitter-grader-api/bid/19046/How-Does-Twitter-Grader-Calculate-Twitter-
Rankings
69
distribution of citizens and journalists thus ended up the same. This means my focus during
the analysis is equally divided between the two groups, which fits the theoretical premise
from the past chapter that these two form equally important parts of an intricate network as
can be found on Twitter. Moreover, the total of 5299 tweets was almost equally distributed
over the citizens and journalists with the citizens having only slightly over a hundred tweets
more.
I captured the tweets of the key Tweeters with the help of www.allmytweets.net (All
My Tweets). This website captures up to 3200 tweets from one specific user from the moment
of recording. This includes both the replies and retweets made by that user. I captured all the
tweets for the key users dating back from December 13th. Depending on the amount of
Tweets made per day this meant that the data gathered per person went back a larger or
shorter amount in time. However, all recorded Tweets from every Tweeter encompassed the
period from November 22, 2012 to December 8, 2012. Thus for each key player I captured all
the tweets, including replies and retweets, made during the period that I am studying. After
this I saved the tweets as a PDF-file, resulting in a digital archive of the tweets of the fourteen
English tweeting elite Tweeters in Cairo, Egypt. I discounted the Arabic tweets and tweets
that did not pertain to the current political, social or economic situation in Egypt.
The next section introduces these key users, their personal positions toward the
political situation that they are tweeting on and if possible their view on tweeting about
Egypt’s political circumstances. Understanding this context fits the idea that the theory
flowing from the data, in this case the tweets, is firmly based within a social, political and
historical context. The senders of these tweets do so because of certain social, political, and
even historical reasons. Even though I cannot ascertain these specific reasons as those would
be too personal, I can place the abstract theoretical concepts that their tweets yield within a
context.
4.3.3 The Citizens
Of the Egyptian citizens active on Twitter I chose, among the English typing ones, seven
contributors who could be relatively reliably traced to be the persons they claim they are. This
is based on the fact that they are not tweeting anonymously or if they are, have been tweeting
for a long time under that specific alias. Most of them also have links to personal websites.
Not all of them were based in Cairo in January of 2011, but they all participated in
discussions on Twitter about the Egyptian public sphere, whether present at the time of the
revolts or not. Furthermore, they all also claim to be Egyptian citizens. Admittedly, citizens
70
from other countries probably also contributed greatly to the discussion surrounding the
revolts. However, in order to limit the sample I chose to focus only on Egyptian citizens, who
due to their knowledge of the Egyptian public sphere are generally well-informed contributors
and thus viable candidates for contributing to critical rational debate. It is also important to
keep in mind that some of these citizens would be understood to be activists. As I argued in
the past chapter, these activist citizens can still be counted as citizens as they are posting their
tweets from a personal interest in their society. Only when they are backed by certain
companies, governments or NGOs would I discount them as citizens as that would mean they
could be employing the rhetoric and tactics and strategies of that specific organization. That
would mean they were acting as a member, or even spokesperson of that organization instead
of acting as a concerned citizen.
I will briefly present the seven citizens whose tweets I analyzed. Included is their
Twitter alias and Twitter description under that alias; their real name (if included); their
Twitter-ranking, meaning the place among the 13.429.019 Twitter users that had been graded
by 13 December, 2012 so as to show their relative influence on Twitter. They are presented in
order of highest ranking on Tweetgrader. The lower the number of the ranking the more
influential they are.
1. @sandmonkey; Twitter grade: 2.109
Mahmoud Salem contributes opinion pieces to Egyptian English-language news website
Daily News Egypt. However, he does not describe himself as a journalist on Twitter. There his
profile reads: “Extremely secular, Blogger, activist, writer, author of two books, New Media
douchebag, Pain in the ass! I wasn’t born with enough middle fingers.” Instead he might be
best known online for his blog “Rantings of a Sandmonkey” (sandmonkey.org) which he
updates nearly every day. He “has been active in the struggle for freedom of speech, human
rights, religious rights, and women’s rights …[and] is currently creating a political party.”219
During the November and December protests, Salem was in Rome until November
25th and returned to Cairo, because of the protests, on November 26th. In the meantime,
however, he did participate in the discussions about Egypt. December 5th and 6th he was in
Brussels but also continued tweeting about the protests. Most of the days between November
22 and December 8, he was present on Tahrir Square to protest against President Morsi.
219 “Speaker – Mahmoud Salem” Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy http://www.genevasummit.
org/speaker/72
71
2. @gsquare86; Twitter grade: 4.172
Gigi Ibrahim’s Twitter profile simply states “Revolutionary Socialist,” the far left group of
which she is a member just like her husband Hossam el-Hamalawy who is also part of this
dataset. In December 2012 she wrote on her blog (theangryegyptian.wordpress.com): “We,
the people, are applying all the pressure in our hands to object, protest, and revolt against this
dictatorship [Morsi] and continuing the revolution until all of our demands are met; bread
freedom, social equality.”220 She is internationally oriented as she spent her high school years
in California and studied at American University in Cairo.221 She also tweets in English
mainly, about which she says “I’m trying to spread accurate information and paint a picture at
the ground for people who aren’t here, via Twitter and Facebook.”222
3. @tarekshalaby; Twitter grade: 12.412
Tarek Shalaby’s Twitter profile reads “Egyptian blogger from Cairo. Revolutionary Socialist.
Partner and Creative Director at planet360.” Apart from Twitter, Shalaby is active on his own
website (tarekshalaby.com) where he blogs not only on conflicts in Egypt but also
international revolutionary tensions. He updates this blog about once every month. During an
interview with BBC’s Hardtalk in January 2012 he was shown to be fluent in English and
explained that he had studied in the United States for a while and is called Westernized.223 He
is a member of the far left Revolutionary Socialists just like his sister Nora Shalaby,
Mahmoud Salem, Gigi Ibrahim and her husband Hossam El-Hamalawy, whose Tweets are all
part of this dataset.
4. @norashalaby; Twitter grade: 13.634
Nora Shalaby describes herself as an “Archaeologist. Berliner for now…” on her Twitter
account. She was thus not in Cairo during the unrest regarding Morsi’s decree although she
did participate in the online discussion during that period and repeatedly tweeted that she
would have liked to have been there. She is Tarek Shalaby’s sister and journalist Evan Hill,
220 Gigi Ibrahim, “2012: The Year of Persistance,” Blog: The Angry Egyptian 31 December, 2012 http://www.
theangryegyptian.wordpress.com/2012/12/ 221 Tony Rogers, “Citizen Journalist Gigi Ibrahim Uses Tools of the Web to Spread News of Cairo Protests,”
About.com Guide January 28, 2011 http://journalism.about.com/b/2011/01/28/citizen-journalist-gigi-ibrahim-
uses-tools-of-the-web-to-spread-news-of-cairo-protests.htm 222 Rob Mackey “Interview with an Egyptian Blogger,” The New York Times 27 January, 2011 http://www.
nytimes.com/video/2011/01/27/world/middleeast/1248069593977/ interview-with-an-egyptian-blogger.html 223 Tarek Shalaby’s YouTube Channel, “Hardtalk On the Road in Eygpt – With Tarek Shalaby,” 18 January,
2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSsKLfhPlh0
72
who is one of the journalists in this dataset, interviewed her for an Al Jazeera article.224
Shalaby has her own blog (almahrusa.blogspot.com), however, she did not write on that blog
in 2012. She also contributed two articles to Egyptian news website Egypt Independent where
she calls herself a freelance writer.225
5. @mosaaberizing; Twitter grade: 34.137
Mosa’ab Elshamy is an Egyptian Cairo-based photojournalist whose pictures have appeared
in many national as well as international publications.226 Because he is a photojournalist and I
included him for his words and contribution on Twitter he is counted here as a citizen and not
a journalist. Moreover, he did not tweet for a news medium but as an Egyptian citizen. On his
Twitter profile he writes: “I revolted and overthrew a dictator”. Yet in his tweets he seems far
more moderate than the other Egyptian citizens under study. Right after Morsi’s decree he
does not immediately opposes it as being unconstitutional. Moreover, he does not take to the
street to protest like Sandmonkey, Tarekshalaby, Gsquare86 or Norashalaby would she have
been in Egypt at the time.
6. @egyptocracy; Twitter grade: 35.195
Egyptocracy is the only Twitter-user whose offline identity I could not find. Her Twitter
profile reads: “I tweet about Egypt and the world. Politics, culture and beyond. Do not take
me too seriously, I will surprise you at times. RTs are not always endorsements”. She was
interviewed by ABC’s Jess Hill where she revealed that she protested on Tahrir Square in
June of 2011 about which she says: “I’m not in this protest hoping for a specific outcome. I’m
actually here showing solidarity to the martyrs’ families.”227 Her political orientation
therefore remains somewhat unclear although in her blog posts she is both critical of Mubarak
as well as Morsi. She was not in Egypt during the protests and it remains unclear where she
was exactly.
224 Evan Hill, “Egypt’s crackdown now wears camouflage,” Al Jazeera 20 May 2011 http://www.aljazeera.com/
indepth/features/2011/05/2011519172611166398.ht ml 225 http://www.egyptindependent.com/staff/nora-shalaby 226 http://www.worldpressphoto.org/people/mosa’ab-elshamy 227 Jess Hill, “Egyptian protesters clash with security forces in Cairo,” ABC The World Today June 29, 2011
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3256549.htm
73
7. @riverdryfilm; Twitter grade: 61.596
Omar Robert Hamilton is an Egyptian independent filmmaker who lives both in London and
Cairo, during the protests he was in London until December 7th, when he arrived in Cairo.228
He studied English Literature in Oxford and founded the Mosireen film collective that came
into existence after the first Egyptian revolts. This collective aggregates media made by
citizens with the goal to “challenge state media narratives.”229 He also made the crowd-
funded, independent film Though I Know the River is Dry about the post-Arab Spring Middle
East.230 He takes pictures and writes stories that appear in different international publications
such as the Guardian, The Economist and the Daily Beast. His documentary films are shown
on Al Jazeera and Tahrir TV.231
An important deduction from these biographies is that all citizens are very media savvy. Most
of them occasionally write for news media, some of them have appeared in Western television
shows to explain the Egyptian situation. This implies that on Twitter these citizens are equals
to the journalists of the sample whom most are also interacting with. Such equality makes the
citizens from the sample more suitable to function as a sample for a possible well-functioning
virtual public sphere as participants in such a sphere need to be equal. This also means that
these citizens are not in the least representative of the Egyptian population of which most
people will not be as media savvy. A trait that further delineates these citizens from other
Egyptians is the fact that they have great affinity with the western world. Many of them have
either lived or studied abroad, mainly in Great Britain and the United States. Therefore they
are very proficient English speakers. Also, except for Egyptocracy all citizens from this group
are known outside of Twitter which makes them much more accountable when tweeting. This
also differs from the majority of Egyptian tweeters who can do so anonymously. As such, this
group is not very representative of Egyptian citizens in general as their status as elite tweeters
already suggests. However, as posed before, their special position means they are interesting
for understanding how Twitter can ideally function as a tool for democracy.
The citizen tweeters from this sample do represent two different positions toward
Morsi’s government that are also held widely among Egyptian citizens. Gsquare86,
Tarekshalaby and Norashalaby are Revolutionary Socialists, meaning that they are secularists
228 http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/omar-robert-hamilton 229 http://mosireen.org/?page_id=6 230 http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com/nl/persons/omar-robert-hamilton/ 231
http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/article.jsp;jsessionid=035DABB6D2A0CA1EB8DBE386A3A7FA84?object
number=55217
74
who have always vehemently opposed Morsi. Sandmonkey calls himself extremely secular,
which means he can be put in the same category as the Revolutionary Socialists with regard to
his position toward Morsi. Lastly, Mosaaberizing, Egyptocracy and Riverdryfilm take in a far
more moderate stance, even though they are still critical of their government. This means that
there are not Muslims (even though Egyptocracy could be one, however she is not clear on
this) or supporters of Morsi among this sample. This slant toward opposition to the
government is made up by their numerous interactions with tweeters who are supportive of
the government. This shows that even though the citizens from the sample do not represent all
the different positions on the issue, in this case Morsi issuing his decree, they do engage in
deliberations with those who oppose them.
4.3.4 The Journalists
As journalist I counted those either working for a known media company such as CNN, Al
Jazeera or The Times or freelance journalists whose publications could be found online. As
opposed to the citizens from this data sample they did not necessarily have to be Egyptian but
merely a top contributor on Twitter with their location settings to Egypt, Cairo. I made this
choice with journalist Andy Carvin in mind. As he is an American journalist functioning as an
important connecting node on Twitter during the Arab Spring, I argue that the nationality of
the journalist is not particularly relevant for their potentially democratic role on Twitter. At
the same time their presence in Cairo is important as this gives them the added quality of
being able to report from the ground. During the selection of elite journalist tweeters it turned
out that some of them, who still had their location setting on Cairo, Egypt, were not there at
the moment of the protests. NadiaE was in England and Sharifkouddous was in Gaza for the
first two days of the revolts. As both of these journalists are Egyptian and thus know Egypt
well and have a large network on site I did choose to include them as they could potentially
still fulfill such a role as Andy Carvin did during the first protests of the Arab Spring. I
present these journalists in a similar fashion as the citizens of the previous section.
1. @3arabawy; Twitter grade: 1.673
Hossam El-Hamalawy is an Egyptian who freelances for several international publications
and writes for both state-owned English-language Egyptian news website Ahram Online and
privately owned Egyptian news website Egypt Independent.232 233 He furthermore writes on
232 Hossam el-Hamalawy Twitterpost “@EgyCommunist yep, I was one of the founding editorial team members
at @ahramonline :)” https://twitter.com/3arabawy/status/174288054293512194
75
his own English-language blog arabawy.org which was built by Tarek Shalaby, one of the
citizens whose tweets I also analyze. El-Hamalawy is a member of the far left Revolutionary
Socialists as can be read in his Twitter profile: “In a dictatorship independent journalism by
default becomes a form of activism & the spread of information is essentially an act of
agitation #RevSoc #Editor.” He is married to Gigi Ibrahim, whose tweets I also analyze.
2. @sarahcarr; Twitter grade: 5.645
Sarah Carr is half-English, half-Egyptian and works as a journalist at Egypt Independent,
although she also writes for other Egyptian publications such as Daily News Egypt and The
Arabist. She blogs on inanities.org where “she takes a sarcastic, cynical approach, and
manages to inject humor into topics where you wouldn’t think you could find it.”234 Her
critical stance is directed in favor of what she calls the revolution and she is critical of the
Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi.
3. @nadiae; Twitter grade: 10.895
Nadia El-Awady is an Egyptian freelance science journalist who lived in London during the
protests. She formed the Arab Science Journalists Association. She also contributes as a travel
writer to Egypt Independent and as a freelance journalist to international media. In the
International Centre for Journalists she among other things taught Egyptian journalists how to
use social media and citizen journalism.235 She participated in the revolts that toppled
Mubarak and in her tweets is now taking a critical stance to the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in
Egypt’s politics. She is Muslim and in her tweets focuses on the question of religion during
the November-December revolts. She was in Paris and England while tweeting about the
November-December revolts.
4. @mfatta7; Twitter grade: 13.133
Mohamed Abdelfattah, a native Egyptian from Alexandria though based in Cairo, works as
video journalist and reporter for Deutsche Welle TV. He previously also reported for both
Egyptian and international news organizations such as Ahram Online, Al Jazeera English and
CNN. He earned a press freedom award for his reports on human rights violations in 2010
233 http://www.egyptindependent.com/staff/hossam-el-hamalawy 234 Rachel Krantz, “Six Best Egypt Bloggers to Follows,” The Daily Beast January 30, 2013 http://www.
thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/30/six-best-egypt-bloggers-to-follow.html 235 Kemi Ajumobi, “Nadia El-Awady, medic with a journalistic flair,” Businessday December 31, 2010
http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17047:nadia -el-
awady-medic-with-a-journalistic-flair-&cat id=165:inspiring-woman&Itemid=608
76
during Mubarak’s reign.236 Now his motto is, as stated in his Twitter profile: “Journalism is
about challenging the powers that be.”
5. @evanchill; Twitter grade: 23.480
Evan Hill, who is American, is a “Cairo-based journalist and correspondent @TheTimes” as
is stated in his Twitter profile. He blogs on evanchill.com and he won the Online News
Association award for reporting on the Egyptian revolts around January 25, 2011. During
these revolts he worked for Al Jazeera English.237 November 22, the day of President Morsi’s
decree was his first day reporting for The Times in Cairo.
