scholarly journals TECHNOLIBERAL PARTICIPATION: BLACK LIVES MATTER AND INSTAGRAM SLIDESHOWS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Salzano
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Digital Activism ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
Black Lives Matter ◽  
Analyze Case ◽  
Significant Attention

After the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, Black Lives Matter protests surged around the globe. Amid COVID-19, activism on social media flourished. On Instagram, use of the ten-image carousel as an informative slideshow akin to a PowerPoint presentation gained significant attention: The New York Times highlighted their “effort to democratize access to information." In this paper, I rhetorically analyze case studies to illustrate how Instagram slideshows facilitated deliberation about participation. I argue that these posts reveal a tension in platformed digital activism: as digital templates broaden access to participation, technoliberal ideology constrains activist judgment.

scholarly journals GOVERNANCE OF THE FACEBOOK PRIVACY CRISIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence J. Trautman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Audit Committee ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
Front Page ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
Social Media Platforms

In November 2018, The New York Times ran a front-page story describing how Facebook concealed knowledge and disclosure of Russian-linked activity and exploitation resulting in Kremlin led disruption of the 2016 and 2018 U.S. elections, through the use of global hate campaigns and propaganda warfare. By mid-December 2018, it became clear that the Russian efforts leading up to the 2016 U.S. elections were much more extensive than previously thought. Two studies conducted for the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), by: (1) Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and Graphika; and (2) New Knowledge, provide considerable new information and analysis about the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) influence operations targeting American citizens.By early 2019 it became apparent that a number of influential and successful high growth social media platforms had been used by nation states for propaganda purposes. Over two years earlier, Russia was called out by the U.S. intelligence community for their meddling with the 2016 American presidential elections. The extent to which prominent social media platforms have been used, either willingly or without their knowledge, by foreign powers continues to be investigated as this Article goes to press. Reporting by The New York Times suggests that it wasn’t until the Facebook board meeting held September 6, 2017 that board audit committee chairman, Erskin Bowles, became aware of Facebook’s internal awareness of the extent to which Russian operatives had utilized the Facebook and Instagram platforms for influence campaigns in the United States. As this Article goes to press, the degree to which the allure of advertising revenues blinded Facebook to their complicit role in offering the highest bidder access to Facebook users is not yet fully known. This Article can not be a complete chapter in the corporate governance challenge of managing, monitoring, and oversight of individual privacy issues and content integrity on prominent social media platforms. The full extent of Facebook’s experience is just now becoming known, with new revelations yet to come. All interested parties: Facebook users; shareholders; the board of directors at Facebook; government regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and Congress must now figure out what has transpired and what to do about it. These and other revelations have resulted in a crisis for Facebook. American democracy has been and continues to be under attack. This article contributes to the literature by providing background and an account of what is known to date and posits recommendations for corrective action.

Reciprocal nature of social capital in Facebook: an analysis of tagging activity

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 826-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taehyun Ha ◽  
Seunghee Han ◽  
Sangwon Lee ◽  
Jang Hyun Kim
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
New York ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Capital Formation ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
Content Type

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how we can understand social media interactions better by explicating the process of social capital formation on Facebook from a reciprocity perspective. Design/methodology/approach This study observed users who got tagged on Facebook by his/her friends and how s/he responded to that tagging activity. In total, 4,666 posts and 418,580 comments from The New York Times Facebook page were collected for the observation. Findings A majority (77.87 percent) of users who were tagged by their friends showed reactions to their tagging. In detail, 33.63, 44.20, and 0.04 percent of users responded by comments, “Likes”, and “Shares”, respectively. In total, 90.11 percent of the comments and 98.58 percent of the “Likes” were expressed on a comment or sub-comment, and only 9.89 percent of the comments and 1.42 percent of the “Likes” were expressed on a post. This indicates that a high percentage of users respond to their tagging notification, and they prefer dialogic responses to non-dialogic responses. Originality/value Previous studies have focused on photo tagging activity in social media, but user tagging activity had not been studied enough. This study examines the effects of Facebook tagging activity from a reciprocal perspective.

scholarly journals Noha Alghamdi translates Rupi Kaur

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noha Alghamdi
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Social Media ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The Other ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
Arabic Translation ◽  
Poetry Reading ◽  
Poetic Texts ◽  
Vast Range ◽  
The Revolution

As a poetry lover, I have noticed that poetry has become more accessible nowadays than ever. With the revolution of social media, I need only a smartphone to fulfill my poetry reading desire. Platforms such as Instagram and Twitter on top of the other platforms help me to read vast range of poetic texts by multiple poets. Posting poetry on Instagram is known as ‘instapoetry’. Rupi Kaur is considered the pioneer of this literary activism, having than 3.5 million followers on Instagram. Kaur has published two books which remained on the New York Times bestselling list for more than a year. Kaur's debut book also has been translated into more than 30 languages. Interestingly, no Arabic translation has yet been made of either of her books. Therefore, I have translated some of her poems into Arabic.