6. @sherinet; Twitter grade: 37.196
Sherine Tadros, who is Arab-British and based in Cairo, reports on the Middle East and North
Africa for Al Jazeera. Her Twitter profile reads that the views on her Twitter account are hers.
She also covered the 2011 Egyptian unrests.238
7. @sharifkouddous; Twitter grade: 45.358
Sharif Kouddous, an Egyptian from Cairo, describes himself on his Twitter profile as:
“Independent journalist. Democracy Now! Correspondent. Nation Institute fellow.” As such
he has written for The Nation, Foreign Policy, The Progressive, Al-Masry Al Youm and Al-
Ahram Weekly. He also writes on his blog EgyptReports.net. He has studied at Duke
University in the United States. He reported on the 2011 uprisings in Egypt and is currently
still based in Cairo.239 During the revolts he was reporting in Gaza and returned to Cairo on
November 24.
These seven journalists present an eclectic group in several ways. First of all, five of them are
Egyptian and two of them are international journalists from both the United States and Great
Britain. Secondly, their positions on the events in Egypt are different. Firstly there is NadiaE,
incidentally the only Muslim from the sample, would like to give President Morsi and his
decisions the benefit of the doubt although she maintains a critical stance. The two
international journalists are furthest removed from having a personal opinion on the matters
236 http://www.anegyptianjournalist.com/about-2 237 http://evanchill.com/about/ 238 http://blogs.aljazeera.com/profile/sherine-tadros 239 Matthew Rothschild, “An Interview with Sharif Abdel Kouddous,” The Progressive (2011) http://progressive.
org/kouddous0511.html
77
as they try to highlight all opinions without giving their own. Three Egyptian journalists,
Sarahcarr, Mfatta7 and Sharifkouddous are critical of Morsi and are not afraid to show this
personal opinion in their tweets. Lastly 3arabawy, a Revolutionary Socialist, is heavily
opposed to President Morsi and lets his personal opinions be well known through his tweets.
Concluding, both the citizens and the journalists have a similar affinity with the
Western world and Western culture. All fourteen tweeters from the sample are an elite group
of people who are all very media savvy, well versed in English, highly educated and open to
Western culture and influences. This makes both the citizens as well as the journalists a group
very separate of most Egyptian citizens. In chapter five I show how such an elite group is
suitable to function as an ideal type group using Twitter in a potentially democratic way.
78
Chapter 5 #Morsillini: Analyzing the Egyptian Twitter Elite
This’s an interactive poster concept that you can dowload from this link & write on it the message or slogan you
wanna tell to the new dictator of Egypt Morsillini – as we now call him -, please dowload and write the slogan
and publish it Twitter.240
This sentence was written underneath the following poster on Egyptian citizen’s Mohamed
Gaber’s blog:
Figure 5.1 Screencapture of interactive poster Morsillini
Mohamed Gaber is an Egyptian citizen who presents himself on his blog as a “26 year old
visual artist …[who produces] artworks that agitates and do social and political awareness.”241
His interactive poster of Morsi, or Morsillini as he calls him, is such an artwork. This poster,
depicted in figure 5.1 was spread through Twitter during the November-December 2012
protests and appeared in my data sample in 3arabawy’s tweets on November 28. It is an
example of the resistance to Morsi and his decree during this period. It is also an example of
the kind of deliberation, or at least input, that was shared on Twitter during the protests.
Moreover, Gaber shows his commitment to creating political and social awareness among
Egyptians through Twitter. This is also a key part of the Habermasian public sphere: creating
awareness, which arguably is a form of critical rational debate, through the informing of users
of that sphere. In chapter one I explained the crucial role of journalists as informers,
240 Mohamed Gaber, “Interactive poster: Morsillini,” Gaber blog 27 November, 2012
gaberism.net/blog/2012/11/27/interactive-poster-morsillin i/ 241 Mohamed Gaber, “About,” Gaber blog gaberism.net/blog/about
79
encourager of deliberation, equality and accessibility in this process. The fact that Gaber is
trying to create such awareness through Twitter shows the complementary role that citizens
can play on Twitter in these tasks. This corresponds to the theoretical idea that for a well
functioning virtual public sphere, network journalism is the ideal form of interaction between
citizens and journalists. Such journalism entails that both citizens and journalists act as nodes
within a network and both contribute to the spread and ever changing news formation. As
such, Gaber is facilitating a new form of the spread of information, thus contributing to the
network of news found through Twitter. That he uses Twitter for this brings me to the point I
made in my third chapter that Twitter could be a viable tool for a well working virtual public
sphere.
Gaber’s interactive poster is only one example of the kind of interaction possible on
Twitter. I extracted it, however, from a data sample of 5299 English-language tweets. The
fourteen most influential tweeters sent these tweets from this sample during the November-
December 2012 protests in Egypt and these thus serve as the data for my research. I first test
whether the twitter behavior of the users corresponds to the ideals of a virtual public sphere.
These are information dissemination; the possibility to ask controversial questions and thus
acceptance that dissensus is a valid outcome of deliberation; accountability; equality; and
letting go of fact-to-face deliberation leading to the acceptance of a different model of space
and time. Moreover, I analyse whether there is a presence of network journalism in the tweets
and tweeting behavior found in the sample. This means that I test in what manner the
journalists and citizens of the sample are interacting and what this interaction consists of. As a
last step I use a grounded theory approach to extract theoretical concepts on how the seven
elite citizens interact with the seven elite journalists, and also how these fourteen users used
Twitter during this period.
As such, the research in this chapter consists of two analytical steps. The first level
entails testing the data to previously summarized theoretical hypotheses, namely the
theoretical ideals of both a well-working public sphere and network journalism. The second
analytical step goes further than testing other theoretical ideas by forming new theoretical
concepts. Grounded theory allows me to extract such concepts from the data that I study.
Together these steps thus not only test existing theory on Twitter’s democratic potential, but
also add to this theory.
These two analytical steps, that both test and add to existing research, are necessary to
expand the existing knowledge of Twitter’s qualities as a democratic tool. Moreover, it
introduces a method to qualitatively research tweets, which can benefit future research. Lastly
80
it provides insights into the actual use and interconnection of Twitter by citizens and
journalists who are all already prolific users of Twitter. This analysis consequently serves as a
contemporary ideal example of a well-functioning virtual public sphere. A more in-depth
theoretical understanding of how journalists should normatively act for a well-functioning
virtual public sphere to exist could be translated into actual journalistic practices on Twitter.
Therefore, I first present a short overview of the presence of the five previously mentioned
requirements of such a sphere. I then analyze how the top citizen and journalist tweeters under
analysis were connected and how this fits the idea of network journalism. After that I
introduce the key concepts deduced from the codes that I inductively extracted from the
tweets. Lastly I discuss the implications of these findings and formulate an ideal type of a
virtual public sphere with Twitter as a tool to be used by both journalists and citizens.
5.1 Findings
In this section I discuss the presence in the data sample of the earlier theorized five
requirements of a well-functioning virtual public sphere. To reiterate, these five are:
information dissemination; the possibility to ask controversial questions which should include
dissenting voices; accountability among participants; equality among participants; and a
letting go of face-to-face deliberation and thus acceptance of a different model of space and
time. If present, these requirements on Twitter mean that it is a viable tool for democracy,
which has the potential to encourage critical rational debate. Critical rational debate is
essential for a public sphere to exist. It means that citizens can critically engage in discussions
because they are free, equal, can be held accountable and have access to information.
1. Information dissemination
Information is the first important aspect of the Habermasian ideal of critical rational debate. It
allows people to participate meaningfully in debates because they are fully informed on the
matters they are discussing. Informing was the most prolific code present in the sample, 788
tweets of the 5299 were coded as such. This data sample also allowed me to identify different
kinds of information dissemination possible on Twitter. The ones found in the data sample
can be divided up into breaking news; minute-by-minute reporting; helping; answering; and
asking.
Firstly, breaking news is most often a retweet of another tweet that starts with the
word breaking, and contains the newest information on a subject. An example of this is: “RT
Eng: #BreakingNews: Explosion destroys part of intelligence building in Egypt’s Rafah”
81
(Sandmonkey, p. 68-69).242 Sometimes a Twitter user also breaks news him- or herself and it
is not a retweet. Minute-by-minute reporting is reporting what one is experiencing at that very
moment, often tweeting every minute or so. In the data sample this either meant someone was
in the streets during a protest or watching a televised event such as a speech by Morsi or a
protest. An example of this is Gsquare86’s reports of a march going up to the presidential
palace on December 4, 2012 (Gsquare86 p. 23 – 24). Such minute-by-minute reporting was
thus not only reserved to journalists in the sample such as Evanchill and Sarahcarr but also
citizens like abovementioned Gsquare86. This kind of reporting and sharing of information
might not have been very conducive to critical-rational debate. However, Sarah Carr, for
example, followed an interview with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Nader Bakkar on TV and
while reporting what was happening also provided background and critical remarks
(Sarahcarr p. 22 – 24). Such reporting does expands Twitter-users knowledge of, and insight
into, at least one position on the issue.
There is also helping on Twitter, meaning that people retweet cries for help, thereby
informing others where help is needed. For example, one of the most retweeted tweets in the
sample was a retweet of a woman’s cry for help. She asked other tweeters to help her locate
her lost cousin (Pls RT this pic of “Hassan Maamoun” he’s my cousin, 12 yrs old & disabled,
got kidnapped last Sat in Alex”). This was retweeted by four of the elite tweeters
(Sandmonkey, Gsquare86, SarahCarr and NadiaE).
The last two types of information dissemination are answering, and also asking,
specific questions. An example of answering is the continuous answering of questions by user
Egyptocracy on how Eygptians abroad can vote on the referendum (Egyptocracy, p. 16). An
example of asking, or also fact checking, is a person asking whether someone knows the
answer. In the sample both journalists and citizens did this. As a tool to inform people Twitter
thus offers several kinds of information that can be employed when participating in a
discussion, either online or offline. Moreover, this kind of information is always added to and
changed, either by others or the tweeter him- or herself, thus making it a dynamic and often
up-to-date information dissemination.
242 During the entirety of this chapter I will annotate the tweets from the sample that I quote in the following
way: name of tweeter, page within the PDF document of that tweeter. This results in, for example:
(Sandmonkey, p. 68-69).
82
2. Possibility to ask controversial questions and acceptance of dissensus
Informed participants of a public sphere should be able to adopt a critical stance on an issue,
or issues, that they are discussing. Only with such a critical stance can they engage in the
critical rational debate for such a sphere to exist. Therefore, the second requirement for a
virtual public sphere entails the possibility to ask controversial questions. Tied in with this
requirement is Luke Goode’s argument that coming in touch with dissenting voices on the
internet increases understanding of the entire issue. This happens because this leads to a
confrontation with different opinions and thoughts and thus also “new possibilities for self-
understanding, reflection and adjustment.”243 Moreover, Goode adds, being open to dissensus
improves a person’s reflection on issues and might perhaps result in an adjustment of
opinion.244 This requirement improves the level of critical rational debate and thus enhances
the democratic quality of the virtual public sphere. Moreover, dissenting voices in the virtual
public sphere are less likely to be influenced by commercial interests, as those who employ
such a critical stance are less likely to function as mere consumers only backing commercial
interests.245 This is the case because whenever someone takes a critical stance toward their
own interaction in a public sphere they will more likely participate as a concerned citizen
instead of an uncritical consumer. Thus critical voices allow for a more democratic virtual
public sphere as commercial interests get less space.
Figure 5.2 shows that within the sample all users were able to post critical tweets. This
graph represents each user’s tweets that I coded with the codes critical, see through and
insight. These three codes represent tweets that presented a critical stance or showed through
insight that the tweeter was taking a critical position within Twitter discourse. As the graph
shows the percentage of critical tweets of the tweeters total number of tweets, it becomes easy
to see that most tweeters share a relatively similar percentage of critical tweets, with citizens
Gsquare86 and Norashalaby perhaps lagging a bit behind. However, as this is not a
quantitative analysis, this difference with the others is not that important. However, more
noticeable is the large percentage of critical tweets by citizen Mosaaberizing which is more
than double that of the other citizens and journalists. An explanation for this could be his
somewhat moderate stance, meaning that he is both critical of the opposition as well as the
government. This resulted in critical tweets addressed at both parties instead of only one.
However, the overall message of this graph is that the elite tweeters from the sample, be they
243 Luke Goode, Jürgen Habermas: Democracy and the Public Sphere. (Pluto Press: London, 2005), 76. 244 Ibid, 76. 245 Zizi Papacharissi, A Private Sphere: Democracy in a digital age. (Cambridge: Polity, 2010), 124.
83
citizens or journalists, have the opportunity to tweet critically. More importantly, all of them
also seize this opportunity.
Figure 5.2 Percentage critical tweets of each user’s overall tweets
Thus, all elite users were critical of the political situation; they also took diverse positions
between being very critical of Morsi to wanting to give him another chance. This is in
accordance with my assessment in chapter four that the political positions of the elite tweeters
can be divided into the Revolutionary Socialists who are on the far left; the critical moderates;
the journalists who try to stay neutral and balanced and one Muslim who is critical but willing
to give Morsi the benefit of the doubt. These different positions on the issue allow for
different kinds of critical tweets in themselves. Moreover, due to this diversity of voices on
Twitter a tweet expounding an opinion invites reactions by people who do not share that
opinion. For example, the Revolutionary Socialists expound tweets that are critical of the
regime. These tweets sometimes elicit discussions with people who are pro-Morsi. Such as
this discussion resulting from Revolutionary Socialist’s Gigi Ibrahim’s post to which both
pro-Morsi and other revolutionary socialists reacted:
84
Figure 5.3 Twitter discussion Gsquare86
As figure 5.3 shows, the tweets sent in reaction to Gsquare86’s initial tweet contain both
dissenting and supportive tweets of the political situation. As such, different stances and
arguments can be elicited by just one tweet. Also someone with a less extreme stance, like
NadiaE, can post her opinion on Twitter eliciting a discussion. As a result these Twitter
discussions are breeding grounds for dissenting voices. Moreover, the relatively new feature
that you can click on a tweet and see the entire discussion from which it flows has improved
85
Twitter’s ability to act as a tool for finding and seeing dissenting voices. This thus means that
anyone can step into such a discussion and participate and include their own opinion,
argument or viewpoint. As such this feature on Twitter improves the identification of
dissensus and makes the inclusion of your own dissenting, and also critical rational, voice
easier.
3. Accountability among participants
Informed and critical participants need to be accountable as they can otherwise pose as
anyone on Twitter and easily lie, consequently impairing critical rational debate.
Unfortunately, as already touched upon in chapter three, most Twitter users could be someone
else than they are claiming to be. This is an issue that is not easily solved, although in the case
of the elite tweeters whose tweets comprise my dataset it is easier. The seven citizens, except
for Egyptocracy, have either appeared in television shows or have written guest editorials for
mainstream media. The seven journalists all write for a medium and are known through there.
As such, thirteen of the fourteen elite tweeters are identifiable outside of Twitter. This means
that what they say on Twitter reflects on their offline persona that is known to anyone who
wants to. To protect their offline image or status this most likely results in more responsible
and thus more accountable behavior online.
Thus, in the case of all fourteen, except for Egyptocracy, their offline persona is well-
known to anyone willing to do a quick internet search consequently making them identifiable
and thus also more accountable. Egyptocracy, however, shows that it is possible to be an
influential tweeter and still be anonymous. Accountability thus remains a difficult
requirement for participants on Twitter. At the same time, the fact that thirteen of the fourteen
elite tweeters are accountable for what they type shows that generally when someone gains in
influence online it becomes more likely that their offline person is also known. This results, at
least in the case of the elite tweeters from the sample, in accountable behavior.
4. Equality among participants
Equality is a fourth requirement for well-informed, critical, accountable participants of a
virtual public sphere. This requirement is based on Habermas’ idea of critical rational debate
present in the coffee houses of the eighteenth century bourgeois public sphere. While it is
doubtful this equality actually existed back then, it is certain that it is not up to par on the
contemporary internet. As for the specific case of Twitter in Egypt, a relative low number of
the population is participating on Twitter, in 2011 this was 1,1 million unique Egyptian users
86
from about 80 million Egyptians in total.246 Of these people the majority is male, younger
than 30, well educated and earning a relatively high income.247 Certain groups are thus more
likely to participate on Twitter and overall participation is low, making equality on Twitter
less likely as not everyone participates. As I posed before, in Egypt this is in large part due to
people lacking in the necessary skill set to use the internet, or sometimes even a computer.
Moreover, due to poverty there are enough Egyptians who do not have access to a computer
or other digital device, let alone Twitter.
The Egyptian Twitter users who are studied here are prime examples of users who are
wealthy enough to have access to such devices and who have mastered a skill set to
effectively use Twitter. Moreover, the division in gender (six female and eight male users)
shows that among the elite the gender distinction is not necessarily there. They are therefore
also a prime example of the possibilities that Twitter does offer to a potentially larger group
with such a digital skill set and where at least more women are participating.
5. A letting go of face-to-face deliberation and acceptance of a different model of space and
time
A last requirement is an acceptance of a different model of space and time as real face-to-face
deliberation is no longer possible. James Bohman articulated this requirement stating that we
need to accept that reactions to others can come at a later time and from another place.248
Subsequently, it should then be easier to accept the internet, and thus indirectly also Twitter,
as a place for critical rational debate. Within the data-sample this idea was mainly displayed
by the questions asked by people outside of Egypt.
For example, figure 5.4 shows a small discussion between SherineT, from the sample,
and Dutch TheEvertbopp who is trying to understand the Egyptian situation. It illustrates how
someone relatively far away from Egypt can deliberate with an Egyptian on the current
political situation there. Space, meaning someone’s physical space, has become much more
relative due to such internet tools as Twitter. While this assessment is relevant to all internet
tools and the internet itself, Twitter has made connecting over large distances easier. For
example, Twitter, due to its open character, allows for people to be relatively easily found.
246 Essam Mansour, “The role of social networking sites (SNSs) in the January 25th Revolution in Egypt,”
Library Review 61, no. 2 (2012), 145. 247 Ibid, 137 – 138. 248 James Bohman, “Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational
democracy,” in After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere ed. Nick Crossley and John Michael
Roberts (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004),134.
87
Moreover, when connecting to someone on Twitter it is likely that others, who are possibly
also geographically far away, will join in.
Figure 5.4 Twitter conversation between SherineT and TheEvertBopp
However, Twitter has not necessarily changed the experience of time. Tweets that were
responded to much later than they were sent were very rare. An example is the tweet of a
woman asking for help in finding her kidnapped cousin. Figure 5.5 shows that this woman,
EitenZeerban, sent a tweet directed to Sarahcarr, from the sample, who responded to it almost
immediately. Four days later another person also responded. Discussions taking place in the
data sample did only very rarely stretch over days as the one in figure 5.5 If a discussion was
spread over time it was mostly only over several hours. Even though Twitter users now have
the possibility to look back on discussions and commenting on them later, this did not really
happen in the sample. This proves that Twitter is rather more like the eighteenth century
bourgeois coffee house that Habermas had in mind as the perfect place for critical rational
debate. Debate is taking place in a sort of face-to-face manner as people are addressing each
other with the @-sign and are generally responding almost immediately. This means that
critical rational debate can happen in a similar fashion as it did in those coffee houses,
meaning that Twitter in this respect functions as a tool for a well-working virtual public
sphere.
So far the findings thus show that all five requirements are met, although
accountability and equality only to a certain degree. While this underscores previous research
that Twitter has a potential for being a democratic tool, it does not yet expose the specific
relationships between citizens and journalists while they are using such a tool. However, the
Habermasian idea of the public sphere and my subsequent understanding of a virtual public
88
sphere, hold a special place for journalists. In a virtual public sphere it is still journalists who,
in interconnection with citizens and other nodes within the network, need to encourage critical
rational debate. The next section will therefore present the kinds and amount of
interconnection found between the citizens and the journalists of my data sample.
Furthermore, it will put this into the earlier discussed context of the role of network
journalism within a well-working virtual public sphere.
Figure 5.5 EitenZeerban’s tweet and a reaction four days later
5.1.2 Citizens and journalists
Habermas reserves a special place for the news media in his idea of a well-functioning public
sphere. In such a sphere journalists are supposed to inform citizens who are then able to
deliberate in a critical rational manner. In chapter two I presented the idea that a virtual public
sphere needs network journalism. This concept captures the importance of an (online)
interconnection between citizens and journalists and new forms of information dissemination
and deliberation through the internet. In the same chapter, Ansgard Heinrich’s vision of
network journalism is presented as a horizontal process consisting of different actors who add
89
and alter the information provision. Professional journalists are no longer functioning in a top-
down construction in the form of gatekeepers, agenda-setters and sole information providers,
but have become one of the nodes within a network. Citizens represent another node, and
many other actors fulfil their own role as a node within network journalism. Within that
network, information dissemination has become fluid and part of an ongoing process that is
added to and altered by all the different nodes within the system.
The Twitter elite of my data sample serves as a small, possible, ideal type of a network
of journalists and citizens who are interacting, informing, adding and altering news on one
certain subject. In this case the political situation in Egypt, Cairo between November 22, 2012
and December 8, 2012. Admittedly there are many other actors who function within this
network, such as non-Egyptian citizens, government agencies, NGOs, foreign governments
and commercial companies. However, the select group of my data sample allow for a
visualization of a small network. Moreover it shows the interaction between journalists and
citizens who are both important pillars of the traditional Habermasian public sphere. This idea
of network journalism means a shift from Habermas’ original idea of the news media
functioning to provide news to citizens. Instead, those citizens have become part of the
process of information dissemination and are thus taking a different position within a
democratic (virtual) public sphere. An understanding of the forms their actual interaction on
Twitter is taking, improves insights into possible journalistic practices through the use of
Twitter. This section therefore presents the way the citizens and journalists from the sample
interacted with each other and how they were interconnected.
1. Blurring lines
This section explains how the blurring lines between journalistic practices and citizen online
practices show that two actors are functioning as nodes within a network. Journalists but also
citizens engage in minute-by-minute reporting. In the sample it was found with Gsquare86
(p.23 - 24); Tarekshalaby (p. 2-3) and Egyptocracy (p. 3-4). Citizens are taking it upon
themselves to report events as thoroughly as possible in the same manner as, for example,
many mainstream media liveblogs also do. Journalists and citizens thus share this role on
Twitter. In the same vein, many of the online citizens from the sample also write guest
editorials for different, sometimes international, publications. Some of them have also
appeared in (international) television news shows. These appearances in their turn are also
linked and spread through Twitter.
90
The citizens from the sample furthermore employ fact checking, a traditional
journalistic practice. Appendix D shows that of the tweets coded with the code fact checking,
citizens made 21 of the 42. This is also one of the practices that Andy Carvin employed
during the 2011 Egyptian protests, as I touched upon in chapter three. By doing this he uses
network journalism to fulfil a key part of the traditional journalistic production process.
Figure 5.6 Count of the codes fact-checking and asking among the citizens and journalists
Figure 5.6 shows how many of each user’s tweets were used for fact-checking purposes; it is
a count of the codes fact-checking and asking. My sample now shows that not only the
journalists among the top tweeters in Egypt engage in fact-checking, citizens are also doing
that, thus also blurring the line between journalistic and citizen practices on Twitter.
Similarly citizens are using Twitter to ask others if they know more. Both use the
crowd on Twitter to get answers to questions, which they then also often fact-check. Notable
in this graph is that mainstream news journalist Sherinet, who works for Al Jazeera, does not
fact-check through Twitter, nor asks other users anything. This finding is underscored by
Fortunati et al’s conclusion that I presented in chapter two that most journalists are not
willing to work together with citizens.249 However, all the other journalists from the sample
249 Leopoldina Fortunati et al., “The influence of the Internet on European Journalism,” Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 14 (2009): 953.
91
show that they are, to different degrees, willing to import such a traditional journalistic
practice as fact-checking into their practices on Twitter.
Figure 5.7 – Citizen discussion and analysis including Mosaaberizing
Another blurring line between journalists’ practices and those of citizens is that the latter also
provide analyses through Twitter, similar to those done by journalists. Mosaaberizing, a
citizen from the sample for example, expounds these analyses through discussions with
others. Figure 5.7 shows such a discussion between him and other citizens. Together they
analyze the importance and implications of the number of opposing citizens present at a
specific demonstration. Citizens within the sample did not only use Twitter itself to analyze
like Mosaaberizing, but also to spread their analyses as they expounded them in those earlier
92
mentioned guest editorials or appearances in television news shows. For example
Sandmonkey who wrote an opinion piece “Tuesday is the New Friday!” during that period for
Daily News Egypt.250
Another initiative that was shared by one of the citizens from the sample, shows the
way the internet has given citizens the opportunity to use film to report the news online.
Riverdryfilm, a filmmaker who set up the film collective Mosireen during the Egyptian
protests in 2011, also added movies about the November-December 2012 protests to the
website of that collective. Through Twitter he spreads the word on the films made by this
collective thereby adding to the moving images also made by journalists. Citizens from the
sample thus use old (editorials; reporting events; analyses; fact-checking) and new (film
collective) journalistic methods thereby blurring the lines between practices of professional
journalists and citizens
2. Cooperation
Not only are citizens taking on certain journalistic tasks, citizens and journalists also
cooperate. This happens firstly through discussions between journalists and citizens.
Figure 5.8 Discussion between Mosaaberizing and Evanchill
250 Mahmoud Salem, “Tuesday is the new Friday!” Daily News Egypt December 5, 2012
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2012/12/05/tuesday-is-the-new-friday/
93
An example from the sample is one between citizen Mosaaberizing and journalist Evanchill,
both from the sample as shown in figure 5.8.
Similarly the journalists and citizens from the sample also ask each other questions on
issues. Furthermore, citizens often retweet articles from the mainstream media together with
their own comments. They are thus not only spreading such publications but also adding their
own value and knowledge. Some take this further by acting as a checks and balances on the
news media. For example Egyptocracy retweeted a Tweet by SciencePyramid who had
complained that The New York Times had used an unrepresentative photo of a protest shown
in figure 5.9A. Less than two hours later SciencePyramid addressed Egyptocracy, among
others, to show that The New York Times had changed the picture to a more representative one
as shown in figure 5.9B.
Through questions, discussion and thus a checks and balances, citizens and journalists
use Twitter as a tool to cooperate and improve the information dissemination both on Twitter
and outside of it in online and offline news media publications.
Figure 5.9A Photo New York Times Figure 5.9B Photo New York Times
3. Interconnection
That abovementioned cooperation was also present within the sample can be visualized
through a count of the interactions between the citizens and journalists from the sample.
Figure 5.10 shows who of the fourteen elite English-tweeting tweeters from the sample were
connected with each other.
94
Figure 5.10 The interconnection between elite citizen and journalist tweeters from Cairo, Egypt
When there is a line between two tweeters it means they were connected either by a retweet
the other, because they retweeted the other themself or because one of them addressed the
other. Appendix B shows the exact number of retweets and discussions between the different
elite tweeters. This appendix thus also conveys the strength of the connections between the
different tweeters as the figure does not do this.
A Twitter elite is not representative of the entire group of people active on Twitter.
However, they are, due to their high activity on Twitter, a prime example of Twitter’s
possibilities as a tool for a virtual public sphere. The interconnection that figure 5.10
visualizes, shows that two of the nodes of network journalism, citizens and journalists, were
already well connected among the Twitter elite of Cairo, Egypt. This implies that both
journalists (A, B, C, D, E, F and G), as well as citizens (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) are using the
opportunities offered by network journalism. As I posed in chapter three, Andy Carvin served
as an example of a network journalist during the 2011 Egyptian protests. One of the aspects of
his journalism was interconnecting many different groups on Twitter and using the knowledge
of these different groups for his journalism. The interconnection of my sample suggest that
the potential of Twitter as it was used by Andy Carvin in the Eygptian protests of 2011 has
been appropriated by both citizens as well as more (international) journalists among the
95
Twitter elite of Cairo. While this group only includes fourteen tweeters it shows that it is
possible for an interconnected community to exist on Twitter. Those belonging to the Twitter
elite are informing each other through retweets and they are also discussing those issues
through Twitter. In that sense Twitter proves to be a place suitable for deliberation.
While figure 5.10 thus shows to whom the elite users are connected, figure 5.11
additionally portrays who were most often connected. The citizens are all grouped together on
the right side of the pie in red and yellow colours, while the journalists are on the left in green
colours. This pie thus first shows that the total of connections is almost equally divided over
the journalists and the citizens. This shows that the connections are not only coming from one
side but that these elite tweeters are all interconnected. Moreover, on each side there are three
users who are far more connected than the other four. This visualizes the degrees of
appropriation of Twitter’s features by the different users. Retweets and discussions improve
the quality of critical rational debate. As retweets spread debates, discussions are places
where users can contribute their opinion, information or viewpoint as part of critical rational
deliberation. Thus more retweets and discussions would mean that Twitter is being used as a
tool for democracy. Figure 5.11, however, shows that even among elite citizens and
journalists, this level of interaction is not very high yet.
Figure 5.11 Number of total connections per elite tweeter
96
Concluding, the interactions between citizens and journalists from the sample show that both
actors were functioning within network journalism. Citizens did this, first of all, by blurring
the lines between journalistic practices and their own behavior on Twitter. They did this
through the use of traditional journalistic practices. Examples of this are fact checking,
minute-by-minute reporting, writing analyses and reporting on situations through the
uploading of movies. Moreover, citizens cooperated with journalists through discussion,
asking questions, giving answers and by taking a critical look at journalists’ reporting. Lastly,
the specific actors that were studied in this sample who represent the Twitter elite on one
specific subject were interconnected. Such interconnection is one of the requirements of
network journalism as it was already practiced earlier by journalist Andy Carvin during the
Egyptian protests in 2011. This shows that among the sample both citizens and journalists are
already using Twitter as a tool to improve and sustain network journalism. Such an
employment of network journalism by two important nodes within a networked sphere
increases Twitter’s likelihood of functioning as a tool for a well-functioning virtual public
sphere. Figure 5.11, however, shows that even elite Twitter users who use it often and are
knowledgeable about its possibilities, are not yet very well connected through retweets and
deliberation. To expand the knowledge of how journalists could use Twitter in a more
interconnected way, the following section addresses the results of the grounded theory
approach to the tweets from the sample. Through this approach three main themes emerged
that expand already existing knowledge on the role of Twitter as a tool for democracy.
5.1.3 Main themes: Power, Emotion and Morality
As explained in chapter four, I inductively coded all 5299 tweets in the sample. I started with
open coding by reading through all the tweets to form a first idea about the most important
concepts flowing from the tweets. Using these preliminary ideas I switched to axial coding,
meaning that I coded each tweet with an individual code. Using a constructivist approach of
grounded theory I did this with the theoretical knowledge of the previous chapters in mind.
This meant that during the coding process I focused on how and whether tweets could
contribute to a well-working virtual public sphere and furthermore function as a tool for
network journalism. Appendix C shows an example of the PDF documents containing the
tweets and their codes. This resulted in a list of 255 individual codes that can be found in
Appendix D. This list also shows how often these codes appeared in the sample so that it is
clear that the more prolific codes were given preference in the subsequent overarching eight
categories that I developed (Appendix E). These categories were: conflict, trauma, strong
97
emotions, community, humor, negativity, symbolism and morality. Through an even more
abstracting step in selective coding I also developed three themes, namely power, emotion
and morality.
Figure 5.12 Distribution of categories over themes
The themes can be seen as larger overarching concepts that still represent the categories that I
developed from the codes that, in their turn, are representatives of the tweets from the sample.
As such, the overarching themes are the abstract theoretical concepts that I inductively gained
from my data. Figure 5.12 shows the distribution of the categories over the themes.
Noticeably the theme morality consists of three very large categories that together represent
three quarters of all the codes. As this is not a quantitative study this unequal distribution of
the categories is not problematic since the meaning of the tweets and the subsequent codes,
categories and themes are far more relevant. Of course this does not mean that I will easily
gloss over large categories or codes, but it also does not mean that the theme morality is more
important than the other two themes. It must be added that this distribution is in large part
unequal because two very large codes, namely informing and connecting, both belong to
morality. Together these codes represent 1474 tweets. Figure 5.12 is thus mainly useful as
visualization of the themes and categories and to get a quick idea of the distribution of the
categories. However, as said before, the meaning of these codes, categories and themes are of
more importance to this thesis as the theoretical concepts of power, morality and emotion add
to the understanding of interaction on Twitter and its possibility to be used as a tool for
democracy. As such, the next sections explicate for each theme individually what kind of
98
codes its categories encompass and subsequently what each theme means for the democratic
use of Twitter.
Power
Power is the first theme and emerged from three categories: conflict, trauma and negativity.