When Speech Advances Civil Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 135-143
Author(s):  
Rodney A. Smolla
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Law School ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
Black Lives Matter ◽  
Civil Rights Movements ◽  
The Government

This chapter draws attention to free speech awyers who defend freedom of speech that often find themselves defending people and causes that they personally find reprehensible. It mentions stock free speech clichés used by lawyers, which implies that lawyers may disagree on what their clients say but not their right to say it. It also analyzes Virginia Law School professor Leslie Kendrick's explanation on modern free speech principles, clarifying that it exists to shield unpopular views from the power of majorities. The chapter mentions the believers of the order and morality theory that argues that free speech principles should protect those on the side of righteousness and justice, such as the Black Lives Matter or Antifa in today's civil rights movements. It discusses the New York Times and Claiborne Hardware cases in order to explain why believers of the marketplace theory are not inclined to trust the government.

scholarly journals HOW IS SOCIAL MEDIA GATEKEEPING DIFFERENT? A MULTI- PLATFORM COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Andringa ◽  
David Duquette ◽  
Deborah Dwyer ◽  
Philip Napoli ◽  
Petra Ronald
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Distribution Systems ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Home Page ◽  
Front Page ◽  
News Values ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
Media Technologies ◽  
Soft News

News audiences are increasingly fragmented across different media platforms. Consequently, individual news organizations simultaneously disseminate their content across different media. Each of these media has different user bases, interface characteristics, and distribution systems. Given these substantial differences, the dynamics of the gatekeeping process – and the news values that guide this process – vary across different media technologies/platforms. As audience attention migrates from older to newer platforms (such as social media), it is increasingly important that we understand how the nature of the news that is disseminated – and thus consumed – may be different from the news disseminated through more traditional means. The ramifications of these differences can be profound if the news disseminated on the newer platforms is, for example, more or less substantive, more or less diverse, or more or less plentiful than the news disseminated on older technologies/platforms. This study addresses these issues through a comparative gatekeeping analysis of the New York Times. For this study, a month’s worth of New York Times front page, home page, and Facebook page story output are comparatively analyzed across dimensions such as story quantity, story duplication, hard versus soft news, and content diversity. The primary goal is to determine if or how the nature of the news that is prioritized for news consumers differs between the social media context and older contexts such as the print front page and the web home page.

Talking about Racism in the Context of the Trial against George Floyd’s Murderer: Practical Recommendations for Professionals, Parents, & Clinicians

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chardée Galán ◽  
Irene Tung ◽  
Alexandra Tabachnick ◽  
Stefanie Sequeira ◽  
Derek M. Novacek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Public Support ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
Research Center ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Racial Trauma ◽  
Black Lives Matter

In the weeks following the killing of George Floyd and media coverage of the killings of Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery, the Black Lives Matter movement and other protests for racial justice swept the world. Demonstrations occurred in more than 700 cities internationally and across all 50 states in the United States. Notably, demands for the dismantling of systemic racism extended far beyond police brutality to include inequities in health, housing, economic opportunity, and other sectors. In academia, faculty, students, and staff called attention to the ways in which “universities remain ivory towers perpetuating institutionalized forms of racism, oppression, and inequity” (p. 13, Galán et al., 2021; Gray, Joseph, Glover, & Olayiwola, 2020), while psychologists highlighted the ways in which direct and vicarious exposure to racial violence and discrimination may compromise mental health and contribute to racial trauma. Although Pew Research Center surveys in June 2020 showed increased recognition of racism as a problem and increased public support for the Black Lives Matter movement, support for these issues has since returned to pre-June levels among White people (Pew Research Center, 2020). However, the trial for Derek Chauvin - the White, former Minneapolis police officer charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for the murder of George Floyd – is scheduled to start March 8, 2021. With Chauvin’s trial certain to garner wide-spread media coverage and protests, it is likely that we will see another uptick in conversations and concerns regarding racial inequities. While conversation and action towards dismantling racism are always welcomed and needed, we must stop the practice of only recognizing a problem when it is in our face, sprawled across social media feeds, news segments, and websites. These reactive practices do little to dismantle oppressive systems, especially when they are followed by complacency that often settles in as news headlines transition to the next “hot topic” and our positions of power and privilege allow us to go on with our lives, as if the racist systems and practices we vehemently opposed just a week earlier have suddenly been abolished.So, before our Twitter accounts, the New York Times, USA Today, and every other newspaper outlet bombard us with headlines, reminding us of why protests swept our country last summer, let us be intentional with reflecting on: (1) larger systems of oppression and racism that this trial represents and the ways in which we have been complicit (or active contributors) to their perpetuation, and (2) the effect that this trial may have on our Black colleagues, students, clients, and friends. We offer the following recommendations for health providers, educators, parents, and social media users.

Open-source investigation as a genre of conflict reporting

Journalism ◽  
2022 ◽  
pp. 146488492110606
Author(s):  
Sandra Ristovska
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Textual Analysis ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
Social Media Platforms

This paper examines the role and scope of eyewitness images in open-source investigation, which is becoming a prominent genre of conflict reporting in its own right. Based on interviews with journalists at the Visual Investigations Unit at The New York Times and a textual analysis of their video reports, the paper sheds light on the paradoxical working of the genre, which simultaneously opens up and limits opportunities for eyewitness images as a platform for voice. The paper thus argues that despite the journalists’ commitment to innovation, the logics of institutions, the corporate ethos of social media platforms, and the pervasive power of geopolitics continue to shape the articulation, recognition, and agency of voice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document