What these categories have in common is that they all represent codes that in their turn
illustrate a power struggle. Such a struggle can be physically fought in the street, intellectually
on Twitter or, for example in politics.
Figure 5.13 Overview of the theme power and its categories
Firstly, the category conflict holds such codes as violence, opposition, politics, battle, avenge
and victory. I assigned these codes to tweets where the person who posted it was describing,
99
seeing (live or on television), participating in, analyzing or condemning a certain power
struggle. In the case of the category conflict this power struggle could also be called a battle.
Many such battles were part of the tweets from the sample. They take the shape of political
battles being fought on television, literal battles in the street, battles over who should lead the
country and win possible elections, and sometimes even a battle on Twitter itself. A first
example of this is the following tweet: “Dear Islamists, u know u r the minority now. U will
not win this war even if u win this battle. It’s already over, u just don’t know it”
(Sandmonkey, p. 47). That tweet is an example of a tweet literally talking of war and battle.
“Tear gas is choking people in clashes over in Zagazig, even hospital, police are beating and
arresting many including women” (Gsquare86, p. 8) is one of the many tweets talking about
violence and injustices during protests which can also be seen as battles. And this last tweet,
“Tonight’s chaos creates perhaps the best conditions for cancelling/postponing referendum.
Hard to see as anything but big Islamist mistake” (Evanchill, p. 5), shows how the tweeter
connects battles in the street to a political battle over a referendum. I chose to groups these
kinds of battles under the theme power as they are contestations of power on all different
levels, both personal but also national. Such contestations are an important part of a
Habermasian public sphere where informed citizens should be able to contest the state
through deliberation. In my discussion I will position the importance of the role of power
within the theoretical idea of Twitter as a tool for a virtual public sphere.
The second category, trauma, addresses the consequences of struggles over power.
The struggles themselves are thus conveyed indirectly through the pain it has caused people.
This category fittingly consists of such codes as harm, death, destruction and suffering. These
codes describe the pain, or trauma, that the previously mentioned battles have caused. This
either means the literal trauma caused to, for example, protesters in the street, but it can also
mean the pain among the Twitter elite themselves over the events in Egypt. For example user
NadiaE, who is not in Egypt during the protests, is distressed and posted this on Twitter: “The
things I’m hearing from the Cairo Uni demo are physically nauseating me. This is a sad day
for #Egypt” (NadiaE, p. 19). Most tweets belonging to this category, however, speak of the
physical harm done to protesters such as “4 killed, over 300 injured in clashes at #PrezPalace
#Egypt according to hospital sources (confirmed by AJ police source)” (SherineT, p. 3). Also
included in this category is the destruction of, and damage to, the physical space of many
Cairenes: “Pic: The ruling MB headquarter in Kafr el-Sheikh destroyed by opposition
protesters http://t.co/JkaFVkmo” (3arabawy, p. 18). The tweets from this category thus
address both the consequences of, and reasons for struggles over power, namely the harm,
100
death and destruction it is causing. By presenting these issues on Twitter and confronting
other users with these consequences these tweeters create awareness under a larger group of
tweeters. Such awareness could become part of online discussions, which, when critical
rational, could ensure a healthy virtual public sphere. In such a sphere, Twitter is thus being
used as a tool.
Negativity is the last category that is part of the theme power and consists of such
codes as ridiculing, blaming and sceptic. Many of these codes represent actions having to do
with power struggles on Twitter, such as arguing and blaming. Those two specific codes
represent tweets where one tweeter is fighting with another. An example is Egyptocracy’s
tweet addressed to other tweeters: “Spare me your revolutionary virtuousness. Thank you
very much. #Egypt” (Egyptocracy, p. 43). Codes such as ridiculing and scepticism mostly
represent tweets about those that the tweeter is opposed to outside of Twitter. In the sample
this mostly meant Morsi and other members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Take for example
this tweet by Mfatta7 right after Morsi extended an invitation to the opposition to talk:
“@MuhammadMorsi That wasn’t even a proper way to ask someone out for coffee. Let alone
Egypt opposition” (mfatta7, p. 10).
Tweets in the category negativity represent comments that fall under already ongoing
critical rational debate as they address power struggles and invite deliberation about such
struggles. At the same time tweets like Egyptocracy’s show that tweets from this category can
also cut short such debate by posing anyone who disagrees with her should not talk to her. In
the discussion section of this chapter I discuss what this means for Twitter as a tool for a
virtual public sphere.
Power as a theme thus encompasses descriptions of power struggles, deliberations on
such struggles and their consequences. Figure 5.13 displays an overview of the formation of
both the theme power and its categories. Surrounding the categories are a few examples of
codes of which the respective categories consist. Before going into a discussion of what this
theme might mean for future journalistic practices on Twitter and, more importantly, how
Twitter can be employed as a tool for democracy, I first also present the other two themes,
emotion and morality.
Emotion
The second theme, emotion, is constructed from the two categories (strong) emotions and
humor. Together these two categories embody an important aspect of Twitter and, more
importantly, the tweeters using Twitter. Well spread tweets were those either containing an
101
emotional statement or a very funny one. A country’s democracy, including a person’s sense
of freedom and people’s fights for that freedom are very personal and emotional subjects and
it is therefore not surprised that discussions on these topics resulted in emotional tweets. A
few examples of such personal emotional statements are: “I’m sitting on my couch with my
laptop on my lap in a small town in England and all I can do is cry over what is happening in
#Egypt” (NadiaE, p. 10); “RT @sallyzohney: #Egypt 2012: 6 women in nikab attacked,
beating mirette, another women and burned her hair infront of high court! Disgust and outrage
eat me” (Sandmonkey, p. 67); and “Thank you #Morsi for making heros out of cunts like
Abdel-Meguid and al-Zend” (norashalaby, p. 12). The emotions in the sample range from
sadness to disgust to anger. Sometimes the Twitter users also described other people’s
emotions, like that of opposition leader Mohammed el-Baradei: “http://t.co/rxXqUJ0y ElBadz
is super pissed off” (Sarahcarr, p. 34).
Figure 5.14 Overview of the theme emotion and its categories
Similar to the tweets from the category trauma, which belongs to the theme power, these
kinds of tweets also invite deliberation. While those in the category trauma did so because of
102
their often shocking nature or the injustice that was conveyed in them, the tweets in the
category strong emotions do so because they invoke a sense of morality and ethics. Such a
sense of morality is important in critical rational debate as it means that users are thinking of
what is normatively acceptable. A presence of both emotion and morality should thus improve
the quality of a virtual public sphere. The next section discusses the theme morality, and
therefore the importance of its appearance in a virtual public sphere in greater detail.
The second category, humor, includes codes such as sarcasm, wit(ty) and irony.
Humor could have been grouped under the category (strong) emotions had it not jumped out
as a prolific and important separate category. Firstly, such tweets had large audiences due to
many retweets and it is thus not strange that the specific code humor appeared 165 times in
the sample. This means it was a much-employed strategy by the elite tweeters from the
sample. Secondly, using humor had a couple of different functions that made it an interesting
separate category, such as ridiculing, to critically comment and to put in a historical
perspective. Sarahcarr, for example, used humor, mostly in the form of sarcasm, to critically
comment. Her tweet “Question is how these thousand of pros will leave the area since they
like to move in bussed groups” (Sarahcarr, p. 9), for example, critiques the Muslim
Brotherhood’s practice of bussing in protestors. However, ridicule was also part of her
repertoire: “Morsi says Egpytian citizens are both his brothers & sisters AND his kids which
means some kind of incest happened if I’m not mistaken” (Sarahcarr, p. 27). She is one of the
few journalists in the sample who uses insight through humor and ridicule in her posts.
Sometimes humoristic comments were accompanied by pictures such as the one in figure 5.15
of Morsi being compared to a monkey, or ape.
Figure 5.15 Parody of Morsi’s Time cover
103
This referred to a controversial interview with Morsi in Time Magazine in which he talked
about the movie Planet of the Apes. At other times humoristic images and comments put
things that are going on in a historical perspective such as the interactive poster of Morsillini,
presented at the beginning of this chapter. In this case referring to fascist dictator Mussolini
by changing President Morsi’s name to Morsillini, puts the events in Egypt in comparison to
the Italian fascist dictator and his dictatorship. As such, humor provided a way to criticize
Morsi through comparisons to earlier historical events.
The theme emotion thus encompasses kinds of tweets that invite critical rational
deliberation, which figure 5.14 also summarizes. The tweets in the category humor do this by
providing critical commentary, by putting events in a historical context or through ridicule.
The tweets in the category (strong) emotions do this by evoking a sense of morality or ethics.
This last process is also strongly connected to the last theme I wish to discuss, namely that of
morality.
Morality
Morality as an overarching theme includes morals and ideas about community, which is also
one of the categories; ideas about morality itself; and morals and views as expounded through
symbols and symbolism. This very broad theme thus encompasses the categories community,
morality and symbolism. Figure 5.16 gives an overview of the categories and some of the
codes that this theme also includes. Moreover, this section explains in more detail how the
theme morality and its categories are interrelated.
Firstly, community was an apparent category from early on, as there is a large
emphasis on the people, we, and also often on how many people are participating, which I
assigned the code numbers. The following tweet by Gsquare86 shows how she not only
identifies with a community, she also excludes specific others: “The difference b/w Islamists
protesting and others (at any moment) is that we are there by choice, we are free, they are
ordered! #Egypt” (Gsquare86, p. 7). I accorded the same code, we, to a tweet by Egyptocracy
who defined we as the people of Egypt: “Revolutionaries” is such an overused media term.
We are simply the people of #Egypt” (Egyptocracy, p. 3). The previous two tweets convey a
feeling of belonging to a community. This is not only a community outside of Twitter. The
online community on Twitter is emphasized through the two most popular codes from the
sample, informing and connecting, which respectively appeared 788 and 686 times in the
sample (Appendix D). Tweets that I accorded these categories were aimed at informing,
104
communicating with, explaining, thanking, in short: interacting, with the Twitter community.
Figure 5.16 Overview of the theme morality and its categories
Being part of such a community means acting according to a certain morale. This is, for
example, conveyed in Egyptocracy’s tweet saying that the people of Egypt should not be
called revolutionaries. She defines that she does not want to belong to the group of Egyptians
who present themselves as revolutionaries, a term also appropriated by many mainstream
media. She refers here to the group of people who protested during the January 25th protests in
2011 and toppled the Mubarak regime. Similarly, this group sought to topple Morsi during the
November-December 2012 protests. The Revolutionary Socialists from the sample, such as
105
Gsquare86 and 3arabawy, are examples of people who would call themselves revolutionaries.
Calling yourself this and belonging to that community means that you stand for the idea that it
is right to protest and subsequently topple an elected official when you feel he or she has
misused their powers. Egyptocracy opposes this and distances herself from that specific
community through her tweet. Similarly Gsquare86 defines her group as being everyone who
is opposed to Islamists and freely participates in the street protests. This free participation is
thus the morale that she defines as part of belonging to her community. The presence of such
indirect morals and ethics through the definition of a community, are the basis for taking a
position within critical rational debate.
The category morality also belongs to the overarching theme morality. This category
is narrower than the overarching theme as it excludes the morals that are part of belonging to
a certain community, which is addressed by the category community. Instead it focuses on a
more abstract notion and even indirect referrals to morality. This category is captured by such
codes as insight, critical, history and process(es). I attached these codes to tweets where the
tweeter indirectly displayed a certain sense of morality by noticing or commenting on
something that was happening. Two examples of this are: “@erictrager18 Erian publicly
stated it was wrong of demonstrators to block court’s work. There’s opportunism on both
sides right now” (Evanchill, p. 11); and “@RaynerSkyNews the decree was a gun against
people’s heads: vote yes or deal with pres with enormous powers” (Riverdryfilm, p. 1). The
first tweet is part of a discussion on the moral judgment whether protesting in front of the
court, thus blocking its people from work, is right to do. The second shows Riverdryfilm
expounding his own moral judgment on what he thinks is wrong with Morsi’s decree from
November 22.
The codes history and processes deserve special attention as they appeared often and
depict a deep level of analysis in some of the tweets. They both represent tweets that put the
events happening at that moment in a historical perspective, or emphasised the processual
nature of history and the place of contemporary events within those processes. A first
example is a tweet that compares the Muslim Brotherhood to the Mubarak regime and its
followers (also called feloul): “The feloul are arguing that we need them just like the Muslim
Brotherhood tried to argue that we can’t revolt without them. #Jan25 continues”
(Tarekshalaby, p. 2). Tarek Shalaby thus recognizes the same patterns of behavior between
the Brotherhood and former Mubarak followers. Mfatta7 recognizes even larger patterns of
political behavior: “Egypt has always been living through a stream of political deadlocks
disrupted by intervals of perceived stability” (Mfatta7, p. 3). Lastly, Sandmonkey uses other
106
historical events, namely previous fascist regimes and their actions, to compare the
contemporary Muslim Brotherhood’s actions to: “RT @betsy_hiel: ‘Granting yourself this
level of power is so in the essence of fascism’ http://t.co/5v60ZFVg by @sandmonkey”
(Sandmonkey, p. 61).
The category morality can also be applied to users’ behavior online. This is seen in
tweets that I coded with the codes thanking and arguing which show that certain behavior on
Twitter is acceptable. These two codes cover two sides of the spectrum of acceptable Twitter
behavior. The first code covers a positive and considerate action, to thank someone, and the
other covers an inconsiderate way of interacting. An extreme example of this is a discussion
that is ended by Gsquare86 in the following manner: “@KAFJR don’t talk to me and just shut
up plz” (Gsquare86, p. 16). On the other hand, part of functioning on Twitter means helping
others as this tweet by NadiaE shows where she has tried, but was unable, to help a journalist:
“@christoffler Doesn’t look like I’ll be able to help. The few people I know personally and I
was able to reach are unenthusiastic” (NadiaE, p. 2).
To summarize, the function of the category morality is to capture tweets that expound
a moral vision on the offline or online world and these often include tweets that put events
within a historical context. The tweets belonging to this category are thus critical of political
and social events during the November-December protests. Posting tweets that are arguing
from such a moral standpoint is the kind of input necessary for the critical rational debate of a
Habermasian public sphere as such deliberation needs to be normatively informed.
Lastly, the category symbolism is part of the theme morality. This category captures
those tweets that use strong symbols to show that its poster is disapproving of something that
is happening. This thus conveys an unspoken moral or ethical code. The symbol used most
often in the sample is the street, which I thus also appropriated as a code. The street is used
not only to describe the physical space of protests, but also as a metaphorical space where a
free individual can fight for his or her right to live in a democracy. Gsquare86’s following
tweet captures this sentiment: “Constitutions are just ink on paper after all, we have the street
and you have a meaningless paper. All your legitimacy vanished #Morsi” (Gsquare86, p. 33).
Other symbols used are revolution, the west and colonialism. An example of a tweet with the
code colonialism is this one using the words white man: “And the local Egyptian press will,
again, fall for whatever the white man is saying” (Mfatta7, p. 4). Using such symbols
conveys, similar to tweets belonging to the category community, a moral vision of how
society should be. Therefore, critical rational debate similarly on Twitter benefits from the use
of such symbolic language in tweets.
107
Concluding, the last theme, morality, encompasses a wide code of morals. Firstly, it
includes a code of ethics that are involved in being part of a community, either online or
offline. There is also an unspoken morality that can be read through the lines, such as ideas
about Egypt’s place in history but also the right moment for a protest. Moreover, this
unspoken morality can also be expounded through the use of such symbols as the west,
the street and colonialism. In the next section I discuss what the implications of the presence
of the three themes – power, emotion and morality – are for Twitter’s potential to be a tool for
democracy. I furthermore incorporate the findings on interconnectedness among the Twitter
elite and the five requirements of a well-working virtual public sphere.
5.2 Discussion
My main findings show the presence of the five requirements for a virtual public sphere; the
interconnection necessary for network journalism; and the presence of three theoretical
themes within the tweets of the sample: power, emotion and morality. I extrapolated these
findings from a sample of 5299 tweets made by the fourteen most influential tweeters in
Cairo, Egypt. In this section I discuss whether that use has either a potential or is already
adhering to certain tenets of a well-working virtual public sphere and if so, what forms this is
taking. I do this from the premise that part of such a virtual public sphere is the practice of
network journalism, which has to be employed by, at least, citizens and journalists. Before
doing that I would like to point out some of the weaknesses that I encountered during this
research.
Firstly, the sample only encompasses an elite and their practices and not the general
behavior on Twitter. This is the case because I sought to continue in the Habermasian vein,
thus extrapolating an ideal version of a public sphere, in this case a virtual public sphere. To
do this I used the Twitter elite to show how the most engaged, highest participating, and most
well connected citizens and journalists on Twitter are using it. Keeping the idea of network
journalism in mind, I want to come to some normative ideas on how journalists could use
Twitter and what in that case their interaction with citizens could be. Unfortunately this is
thus also a very exclusionary view. However, it does offer insights into how Twitter can
function as a tool for a virtual public sphere thus contributing to democracy. Moreover,
especially journalists could use these insights gained from the Twitter elite to improve their
interactions on Twitter and thus improve their journalism.
A second weakness is the impossibility of discussing how the digital divide on Twitter
can be crossed. This issue was addressed in chapter two as one of the main reasons against a
108
virtual public sphere. About this Stuart Allan posed: “it is evident that the social division
between those with ‘information capital’ and those without are widening.”251 However, I am
only studying the Twitter elite and the focus is more on the kind of use they are making of
Twitter than on who are also participating on Twitter. As such, this case study leaves open
this important question. At the same time, as also already posed in chapter two, for a virtual
public sphere to exist, not necessarily everyone needs to participate. Consequently, to map
how a virtual public sphere can exist does not necessitate an immediate answer to the question
who should be participating.
A last and third weakness is the fact that I only researched the Twitter behavior of
Egyptians and journalists affiliated with Egypt. The same approach used in other regions
where citizens are fighting for democratic rights could expand on the kinds of strategies used
on Twitter and whether others, on a larger scale, also adhere to the requirements of network
journalism and a virtual public sphere. Nevertheless, this limited scope, ensures an overview
of a network surrounding one specific subject, in this case the Egyptian political situation
during the time that Morsi issued his decree. Such an overview thus shows already existing
interactions on Twitter that, while they may be different elsewhere, are of valuable
information for anybody using Twitter anywhere. The following discussion elaborates on how
Twitter as an ideal type can function as a democratic tool for citizens and journalists.
5.2.2 Twitter is a Tool for a Virtual Public Sphere
The first discussion point is the overarching finding that all the participants in the sample
adhere in their behavior, although some to a lesser degree, to the five requirements of a virtual
public sphere. They even employ accountability and, to a lesser degree, equality. Moreover,
information dissemination is shown to take many different forms, used both by citizens and
journalists. Lastly, perhaps most importantly, there was a presence of discussion. This is
important because the presence of such discussion is proof that there is a basis for a virtual
public sphere in which Habermas locates the importance of critical rational deliberation.
Firstly, other researchers have identified the presence of information dissemination as
an important function of Twitter. Andrew Chadwick, for example, poses that the openness of
the internet increases the willingness of ordinary citizens “to contribute to the collective
251 Stuart Allan, News Culture. (Maidenhaid: McGraw-Hill Open UP, 2010), 16.
109
production, reworking, and sharing of media content.”252 Moreover, Ashkay Java et al. found
that, after daily chatter, informing is the most common intention of Twitter users.253 The fact,
however, that so many different forms of information dissemination are employed by citizens,
and not only journalists, is a new finding that makes the idea of Twitter as a tool for
democracy in a virtual public sphere more likely. Also, the fact that citizens are taking over
such behavior as it was originally only intended for journalists, proves the presence of
network journalism within my sample of elite-tweeters as the elite citizens are also
appropriating journalistic practices. Moreover, journalists in their turn are interacting with
citizens through retweets and deliberations.
The second issue, namely the presence of discussions on Twitter, is not supported as
much by previous research. Older research by both Peter Dahlgren and James Slevin, that
focused on the presence of such discussions on older social media such as blogs and internet
forums, found that critical discussions are hard to find on the internet. According to Dahlgren
this is because of people’s tendency “to group themselves into networks of like-
mindedness.”254 Similarly, James Slevin argues this is the case because discussion is not
possible to take place at the same time. Both these arguments are reputed by my findings,
which show that there are dissenting voices and critical stances within the Twitter network of
elite tweeters that I analyzed. Moreover, most discussions were held on the same day, mostly
only spanning over a few hours thus taking place at the same time, perhaps with a slight
delay.
Courtenay Honeycutt and Susan Herring researched Twitter specifically and posed
that, while they did not find much discussion or deliberation, they thought it possible if
Twitter improved its archiving feature.255 During the period under analysis Twitter had
changed this feature. Now, a user can click on a comment and the entire discussion to which it
belongs folds out around it, making it possible for another user to also contribute to the
existing discussion.
252 Andrew Chadwick, “Recent Shifts in the Relationship Between the Internet andDemocratic Engagement in
Britain and the United States: Granularity, Informational Exuberance, and Political Learning,” Website New
Political Communication Unit, 2010. http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/storage/chadwick/Chadwick_Granularity_
Informational_Exuberance_Learning_in_Comparing_Digital_Polit ics.pdf, (accessed July 19th, 2011), 4 253 Ashkay Java et al., “Why we Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities,” (paper
presented at the Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop, San Jose, California, 12 August, 2007), 8-9. 254 Peter Dahlgren, “Participation and Alternative Democracy: Social Media and their Contingencies,” in
Paricipação Política e Web 2.0 , ed. by Paulo Serra et al. (Covilhã: Livros LabCom, 2013), 74. 255 Courtenay Honeycutt and Susan C. Herring, “Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via
Twitter,” (paper presented at the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii,
January 5-8, 2009), 10
110
Added to these thoughts should be the more recent research by José van Dijck, who
poses that Twitter has shifted from a tool for conversation to a tool that is only suitable for
large-scale one-way communication. This takes the form of users not interacting with, but
merely following lists of other users and the other way around, other users merely addressing
their followers instead of interacting with them.256 Van Dijck thus sees a movement away
from the online discussion that is so necessary for a virtual public sphere. Her assessment is
supported by Kwak et al. who found in 2010 that of all Twitter users, only 22 percent have
reciprocal relationships of the kind that are necessary to foster discussion.257 These findings
thus do not support the idea of large-scale interaction resulting in critical-rational deliberation.
At the same time Van Dijck keeps open the question of the possibility of small-scale
deliberation. As she poses that the question remains open “whether Twitter will retain its
capability for two-way communication for collaboration in small groups and restricted
circles.”258 Such is the kind of deliberation I have found present within my small elite network
of tweeters. Although most people from the sample deliberated with people from their own
bigger network, thus making that small-scale network still larger than merely the fourteen
tweeters who I analyzed. My findings furthermore showed, that the elite discussing or
posting about the November-December 2012 protests include critical tweets. Figure 5.2 even
shows that about ten percent of their tweets are ones that include an openly critical stance.
This does not mean that their other tweets did not go beyond chitchat, as all tweets that were
not coded with the code connecting pertained to the political situation in Egypt. Figure 5.17
shows the percentage of tweets per elite tweeter that were posted in connection to the protests
and the political situation in Egypt at that time, meaning all the tweets made by that tweeter
minus those with the code connecting.
This figure shows that the lowest amount of tweets pertaining to the political situation
were still 80 percent of the total tweets of that person. Thus not only are the tweeters from the
elite group still engaging in a networked form of deliberation, also most of their tweets meant
that they were in some form either bringing up or discussing the political situation at hand.
The fact that such discussion and posts were present in the sample, against all theoretical
odds, might have several explanations. Firstly the Twitter users from the sample are so active
on Twitter that they have adopted a large skill set. This means they have the means to employ
256 José van Dijck, “Tracing Twitter: The Rise of a Microblogging platform,” International Journal of Media
and Cultural Politics 7, no. 3 (2012), 10. 257 Haewoon Lee Kwak et al, “What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?” in Proceedings of the 19 th
International World Wide Web (WWW) Conference, Raleigh, NC, 26 – 30 April (2010): 594. 258 José van Dijck, “Tracing Twitter: The Rise of a Microblogging platform,” International Journal of Media
and Cultural Politics 7, no. 3 (2012), 19.
111
different kinds of strategies to connect and interact with others, which makes it more likely
they will also use the possibility to start a discussion and use the different kinds of
information dissemination. Secondly, the citizens from the sample almost all have a history of
being active in other journalistic media. Most of them have written opinion pieces and/or have
appeared in television shows to explain their ideas on certain matters. This means that not
only the journalists from the sample, but also the citizens are above average media savvy,
which also makes it more likely that they participate on Twitter according to more traditional
journalistic norms which in their turn improve the quality of democracy on Twitter.
Figure 5.17 Percentage of tweets about the Egyptian political situation
Lastly, the main goal of the users in the sample, during the time the sample was taken, was to
discuss the political situation of Egypt. This shared focus of them and some of their followers
is bound to elicit discussions and deliberations on the events that are unfolding. Thus, also
meaning a presence of critical rational debate so important for a well-working virtual public
sphere.
5.2.3 Network Journalism on Twitter
A second noteworthy finding is the high level of interconnection among journalists and the
citizens of the sample. Within this interaction citizens have also adopted traditional
112
journalistic practices such as fact checking. Moreover, citizens are acting as a check on
journalists and the mainstream media. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel already predicted that
when citizens are really part of the news making process that they could act as a check on
mainstream media.259 An example of this in the sample is the changed picture on the website
of The New York Times, although I must add that the newspaper did not react to the tweet on
Twitter or acknowledge the tweet in the rectification that they published with the changed
photo. The findings do suggest that through the use of Twitter, citizens have had the
opportunity of becoming a part of the news making process. The example of the picture also
shows that the influence is almost instantaneous as less than two hours later the picture was
changed. In the past a citizen would have had to write an email, or even earlier a letter, after
which the newspaper, or the website, would have placed either a rectification or changed the
picture retroactively. The interaction on Twitter, and the immediacy that is part of that
interaction, really makes citizens a part of the news making process.
The interaction goes further, however, not only are citizens functioning as a check on
journalists, the citizens from the sample were discussing with journalists, informing each
other and helping each other fact-check. Moreover, the citizens themselves were bringing and
sometimes even breaking news. The citizens from the sample are thus not functioning as mere
one-way helpers in a top-down process but are interacting in a side-by-side process which is
in line with the ideal of network journalism where different nodes are interacting in an
information sphere. Twitter is functioning both as the platform for such an information
sphere, as well as the tool enabling the different players, in this case journalists and citizens,
to interact.
The importance of such forms of network journalism for a well-working democratic
virtual public sphere are voiced by Douglas Kellner who poses that social media should
function as a place of “multiplied information and discussion, of an admittedly varied sort,
and thus provid[ing] potential for a more informed citizenry and more extensive democratic
participation.”260 While Kellner only touched upon the behavior of citizens in social media,
and thus also Twitter, this idea of a democratic sphere becomes more advanced when the
interaction between journalists and citizens is also included. Both types of actor in the sample
have become information disseminators, participate in journalistic practices, and critically
deliberate. Network journalism thus allows citizens to be well informed and critical.
259 Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel. The elements of journalism: what newspeople should know and the public
should expect, (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007), 13. 260 Douglas Kellner, “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention,” in Perspectives on
Habermas, ed. by Lewis Edwin Hahn (Chicago: Open Court Press, 2000), 278.
113
Moreover it enables critical rational debate. Twitter acts in this case as a tool for establishing
both a networked sphere as well as a platform to enact all the behavior necessary for network
journalism. In that sense Twitter thus becomes a tool for a well-functioning online public
sphere.
An explanation for the existence and quality of these interactions lies, first of all, in a
similar reason that the five requirements of a virtual public sphere are met. The users who are
part of the sample are all media savvy, half of them are journalists and the other half are
citizens who also occasionally participate in other media as guest editorialists. Secondly, as
remarked earlier, this elite network is rather small, should someone not participate according
to unwritten rules he or she may be unfollowed. For example, should someone often post
tweets that later turn out to be untrue this person will be retweeted less often and followed
less, resulting in a decline in popularity and thus influence on Twitter. If someone wants to be
influential, or heard by a large group on Twitter, they have to continuously prove themselves
to stay influential. This works within a smaller network such as the one surrounding the
political situation in Egypt. However, I must concede that it is less likely that such a self-
regulating mechanism can exist in larger or more abstract networks that are less focused on
one particular subject. However, even on a smaller scale such self-regulation would mean that
smaller networks on Twitter geared to a specific subject offer the kind of discussion space
that Habermas had originally theorized about as he expounded that a public sphere should be
self-regulating.261
5.2.4 Learning from the Themes
The three themes that I attained out of the sample through the grounded theory approach –
power, emotion and morality – together form the third important finding. These abstract
theoretical overarching themes are not present in the previous empirical research on Twitter
and the public sphere. However, the more theoretical ruminations on these two subjects have
touched on the presence of these themes, although admittedly sometimes indirectly.
Understanding and discussing the presence of these themes in the sample increases insight
into the practices of both citizens and journalists on Twitter. Moreover, it results in ideas on
how to improve the democratic participation of journalists in the virtual public sphere.
Power, firstly, is an important subject for theoretical understandings of both a public
sphere and a virtual public sphere. This theme is of influence when discussing the potential
261 Jürgen Habermas, “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. by
Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 437.
114
free and open state of such spheres. Powerful institutions like governments and big companies
are a threat to the open and thus democratic nature of these spheres. José van Dijck discusses
the commodification of Twitter and argues that Twitter’s business model, and its goal of
profitability, are inevitably geared toward commercialization of the platform.262 She poses
that this process has been set in motion ever since “Twitter paved the way to include
sponsored content – push-based, pull-based or geo-based – next to Twitter messages. Indeed,
almost immediately, the company introduced Promoted Tweets and Promoted Trends … in
order to insert promoted tweets into the stream of real-life conversation.”263
Commodification means that there are actors in such a public sphere who are participating
with commercial instead of democratic intentions, thus diluting the critical rational debate
present. However, the sample is a great example of users who are accountable and are not
representing a commercial party.
The power struggle for a free, open, democratic public sphere is exactly the kind of
struggle that is captured by the theme of power. This also captures Habermas original intent
of theorizing an ideal type of a public sphere. To reiterate his argument that I presented in
chapter one, a well-working public sphere functions as an effective place of mediation
between the state and individual. This is possible when in the public sphere, through debate,
an individual can come to new ideas, practices and reasoned criticism of the state.264 As such,
a citizen is thus contributing to a democracy, meaning that the goals of a well-working public
sphere are being conducive to a healthy democracy. The tweets belonging to the theme power
also cover this idea of a sphere in which people, both citizens as well as journalists, are
informing and deliberating on the actions of the state.
Morality, the second theme, is also an important aspect of the Habermasian public
sphere. Habermas says that one of the solutions for a public sphere in crisis is critical
publicity. This critical publicity should consist of journalists adhering to moral and ethical
norms to promote open dialogue.265 This translates to the tweets in the sense that befitting this
normative ideal, some of the journalists of the sample have included their judgment and thus
underlying morals to their tweets. However, most tweets that fall under the theme morality
belong to citizens. Especially the journalists working for non-Egyptian news media, namely
Evanchill and SherineT, did not often include a moral judgment in their tweets, while
262 José van Dijck, “Tracing Twitter: The Rise of a Microblogging platform,” International Journal of Media
and Cultural Politics 7, no. 3 (2012), 19. 263 Ibid, 17. 264 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989), 27. 265 Ibid, 198.
115
Egyptian journalists have more tweets belonging to this category. I pose that the presence of
this theme shows that a moral judgment in a tweet is not only already an accepted practice
among the Twitter elite, but also a normative ideal. Journalists who include such judgment in
a tweet participate in a morally engaged manner on Twitter, which normatively makes them
better participants in a virtual public sphere. While not discussing the normative implications,
Domini L. Lasorsa et al. have found that many journalists are already including more of their
own opinions in their tweets. They argue that Twitter, because of the small posts, generally
encourages the offering of opinions as there is little space for nuance.266
Emotion is the last theme that came from the sample. Peter Dahlgren’s idea of
cosmopolitan reflection, introduced in chapter three, captures the importance of the presence
of emotion in the virtual public sphere. This concept holds that anyone who participates
online needs to understand and respect another’s reality, which is shaped by a range of factors
and can result in a different view of the world.267 The emotions so generously spread through
Twitter are such conveyors of Egyptians’ current reality. Journalists can use this in their
reporting outside of Twitter to convey the realities of the world. Moreover, journalist Sarah
Carr, an Egyptian journalist in the sample is an example of a journalist effectively using
humor, meant to evoke emotion, in her tweets in the form of sarcasm and ridicule. Through
this strategy she communicates sharp observations but also criticism, which result in her posts
being spread to a large public.
5.3 Conclusion
To conclude, I summarized in the discussion of this chapter that within the sample of elite
tweeters a certain degree of behavior is reached resulting in a normative adherence, more or
less, to the five requirements of a virtual public sphere. While this does not mean that all users
behave in an ideal way thus creating a perfect virtual public sphere, it does show that an elite
group of people use Twitter’s current features in such a manner that it can be called a tool for
a virtual public sphere. Moreover, in this sphere there is space for network journalism. At
least the nodes representing citizens and journalists are interconnected and side-by-side
producing and changing the Twitter news cycle.
I therefore pose that this small sample shows that deliberation is possible in a
relatively small network that is focused on talking about one certain issue occurring at a
266 Dominic L. Lasorsa et al., “Normalizing Twitter: Journalism Practice in an Emerging Communication
Space,” Journalism Studies iFirst Article (2011), 12. 267 Peter Dahlgren, “Online Journalism and Civic Cosmopolitanism,” Journalism Practice iFirst Article (2012),
13.
116
specific moment in time. This insight adds to the possibilities of Twitter as a tool for
democracy. In practice this means that journalists, if they want to participate in the form of
network journalism and use Twitter as a tool within a virtual public sphere, one of their
strategies can be to seek out a network of elite tweeters. For example, would a journalist
quickly wanted to reap the benefits of a Twitter network during the November- December
2012 protests they could have looked for elite tweeters on the subject. Consequently they
would have first become familiar with these elite tweeters and easily also with the larger
networks of these tweeters. In such a manner a journalist, or anyone interested in a specific
situation, can quickly become part of a network discussing that subject on Twitter. Moreover,
this insight that small networks are sites of deliberation is equally valuable for citizen tweeters
looking for possibilities of engaging in critical rational debate. They are, as it happens, also a
node within network journalism next to journalists, who can seek to use Twitter as a tool for
democracy. Even though this means a focus on elite tweeters, these people do not necessarily
belong to the elite outside of Twitter, thus not only limiting the discussion to elite players
within society.
Lastly, the three themes that I extrapolated from the tweets from these elite players
give some indication of the kind of behavior and patterns that result in effective interaction
between citizens and journalists on Twitter. Mainly behavior that falls under the themes of
morality and emotion result in a higher spread and interconnection between users. As the elite
journalists who already included more of these posts had a higher interconnection than those
who did not, I pose that inclusion of tweets containing a journalist’s own moral or emotional
judgement would improve the democratic quality of tweets, thus improving Twitter’s ability
to function as a tool for a virtual public sphere.
117
Habermas Should Join: A Look at Twitter’s Democratic Potential The web itself does not produce any public spheres. Its structure is not suited to focusing the attention of a dispersed public of citizens who form opinions simultaneously on the same topics and contributions which have been scrutinized and filtered by experts.268
This quote from an interview with Jürgen Habermas, the theoretical founder of public
sphere theory, refers back to the starting point of this thesis. This point of departure was
Habermas’ assessment that a public sphere is supposed to encourage, support but also
exist through critical rational deliberation among informed citizens. When such
deliberation is present a public sphere and thus a society has a qualitatively high level of
democracy. In this sphere the news media traditionally have the important role of
gatekeeper of the news. This news trickles down to well-informed citizens and functions
as a checks and balances on the state. Habermas poses that this interaction between
state, citizens and journalists has been in crisis since the eighteenth century as citizens
are no longer able to, and enabled to, engage in critical rational deliberation. As
abovementioned quote suggests, Habermas does not see the internet as a possible
addition to existing public spheres. This thesis poses the opposite. Building upon the
work of contemporary theorists who have adapted public sphere theory, I redefined its
understanding to provide a theoretical place which allows us to recognize the
democratic potential of social media applications, such as Twitter.
Within this adapted understanding of the public sphere several spheres interact
with and sometimes also contest the dominant public sphere. The deliberations and
interactions on Twitter embody a virtual public sphere. This is marked by an exclusively
online existence on the internet through the use of Twitter. As this virtual public sphere
serves as a public communal space that could potentially improve democracy, the
functioning of Twitter according to the norms of such a sphere could resu lt in it being a
tool for democracy. The opportunity for Twitter to fulfill such a function opens up many
new democratic possibilities for both citizens and journalists. Thus the question asked
and answered by this thesis was: How can Twitter act as a tool for democracy?
In order to answer this question I looked at The Twitter behavior of an elite
group of tweeters, both citizens as well as journalists, during the November-December
2012 protests in Egypt. These show that they adhered to the normative requirements of
268 Stuart Jeffries, “A rare interview with Jürgen Habermas,” Financial Times Magazine April 30, 2010,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eda3bcd8-5327-11df-813e-00144feab49a.html#axzz2Z7a9p5gA (accessed 15
July, 2013).
118
a virtual public sphere. This means that they employed information dissemination;
asked critical questions; were mostly equal and accountable; and accepted dissensus as
the outcome of discussions. The reason for that kind of participation on Twitter lies
mainly in the media savviness of the tweeters that I analyzed. As such this finding shows
that elite tweeters are able to appropriate Twitter in such a manner that it functions as a
tool that improves democracy. The implications of this finding are that Twitter, when
used by a small, perhaps elite, group, fosters the critical rational debate that Habermas
has argued to be in crisis since the eighteenth century. This is an interesting finding as it
suggests that Twitter facilitates small oppositional public spheres to come into
existence. As such, I pose that Twitter is a tool for democracy when it is in the hands of a
small group of users who intentionally discuss one specific subject. In this case the
protests in Egypt.
Strengthening the democratic potential of such a tight-knit group is the presence
of journalists enacting network journalism. The second major finding in this thesis
shows the presence of such networked relations on Twitter. This means that both the
citizen tweeters as well as the journalist tweeters from my sample were highly
interconnected by following each other, retweeting each other and, most importantly,
deliberating with each other and their broader network. Thus, as the first finding in this
thesis merely suggests the presence of a virtual public sphere due to Twitter, this second
finding suggests a certain high quality of that virtual public sphere as both the
information dissemination as well as the deliberation are influenced positively by
network journalism. Differently put, both citizens and journalists within a tight-knit
group identified in the first finding, are contributing to qualitatively high interactions on
Twitter due to their interconnectedness. This second finding thus shows that Twitter
not only facilitates the existence of a virtual public sphere but also fruitful connections
between citizens and journalists, in the end resulting in a more democratic virtual public
sphere.
Both the presence and potential quality of a virtual public sphere through Twitter
have thus been established by the first two findings of this thesis. At the same time my
research also showed that some journalists were more effectively interconnected than
others. This means that some of the journalists from the sample were retweeted more
often, deliberated more often with others or were retweeted more by others.
119
To propose ways for journalists to more effectively use Twitter as a tool for
democracy, meaning that they are more interconnected resulting in online deliberations,
I want to refer to my third major finding, the three overarching themes – power,
emotion and morality – extracted from the tweets in the sample. Especially the two
themes emotion and morality provide insights into journalists’ optimal use of Twitter.
Firstly the theme emotion showed that when users, either citizens or journalists,
conveyed their emotions when tweeting, this evoked more reactions and interactions
than the users who kept their posts neutral. As the citizens in the sample were all
personally affected by the events in Egypt, all of them conveyed their emotions through
Twitter. Among the journalists, however, the two foreign correspondents from the
sample were the two who remained more neutral in their Tweets. At the same time one
of their Egyptian colleagues, Sarah Carr, was very open about her emotions, resulting in
many retweets of her tweets and reactions to them. Her interconnectedness was the
highest.
Similarly, the theme morality showed that users who included moral judgments
on events were also more interconnected. Again, the two foreign correspondents from
the sample were the two who did this the least. A withholding of both opinion and
emotion on Twitter is consistent with traditional journalistic practices of trying to
report as balanced and neutrally as possible. However, the (perhaps moderate)
inclusion of moral judgment and emotion makes journalists more interconnected and
their use of Twitter more networked. A more networked use of Twitter improves the
level of deliberation and information dissemination found there, consequently
improving the democratic nature of the virtual public sphere created. I therefore pose
that when journalists include more of their emotions and moral judgments into their
tweets instead of trying to stay as neutral as possible, they improve the quality of the
virtual public sphere created through Twitter.
Naturally these normative ideals for journalists’ use of Twitter posed here are
just that, ideals. This more theoretically focused thesis could thus be supplemented by
such research as has been done earlier by Sue Robinson. She interviewed journalists on
their use of Twitter and other online tools.269 The journalists from my sample showed
differences in their use of Twitter, interviewing journalists who show such differences
269 Sue Robinson, “’Journalism as a Process’: The Organizational Implications of Participatory Online News,”
Journalism & Communication Monographs 13, no.3 (2011), 202 – 203.
120
could improve insight into why and how the adoption of Twitter differs within
journalism. Moreover, combining this with the theoretical insights of this thesis, namely
the use of emotion and morality in tweets, could enhance knowledge of why journalists
are employing those strategies or not. Moreover, more extensive qualitative research
into the kind of interactions that journalists are having could certainly improve the
empirical knowledge on network journalism. Thus, not only their kind of connection to
citizens but also other important nodes within network journalism such as government
officials and NGOs.
As the journalists discussed in this thesis tweeted in Egypt, and a large portion
was from Egypt, an interesting supplementary study could entail a similar grounded
theory analysis of journalists and citizens in contemporary Turkey. As of writing Turkish
citizens are also protesting their elected President both offline as well as online. A
grounded theory analysis of an elite Twitter group about the Turkish protests to test
whether the same themes emerge, and whether there are new ones that I did not
identify in Egypt.
While there is thus still much to add to our knowledge about Twitter, this thesis
has contributed to the understanding of Twitter’s democratic potential firstly by
defining what a well-functioning virtual public sphere actually is. Users’ activity on
Twitter subsequently showed that their behavior more or less fits this definition,
therefore opening up the discussion of what shape Twitter’s democratic potential can
take in practice. By focusing on the interrelation between journalists and citizens within
the framework of existing public sphere theory this thesis has also suggested ways for
journalists to more effectively use Twitter and become more interconnected with other
users on Twitter.
I conclude that tweeters, both citizens and journalists, have appropriated a
relatively new tool for creating alternative virtual public spheres. While these are small,
specialized groups of users, they do help shape opinion on important issues. They are
consequently an integrated part of contesting public spheres in society, sometimes
critically opposing economic, political and societal processes. All in all, the internet has
thus provided us with a new tool to contribute to democracy. A tool now also worthy of
Habermas’ own participation, perhaps even as a contributor to the loaded deliberations
on the future of Egypt.
121
Bibliography
Allan, Stuart. News Culture. Maidenhaid: McGraw-Hill Open UP, 2010.
Antony, Mary Grace and Ryan J. Thomas. “‘This is citizen journalism at its finest’: YouTube
and the public sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident.” New Media Society 12,
no. 8 (2010): 1280 - 1296.
Benaquisto, Lucia. “Codes and Coding.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research
Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications (2008): 85 – 88.
Benhabib, Seyla. Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in
Contemporary Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
Bennett, W. Lance. “New Media Power: The Internet and Global Activism.” In Contesting
Media Power, edited by Nick Couldry and James Curran. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield, 2003.
Bohman, James. “Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for
transnational democracy.” In After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public
Sphere, edited by Nick Crossley and John Michael Roberts, 131-155. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Bowman, S. and Willis, C. “We media: How audiences are shaping the future of news and
information. NDN. Available at: www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.
pdf (accessed April 29, 2011).
Bruno, Nicola. “Tweet First, Verify Later? How Real-Time Information is Changing the
Coverage of Worldwide Crisis Events.” Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper 2010-
2011.
Bruns, Axel. “News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: new Direction for e-journalism.” in K.
Prasad (ed.), E-Journalism: new Directions in Electronic News Media. New Delhi: BR
Publishing, 2008. Available at: http://spurb.info/News%20Blogs%20and%20Citizen
%20Journalism.pdf (accessed August 13, 2011).
Bruns, Axel and Jean Burgess. “The Use of Twitter Hashtags in the Formation of Ad Hoc
Publics.” Paper presented at 6th European Consortium for Political Research General
Conference, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, 2011.
Bruns, Axel, Jean Burgess and Tim Highfield. “Mapping the Australian Networked Public
Sphere.” Paper presented at the International Communication Association conference,
Singapore, 25 June, 2010.
Bruns, Axel and Jean Burgess. “New Methodologies for Researching News Discussion on
Twitter.” Paper presented at The Future of Journalism 2011, 8 – 9 September, Cardiff
122
University, Cardiff, 2011.
Bryman, Alan. Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008.
Cammaerts, Bart and Leo Audenhove. “Online Political Debate, Unbounded Citizenship, and
the Problematic Nature of a Transnational Public Sphere.” Political Communication
22, no. 2 (2005): 179-196.
Chadwick, Andrew. “Recent Shifts in the Relationship Between the Internet and Democratic
Engagement in Britain and the United States: Granularity, Informational Exuberance,
and Political Learning.” Website New Political Communication Unit, 2010.
http://newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk/storage/chadwick/Chadwick_Granularity_
Informational_Exuberance_Learning_in Comparing_Digital_Politics.pdf (accessed
July 19th, 2011).
Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative
Analysis. London: Sage Publications, 2006.
Charmaz, Kathy and Anthony Bryant. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research
Methods. London: Sage Publications, 2008.
Comunello, Francesca and Gisueppe Anzera. “Will the revolution be tweeted? A conceptual
framework for understanding the social media and the Arab Spring.” Islam and
Christian-Muslim Relations iFirst article (2012): 1- 18.
Conover, Michael D., J. Ratkiewicz, M. Francisco, B. Gonçalves, A. Flammini and F.
Menczer. “Political Polarization on Twitter.” Paper presented at the Fifth International
AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, July 17-21, 2011.
Dahlberg, Lincoln. “The Internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public
sphere.” International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 3, no. 1 (2007): 47 - 64.
Dahlgren, Peter. Television and the Public Sphere: citizenship, democracy and the media.
SAGE Publications: London, 2000.
Dahlgren, Peter. “Online Journalism and Civic Cosmopolitanism.” Journalism Studies iFirst
Article (2012): 1 – 16.
Dahlgren, Peter. “Participation and Alternative Democracy: Social Media and their
Contingencies.” In Participação Politica e Web 2.0. . Edited by Paulo Serra, Eduardo
J.M. Camilo and Gisela Gonçalves. Covilhã: Livros LabCom, 2013, 57 - 82.
Deuze, Mark, Axel Bruns and Chirstoph Neuberger. “Preparing for an age of participatory
news.” Journalism Practice 1, no. 3 (2007): 322 - 338.
Domingo, David, Thorsten Quandt, Ari Heinonen, Steve Paulussen, Jane B. Singer and
Marina Vujnovic. “Participatory Journalism Practices in the media and beyond: An
123
international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers.” Journalism
Practice 2, no. 3 (2008): 326 - 342.
Van Dijck, José, “Facebook as a Tool for Producing Sociality and Connectivity.” Television
and New Media 13, no. 2 (2012): 160 – 176.
Van Dijck, José. “Tracing Twitter: The Rise of a Microblogging platform.” International
Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 7, no. 3 (2012): 333-348.
El Hamamsy, Walid. “BB = BlackBerry or Big Brother: Digital media and the Egyptian
revolution.” Journal of Postcolonial Writing 47, no. 4 (2011): 454 – 466.
El-Nawawy, Mohammed and Sahar Khamis. “Political Blogging and (Re) Envisioning the
Virtual Public Sphere: Muslim-Christian Discourses in Two Egyptian Blogs.” The
International Journal of Press/Politics (2010): 1 - 20.
Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually
Existing Democracy.” Social Text, no. 25/26 (1990), 56-80.
Fortunati, Leopoldina, Mauro Sarrica, John O’Sullivan, Aukse Balcytiene, Halliki Harro-Loit,
Phil Macgregor, Nayia Roussou, Ramón Salaverría and Federico de Luca. “The
influence of the Internet on European Journalism.” Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 14(2009): 928 - 963.
Garnham, Nicholas. “Habermas and the public sphere.” Global Media and Communication
vol. 3, no. 2, 2007, 201-214.
Gerhards, Jürgen and Mike S. Schäfer. “Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old
and new media in the USA and Germany.” New Media and Society 12, no. 1 (2010):
143 -160.
Ghannam, Jeffrey. “Social Media in the Arab World: Leading up to the Uprisings of 2011. A
Report to the Center for International Media Assistance.” Washington DC: Center for
International Media Assistance, 2011: 1 - 39.
Gillmor, Dan. We the media: grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. Sebastopol,
CA: O’Reilly, 2004.
Goode, Luke. Jürgen Habermas: Democracy and the Public Sphere. Pluto Press: London,
2005.
Goode, Luke. “Social news, citizen journalism and democracy.” New media & society 11, no.
8 (2009): 1287 - 1306.
Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and
democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996.
Habermas, Jürgen. “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere.” In Habermas and the Public
124
Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, 421-461. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an inquiry into a
category of bourgeois society. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1989.
Habermas, Jürgen. Time of Transitions. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006.
Hamdy, Naila. “Arab Citizen Journalism in Action: Challenging Mainstream Media,
Authorities and Media Laws.” Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 6,
no. 1 (2009): 1744 – 6716.
Heinrich, Ansgard. “Foreign Reporting in the Sphere of Network Journalism.” Journalism
Practice iFirst Article (2012): 1 – 10.
Heinrich, Ansgard. Networked: A Contemporary History of News in Transition. New York
City: Routledge, 2011.
Heinrich, Ansgard. “Network Journalism: Moving towards a Global Journalism Culture.”
Paper presented at the RIPE conference in Mainz, October 9-11, 2008. Public Service
Media for Communication and Partnership.
Hermida, Alfred. “Tweets and Truth: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification.”
Journalism Practice iFirst Article (2012): 1 -10.
Hermida, Alfred, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt, Zvi
Reich, Jane B. Singer and Marina Vujnovic. “The Active Recipient: Participatory
Journalism Through the Lens of the Dewey-Lippmann Debate.” Paper presented at
International Symposium on Online Journalism 2011, University of Texas, Austin,
April 2011.
Hermida, Alfred, Seth C. Lewis and Rodrigo Zamith. “Sourcing the Arab Spring: A Case
Study of Andy Carvin’s Sources During the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions.”
Paper presented at the International Symposium on Online Journalism 2012,
University of Texas, Austin, April 2012.
Honeycutt, Courtenay and Susan C. Herring. “Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and
Collaboration via Twitter.” Paper presented at the 42nd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, January 5-8, 2009.
Horan, Tyler J. “’Soft’ Versus ‘Hard’ News on Microblogging Networks: Semantic Analysis
of Twitter produsage.” Information, Communication & Society iFirst Article (2012): 1
– 18.
Howard, Philip N. and Muzammil M. Hussain. “The Role of Digital Media.” Journal of
Democracy 22, no. 3 (2011): 35 - 48.
Howard, Philip N., Aiden Duffy, Deen Freelon, Muzammil Hussain, Will Mari and Marwa
125
Mazaid. “Opening Closed Regimes: What Was the Role of Social Media During the
Arab Spring?” Working Paper 2011.1 http://pitpi.org/index.php/2011/09/11/opening-
closed-regimes-what-was-the-role-of-social-media-during-the-arab-spring/ (accessed
September 14, 2012): 1 – 30.
Huberman, Bernardo A., Daniel M. Romero and Fang Wu. “Social networks that matter:
Twitter under the microscope.” First Monday 14, no. 1 (2009): 1 - 9.
Hughes, Amanda Lee and Leysia Palen. “Twitter Adoption and Use in Mass Convergence
and Emergency Events.” Paper presented at the 6th International ISCRAM
Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 2009.
Iosofidis, Petros, “The Public Sphere, Social Networks and Public Service Media.”
Information, Communication and Society 14, no. 5 (2011): 619 – 637.
Jacobs, Ronald N. Race, Media, and the Crisis of Civil Society: From Watts to Rodney King.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Jansen, Bernard J., Mimi Zhang, Kate Sobel and Abdur Chowdury. “Twitter Power: Tweets
as Electronic Word of Mouth.” Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology 60, no. 11 (2009): 2169 - 2186.
Java, Ashkay, Xiaodan Song, Tim Finin, Xiaodan Song and Belle Tseng. “Why we Twitter:
Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities.” Paper presented at the Joint
9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop, San Jose, California, 12 August, 2007.
Jones, Paul. “Democratic Norms and Means of Communication: Public Sphere, Fourth Estate,
Freedom of Communication.” Critical Horizons vol. 1, no. 2 (2000), 307-339.
Jönsson, Anna Maria and Henrik Örnebring. “User-generated content and the news.”
Journalism Practice 5, no. 2 (2011): 127 - 144.
Karlsson, Michael Bo. “Participatory Journalism and Crisis Communications: A Swedish
Case of Swine Flu Coverage.” Observatorio Journal 4, no. 1 (2010): 201 - 220.
Kaufhold, Kelly, Sebastian Valenzuela and Homero Gil de Zúñiga. “Citizen Journalism and
Democracy: How User-generated News Use Relates to Political Knowledge and
Participation.” J & MC Quarterly 87, no. 3/4 (2010): 515 - 529.
Kellner, Douglas. “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention.” In
Perspectives on Habermas, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, 259-287. Chicago: Open
Court Press, 2000.
Khamis, Sahar and Katherin Vaughn. “‘We Are All Khaled Said’: The potentials and
limitations of cyberactivism in triggering public mobilization and promoting political
change.” Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research 4, no. 2 and 3 (2011): 145 –
126
163.
Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel. The elements of journalism: what newspeople should know
and the public should expect. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007.
Kuntsman, Adi and Rebecca L. Stein. “Digital Suspicion, Politics, and the Middle East.”
Critical Inquiry (2011): 1 – 10.
Kwak, Haewoon Lee, Changyun Lee, Hsoung Park and Sue Moon. “What is Twitter, a Social
Network or a News Media?” In Proceedings of the 19th International World Wide
Web (WWW) Conference. Raleigh, NC, 26 – 30 April (2010): 591 – 600.
Lasorsa, Dominic L., Seth C. Lewis and Avery E. Holton. “Normalizing Twitter: Journalism
Practice in an Emerging Communication Space.” Journalism Studies iFirst Article
(2011): 1 – 18.
Lerman, Kristina and Rumi Ghosh, “Information Contagion: an Empirical Study of the
Spread of News on Digg and Twitter Social Networks”, in Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 2010.
Lim, Merlyna. “Clicks, Cabs and Coffee Houses: Social Media and Oppositional Movements
in Egypt, 2004 – 2011.” Journal of Communication 62 (2012): 231 – 248.
Lowrey, Wilson and Jenn Burleson Mackay. “Journalism and Blogging: A test of a model of
occupational competition.” Journalism Practice 2, no. 1 (2008): 64 - 81.
Macnamara, Jim. “Media Content Analysis: Its Uses, Benefits & Best Practice Methodology.”
Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal 6, no. 1 (2005): 1 – 34.
Mansour, Essam. “The role of social networking sites (SNSs) in the January 25 th Revolution
in Egypt.” Library Review 61, no. 2 (2012): 128 – 159.
Matheson, Donald. “Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: some trends in online
journalism.” New Media and Society 6, no. 4, 2004: 443 - 468.
McNair, Brian. “Journalism and Democracy.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies. Edited
by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen and Thomas Hanitzsch. New York: Routledge, 2009.
Murthy, Dhiraj. “Twitter: Microphone for the Masses?” Media Culture Society 33, no. 5
(2011): 779 – 789.
Newman, Nic. “The rise of social media and its impact on mainstream journalism: A study of
how newspapers and broadcasters in the UK and US are responding to a wave of
participatory social media, and a historic shift in control towards individual
consumers.” Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Working Paper, 2009.
http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/The_rise_of_
127
social_media_and_its_impact_on_mainstream_journalism.pdf, accessed October 12,
2009.
O’Sullivan, John and Ari Heinonen. “Old Values, New Media: Journalism role perceptions in
a changing world.” Journalism Practice 2, no. 3 (2008): 357 - 371.
Pantti, Mervi and Piet Bakker. “Misfortunes, memories and sunsets: Non-professional images
in Dutch news media.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 12, no. 5 (2009): 471
- 489.
Papacharissi, Zizi. A Private Sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity, 2010.
Paulussen, Steve and Pieter Ugille. “User Generated Content in the Newsroom: Professional
and Organisational Constraints on Participatory Journalism.” Westminster Papers in
Communication and Culture 5, no. 2 (2008): 1744-6716.
Peterson, Mark Allen. “Egypt’s Media Ecoology in a Time of Revolution.” Arab Media and
Society 14 (2011): 1 – 16.
Poster, Mark. “CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere.” Website of University of
California, Irvine, 1995, www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html (accessed
July 19th, 2011).
Rane, Halim and Sumra Salem. “Social media, social movements and the diffusion of ideas in
the Arab uprisings.” The Journal of International Communication 18, no. 1 (2012): 97
– 111.
Ritter, Daniel P. and Alexander H. Trechsel. “Revolutionary Cells: On the Role of Texts,
Tweets, and Status Updates in Nonviolent Revolutions.” Paper presented at the
conference on ‘Internet, Voting and Democracy’, Laguna Beach, California, May 14-
15, 2011.
Roberts, John Michael and Nick Crossley. “Introduction.” In After Habermas: New
Perspectives on the Public Sphere, edited by Nick Crossley and John Michael Roberts,
1 – 27. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Robinson, Sue. “‘If you had been with us’: mainstream press and citizen journalists jockey for
authority over the collective memory of Hurricane Katrina.” New Media and
Society 11, no. 5 (2009): 795 - 814.
Robinson, Sue. “’Journalism as a Process’: The Organizational Implications of Participatory
Online News,” Journalism & Communication Monographs 13, no. 3 (2011): 137 –
210.
Rodriguez, C. “The bishop and his star: Citizens’ communication in southern Chile.” In N.
Couldry and J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a
128
networked world, 177 - 194, Lanham: MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.
Russell, Adrienne. Networked: A Contemporary History of News in Transition. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press, 2011.
Russell, Adrienne. “Innovation in hybrid space: 2011 UN Climate Summit and the expanding
journalism landscape.” Journalism published online (2013): 1 – 17.
Singer, Jane B. “Journalists and News Bloggers: Complements, Contradictions and
Challenges. In Axel Bruns and Joanne Jacobs (eds.), Uses of Blogs. New York: Peter
Lang, 2006: 23 - 32.
Singer, Jane B. Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers.
Malden, Ma: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Slevin, James. The Internet and Society. Cambridge: Polity, 2000.
Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1990.
Thomassen, Lasse. Habermas: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2010.
Thornton, Alinta. “Does Internet Create Democracy?” Equid Novi: South African Journalism
Studies 22, no. 2 (2002): 126 - 147.
Thurman, Neil. “Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of suer generated content initiatives
by online news media.” New Media and Society 10, no. 1 (2008): 1 - 30.
Tufekci, Zeynep and Christopher Wilson. “Social Media and the Decision to Participate in
Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square.” Journal of Communication 62
(2012): 363 – 379.
Tumasjan, Andranik, Timm O. Sprenger, Philipp G. Sandner and Isabell M. Welpe.
“Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political
Sentiment.” Paper presented at Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs
and Social Media, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 23-26 of May,
2010.
Van Os, Renée, Nicholas W. Jankowski and Maurice Vergeer. “Political communication
about Europe on the Internet during the 2004 European Parliament election campaign
in nine EU member states.” European Societies 9, no. 5 (2007): 755 - 775.
Yardi, Sartia and Danah Boyd. “Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization
Over Time on Twitter.” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society. 30, no. 5 (2010):
316 - 327.
Ward, Stephen J.A. and Herman Wasserman. “Towards an Open Ethics: Implications of New
129
Media Platforms for Global Ethics Discourse.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 25, no.
4 (2010): 275 – 292.
Zhao, Wayne Xin and Jing Jiang. “An Empirical Comparison of Topics in Twitter and
Traditional Media,” Singapore Management University School of Infromation Systems
Technical Paper Series (2011): 1 – 23.
Newspaper and magazine articles
“Egypt requests delay of IMF loan approval.” Egypt Independent 11 December, 2102. http://
www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-requests-delay- imf- loan-approval (accessed
15 July, 2013).
“Elbaradei, Sabbahy, and others call for anti-Morsi protests on Friday.” Egypt Independent
23 November 2012. http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/elbaradei-sabbahy-and-
others-call-anti-Morsi-protests-friday (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Grossman, Lev. “Iran’s Protests: Why Twitter is the Medium of the Movement.” Time
Magazine U.S., June 17, 2009. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,
1905125,00.html (accessed 6 June, 2011)
Grossman, Lev. “You - Yes, You - Are TIME’s Person of the Year.” Time Magazine U.S.,
December 25, 2006. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,
00.html (accessed 19 July, 2011).
Gulhane, Joel. “EU concerned by Morsi’s decree.” Daily News Egypt 4 December 2012 http:
www.dailynewsegypt.com/2012/12/04/eu-concerned-by-Morsis-decree/ (accessed 15
July, 2013).
Hill, Evan. “Egypt’s crackdown now wears camouflage.” Al Jazeera 20 May 2011 http://ww
w.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/05/2011519172611166398.html (accessed 15
July, 2013).
Jeffries, Stuart. “A rare interview with Jürgen Habermas,” Financial Times, April 30 2010,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eda3bcd8-5327-11df-813e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1S
aANVPVp (accessed 19 July, 2011).
“Judges rise against Morsi’s power grab, announces strike.” Egypt Independent, 24
November 2012, http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/judges-rise-against-Morsi-s-
power-grab-announces-strike (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Kirkpatrick, David D. and May El Sheikh. “Citing Deadlock, Egypt’s Leader Seizes New
Power and Plans Mubarak Retrial.” New York Times November 22, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/middleeast/egypt-protests.html?_r=0
130
(accessed 15 July, 2013).
Kirkpatrick, David D. “Backing off Added Powers, Egypt’s Leader Presses Vote.” The New
York Times 8 December, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/
middleeast/egypt-protests.html?_r=0 (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Krantz, Rachel. “Six Best Egypt Bloggers to Follow.” The Daily Beast January 30, 2013
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/30/six-best-egypt-blogers-to-
follow.html (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Rogers, Tony. “Citizen Journalist gigi Ibrahim Uses Tools of the Web to Spread News of
Cairo Protests,” About.com Guide January 28, 2011 http://journalism.about.com/
b/2011/01/28/citizen-journalist-gigi-ibrahim-uses-tools-of-the-web-to-spread-news-of-
cairo-protests.htm (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Stone, Brad and Noam Cohen. “Social Networks Spread Defiance Online.” The New York
Times. June 15, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/
16media.html?_r=0 (accessed 14 July, 2013).
“Tourism fails amid political tension.” Egypt Independent 28 Novemeber 2012, http://
www.egyptindependent.com/news/tourism-falls-amid-political-tension
(accessed 15 July, 2013).
Websites
Mohamed Gaber’s blog, http://www.gaberism.net/blog/about (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Evan Hill’s blog, http://evanchill.com/about/ (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Gaber, Mohamed, “Interactive poster: Morsillini,” Gaber blog 27 November, 2012, http://ww
w.gaberism.net/blog/2012/11/27/interactive-poster-morsillini/ (accessed 15 July,
2013).
Ibrahim, Gigi. “2012: The Year of Persistance.” Blog: The Angry Egyptian 31 December,
2012, http://www.theangryegyptian.wordpress.com/2012/12 (accessed 15 July, 2013).
“Twitter”, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
twitter (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Mohamed Abdelfattah’s blog, An Egyptian Journalist, http://www.anegyptianjournalist.
com/about-2
Mosireen, http://mosireen.org/?page_id=6 (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Profile Mosa’ab Elshamy World Press Photo, http://www.worldpressphoto.org/people/
mosa’ab-elshamy (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Profile Robert Hamilton Filmfestival Rotterdam, http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com
131
/nl/persons/omar-robert-hamilton (accessed 15 July, 2013).
Profile Robert Hamilton The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/omar-robert
-hamilton/
Sherine Tadros’ blog, http:blogs.aljazeera.com/profile/sherine-tadros (accessed 15 July,
2013).
“Speaker – Mahmoud Salem,” Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, http:ww
w.genevasummit.org/speaker/72
Tarek Shalaby YouTube channel, “Hardtalk on the road to Egypt – With Tarek Shalaby,”
18 January, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSsKLfjPlh0 (accessed July
15, 2013).
Twitter Grader, http://graderblog.grader.com/twitter-grader-api/bid/19046/How-
Does-Twitter-Grader-Calculate-Twitter-Rankings (accessed December 13, 2013).
132
Appendix A – Morsi’s consitutional decree issued November 22 (translated by Ahram Online; english.ahram.org.eg/News/585947.aspx)
We have decided the following: Article I Reopen the investigations and prosecutions in the cases of the murder, the attempote d murder and the wounding of protesters as well as the crimes of terror committed against the revolutionaries by anyone who held a political or executive position under the former regime, according to the Law of the Protection of the Revolution and other lasws. Article II Previous consitutional declarations, laws, and decrees mad by the president since he took office in 2012, until the consitution is approrved and a new People’s Assembly (lower house of parliament) is elected, are final and binding and cannot be appealed by any way or to any entity. Nor shall they be suspended or canceled and all lawsuits related to them and brought before any judicial body against these decisions are annulled. Article III The prosecutor-general is to be appointed from among the members of the judiciary by the President of the Republic for a period of four years commencing from the date of office and is subject to the general conditions of being appointed as a judge and should not be under the age of 40. This provision applies to the one currently holding the position with immediate effect. Article IV The text of the article on the formation of the Consituent Assembly in the 30 March 2011 Consitutional Declaration that reads, “it shall prepare a draft of a new consitution in a period of six months from the date it was formed” is to be amended to “it shale prepare the draft of a new consitution for the country no later than eight months from the date of its formation.” Article V No judicial body can dissolve the Shura Council (upper house of parliament) or the Constituent Assembly. Article VI The President may take the necessary actions and measures to protect the country and the goals of the revolution. Article VII This Consitutional Declaration is valid from the date of its pulication in the official gazette.
133
Appendix B – Number of connections between elite tweeters from the sample
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E F G 1 x R 1
D 3 4
D5 5
R1 1
R1 1
R1 D1 2
R1 1
R6 D4 10
R1 1
2 x R11 11
D3 3
R14 D2 16
R2 2
R5 D4 9
R1 1
R2 2
R1 1
3 D1 1
R1 1
x D17 17
R5 5
D2 2
R1 1
4 R12 D10 22
x R1 D1 2
R2 2
R6 6
R2 2
R2 2
R4 D1 5
R2 D2 4
5 D1 1
D1 1
x D1 1
D1 1
D6 6
R1 1
6 R1 1
D2 2
R1 1
x R1 1
R4 D6 10
7 x R3 3
R1 1
A R13 D3 16
R20 D1 21
x R2 2
R12 D2 14
B R2 2
R1 1
R2 2
R1 1
x R1 1
R1 1
R5 D2 7
R2 D1 3
R2 2
C R1 1
R2 2
R1 D2 3
x D3 3
R17 17
D x
E D1 1
R1 D2 3
D1 1
R1 D1 2
R1 1
R1 D5 6
x
F R1 1
x R1 1
G D1 1
R3 3
x
R = number of retweets D = number of comments within a discussion with that person Bold number = number of total interactions from that specific person to the other *In these (inter)actions Arabic tweets were counted, as this is about the amount of interactions and not their content
134
Citizens Journalists 1 = Sandmonkey A = 3arabawy 2 = Gsquare86 B = Sarahcarr 3 = Tarekshalaby C = NadiaE 4 = Norashalaby D = Mfatta7 5 = Mosaaberizing E = Evanchill 6 = Egyptocracy F = Sharifkouddous 7 = Riverdryfilm G = SherineT Elite users in order of how many people they were connected to and how many connections they made in total:
User Journalist/Citizen Number of people Number of connections Sarahcarr journalist 11 42 Gsquare86 citizen 9 69 Norashalaby citizen 9 67 Sandmonkey citizen 9 28 Mfatta7 journalist 8 50 Sharifkouddous journalist 8 21 Tarekshalaby citizen 7 90 3Arabawy journalist 7 80
Evanchill journalist 7 49 Mosaaberizing citizen 7 18
NadiaE journalist 6 28 Egyptocracy citizen 5 19
SherineT journalist 5 13 Riverdryfilm citizen 4 8
135
Appendix C – Coded Documents In the open coding stage I coded every tweet individually by digitally writing a code next to the Tweet as it was displayed in the PDF document. I also sometimes highlighted important tweets. The following is an example of a page of tweets by user Gsquare86 as coded by me. The complete data set has been archived by me on June 14, 2013 and may be reviewed by committee members upon request.
136
Appendix D – List of codes A list of the codes applied to the data sample in the axial coding stage, including how often they appeared. And two separate lists, one depicting the citizens’ codes and how often they appeared and the other depicting the journalists’ codes and how often they appeared. All the codes: informing 788
connecting 686
insight 327
violence 289
the street 228
numbers 186
humor 165
asking 155
the people 132
critical 116
we 106
history 88
oppression 84
ridiculing 84
community 72
religion 72
contempt 61
opposition 57
see through 57
disbelief 55
symbol(s)/symbolic/symbolism 55
the west 43
fact-checking 42
help(ing) 42
betrayal 41
emotion(s/al) 38
137
harm 36
death 35
doom 32
mobilizing 32
hypocrisy 30
process(es) 30
revolution(ary) 29
rights 29
sarcasm 28
swearing 28
rational 27
anger 24
fight(ing) 24
disappointment 23
power 22
sharing 22
dictator(ial/ship) 21
worry/ied 21
protect(ing/ion) 19
morals 18
peace(ful) 18
reporting 18
wit(ty) 18
democracy 17
injustice 17
polarisation/polarising 17
impressed/ impressive 16
inclusion/inclusive 15
disgust 13
hope 13
logic(al) 13
138
aesthetic(s) 12
atmosphere 12
explaining 11
freedom 11
organize/organizing 11
politics 11
ward(ing) 11
watching 11
battle 10
blaming 10
foresight 10
indignant/indignation 10
shock(ed) 10
irony 9
pride/proud 9
arguing 8
leader(ship) 8
liars/lies/lying 8
realist(ic) 8
resistance 8
confused/ing 7
defending 7
hurt 7
personal 7
spreading 7
balanced 6
correction 6
nuanced 6
us 6
blaming 10
calm 5
139
optimism 5
protest(ing) 5
provok(e/ing) 5
skepticism 5
solidarity 5
thank(ing) 5
accountability 4
allies 4
appearances 4
caring 4
demand(s/ing) 4
destruction 4
disillusion(ed) 4
guiding 4
home 4
injury 4
listening 4
narrative 4
openness 4
positive 4
sad(ness) 4
attack 3
avenge 3
beauty 3
change 3
concern(ed) 3
distraction 3
ethics 3
excited 3
fun(ny) 3
joking 3
140
justice 3
losses 3
perspective 3
practical 3
relative/relativizing 3
relief 3
scared 3
sides 3
surprise(d) 3
them 3
understanding 3
unfair 3
victory 3
admiration/ admiring 2
aggression 2
analysis 2
background 2
comparison 2
compliment(ing) 2
damage 2
decisive 2
denial 2
deserting 2
discredit 2
discussing/discussion 2
disintegrating 2
distress(ed) 2
encouraging 2
exhilarated 2
exposing 2
fairness 2
141
happiness 2
harassment 2
hate 2
hopeless 2
ideals 2
pain 2
participate 2
pessimistic 2
pragmatic 2
predicting 2
shame 2
space 2
speculating 2
suffering 2
threat 2
torture 2
truth 2
undemocratic 2
war 2
accuse 1
action 1
agreement 1
answering 1
appreciative 1
awareness 1
belief 1
careless 1
challenge 1
check 1
claiming 1
colonialism 1
142
compassion 1
compromise 1
confronting 1
conspiracy 1
creativity 1
daily life 1
deceiving 1
demoralizing 1
dialogue 1
division 1
doubting 1
down-to-earth 1
embarrassment 1
empathy 1
endurance 1
exaggerating 1
exclusive 1
expectations 1
extreme 1
falling 1
family 1
farce 1
frustration 1
honest 1
I 1
identity 1
intimidation 1
inventive 1
Islamist 1
lost 1
melancholy 1
143
miracle 1
mistake 1
murder 1
negative 1
nervous 1
neutral 1
nuisance 1
ongoing 1
opportunistic 1
out of touch 1
outraged 1
perceptive 1
persistent 1
prepared 1
principles 1
problem 1
punishment 1
questioning 1
rebellious 1
recognition 1
relations 1
rigid 1
secularism 1
sick 1
spirit 1
stop 1
strength 1
strict 1
strong 1
surrender 1
tenacious 1
144
tense 1
tension 1
the nation 1
together 1
tolerance 1
ultimatum 1
undermine 1
united 1
unrest 1
women 1
wondering 1
wounded 1
you 1
5299
145
The citizens’ codes: connecting 314
informing 306
insight 138
violence 120
(the) street 119
numbers 91
we 80
(the) people 60
humor 55
asking 46
critical 46
history 46
community 41
disbelief 38
oppression 34
see through 34
revolution(ary) 29
mobilizing 28
opposition 28
contempt 27
symbols/symbolic/symbolism 26
ridiculing 25
swearing 25
betrayal 21
fact-checking 21
(the) west 20
religion 20
dictator(ial/ship) 19
help(ing) 19
death 17
146
anger 16
emotion(al) 16
fight(ing) 16
process(es) 14
rights 14
doom 13
hypocrisy 12
sarcasm 12
disgust 11
impressed/impressive 11
power 11
ward(ing) 11
watching 11
inclusion/inclusive 10
organize 10
worry/ied 10
hope 9
protect(ing/ion) 9
shock(ed) 9
battle 8
morals 8
rational 8
sharing 8
indignant/indignation 7
injustice 7
pride/proud 7
atmosphere 6
disappointment 6
freedom 6
liars/lies/lying 6
nuanced 6
147
us 6
wit 6
arguing 5
democracy 5
harm 5
protest(ing) 5
spreading 5
aesthetics 4
allies 4
demand(s/ing) 4
explaining 4
injury 4
leader(ship) 4
listening 4
openness 4
optimism 4
personal 4
polarisation/polarising 4
avenge 3
beauty 3
caring 3
disillusioned 3
distraction 3
excited 3
home 3
hurt 3
logic 3
politics 3
positive 3
resistance 3
solidarity 3
148
thank(ing) 3
them 3
understanding 3
unfair 3
aggression 2
confused 2
decisive 2
defending 2
destruction 2
discredit 2
discussing/discussion 2
encouraging 2
exhilarated 2
harassment 2
hopeless 2
ideals 2
joking 2
pain 2
participate 2
perspective 2
pessimistic 2
pragmatic 2
predicting 2
relativizing 2
relief 2
sad 2
sceptic 2
surprise 2
threat 2
truth 2
victory 2
149
accountability 1
accuse 1
action 1
agreement 1
analysis 1
answering 1
attack 1
awareness 1
balanced 1
belief 1
change 1
check 1
compassion 1
complimenting 1
compromise 1
confronting 1
creativity 1
daily life 1
deceiving 1
denial 1
disintegration 1
division 1
doubting 1
down-to-earth 1
embarrassment 1
empathy 1
ethics 1
exaggerating 1
exclusive 1
extreme 1
falling 1
150
farce 1
foresight 1
I 1
identity 1
inventive 1
Islamist 1
justice 1
melancholy 1
mistake 1
murder 1
negative 1
nervous 1
outraged 1
peaceful 1
practical 1
provoking 1
punishment 1
questioning 1
realistic 1
rebellious 1
rigid 1
scared 1
shame 1
sick 1
space 1
speculating 1
spirit 1
strength 1
surrender 1
tenacious 1
tension 1
151
together 1
ultimatum 1
undermine 1
united 1
wounded 1
you 1
152
The journalists’ codes informing 482
connecting 372
insight 189
violence 169
humor 110
asking 109
numbers 95
the people 72
critical 70
the street 68
ridiculing 59
religion 52
oppression 50
history 42
the street 41
contempt 34
community 31
harm 31
opposition 29
symbol(s)/symbolic/symbolism 29
we 26
helping 23
see through 23
the west 23
emotion(s/ial) 22
fact-checking 21
betrayal 20
doom 19
rational 19
death 18
153
hypocrisy 18
reporting 18
disappointment 17
disbelief 17
peace(ful) 17
process(es) 16
sarcasm 16
rights 15
sharing 14
polarisation 13
democracy 12
wit(ty) 12
power 11
worry 11
injustice 10
logic(al) 10
morals 10
protecting/protection 10
foresight 9
irony 9
aesthetic(s) 8
anger 8
fight(ing) 8
politics 8
explaining 7
realist(ic) 7
atmosphere 6
correction 6
balanced 5
calm 5
confused/ing 5
154
defending 5
freedom 5
impressed/ impressive 5
inclusive 5
resistance 5
appearances 4
guiding 4
hope 4
hurt 4
leader(ship) 4
mobilizing 4
narrative 4
provok(e/ing) 4
accountability 3
arguing 3
concern(ed) 3
fun(ny) 3
indignation 3
losses 3
personal 3
sceptic 3
sides 3
swearing 3
admiration/ admiring 2
attack 2
background 2
battle 2
change 2
comparison 2
damage 2
deserting 2
155
destruction 2
dictatorial 2
disgust 2
distress(ed) 2
ethics 2
exposing 2
fairness 2
happiness 2
hate 2
justice 2
lies/lying 2
practical 2
pride 2
sadness 2
scared 2
solidarity 2
spreading 2
suffering 2
thanking 2
torture 2
undemocratic 2
analysis 1
appreciative 1
careless 1
caring 1
challenge 1
claiming 1
colonialism 1
compliment 1
conspiracy 1
demoralizing 1
156
denial 1
dialogue 1
disillusion 1
disintegrating 1
endurance 1
expectations 1
family 1
frustration 1
home 1
honest 1
intimidation 1
joking 1
lost 1
miracle 1
neutral 1
nuisance 1
ongoing 1
opportunistic 1
optimism 1
organizing 1
out of touch 1
perceptive 1
persistent 1
perspective 1
positive 1
prepared 1
principles 1
problem 1
recognition 1
relations 1
relative 1
157
relief 1
secularism 1
shame 1
shock 1
space 1
speculating 1
stop 1
strict 1
strong 1
surprised 1
tense 1
the nation 1
tolerance 1
unrest 1
victory 1
war 1
war 1
women 1
wondering 1
158
Appendix E – Categories and themes This appendix presents an overview of the eight categories that I extrapolated from the codes. I have indented and printed the codes that turned up only once in a smaller font to emphasize that they are relatively less important. These less important codes were coupled with those that did appear more often so as to give those more importance in the formation of the categories. All the codes are ordered under one of the three overarching themes.
THEME: POWER 1. Conflict violence opposition fight(ing)
rebellious
power intimidation stop strength strong surrender
polarisation/polarising division exclusive women you
politics battle leader(ship) provoke/ing allies demand(s/ing)
ultimatum
attack action challenge confronting prepared unrest
avenge sides Islamist secularism
them victory agression extreme
deserting threat war
2. Trauma harm death murder
hurt wounded
destruction injury damage harassment pain suffering torture 3. negativity oppression ridiculing careless undermine
doom indignant/indignation blaming accuse claiming exaggerating nuisance punishment
skepticism problem disillusioned demoralizing losses falling discredit disintegrating pessimistic negative rigid
159
THEME: EMOTION 4. (strong) emotions emotions/emotional swearing anger outraged worry/ied nervous impressed/impressive disgust sick atmosphere tension shock(ed) pride/proud confused/ing doubting sad(ness) melancholy concern(ed) excited relief scared surprise(d) distress(ed) tense exhilirated hate hopeless lost shame embarassment 5. humor humor sarcasm wit(ty) irony fun(ny) joking
160
THEME: MORALITY
6. Community informing connecting numbers asking answering the people we family relations the nation together united
community help(ing) mobilizing sharing protect(ing/ion) peace(ful) reporting inclusion agreement
explaining organize/organizing ward(ing) watching resistance
inventive defending endurance ongoing persistent tenacious
personal I identity
spreading us protest(ing) solidarity caring guiding home listening understanding compassion empathy recognition
compliment(ing) discussing/discussion dialogue encouraging participate
7. symbolism the street daily life symbol(s)/symbolism miracle the west colonialism revolution(ary) aesthetic(s) creativity space
161
8. Morality insight perceptive critical questioning wondering history religion contempt see through awareness farce out of touch
disbelief frustration fact-checking check betrayal conspiracy deceiving
hypocrisy opportunistic process(es) rights rational disappointment expectations dictator(ial/ship) morals democracy injustice hope logic(al) freedom foresight arguing liars/lies/lying realist(ic) balanced compromise neutral
correction mistake nuanced calm optimism thank(ing) appreciative accountability appearances narrative
openness positive beauty change distraction ethics justice tolerance perspective practical relative/relativeness unfair admiration/admiring analysis background comparison decisive denial exposing fairness happiness ideals belief principles spirit strict
pragmatic down-to-earth
predicting speculating truth honest undemocratic
top related