CODEPINK alert: Mediated citizenship in the public sphere

Social Semiotics

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 345-364

  Simone, Maria ^a  

^a ROWAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Counterpublic; Deliberation; Internet; Protest; Public credibility; Public sphere

Indexed keywords

EID: 43249160886     PISSN: 10350330     EISSN: 14701219     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10350330600664904     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Agre, Philip. 2002. Real-time politics: The Internet and the political process. Information Society 18(5):311-331.
2. Asen, Robert. 2000. Seeking the "counter" in counterpublics. Communication Theory 10(4):424-446.
3. Bonchek, Mark S. 1995. Grassroots in cyberspace: Using computer networks. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Available from http://www.organizenow.net/techtips/bonchek-grassroots.html;INTERNET.
4. Brunsting, Suzanne, and Tom Postmes. 2002. Social movement participation in the digital age: Predicting offline and online collective action. Small Group Research 33(5):525-554.
5. Calabrese, Andrew, and Mark Borchert. 1996. Prospects for electronic democracy in the United States: Rethinking communication and social policy. Media, Culture & Society 18(2):249-268.
6. Carey, James W. 1995. The press, public opinion, and public discourse. In Public opinion and the communication of consent, edited by Theodore L. Glasser and Charles T. Salmon. New York: Guilford.
7. DeLuca, Kevin Michael, and Jennifer Peeples. 2002. From public sphere to public screen: Democracy, activism, and the violence of Seattle. Critical Studies in Media Communication 19(2):125-151.
8. Diani, Mario. 2000. Social movement networks: Virtual and real. Information, Communication & Society 3(3):386-401.
9. Fisher, Dana R. 1998. Rumoring theory and the Internet: A framework for analyzing the grass roots. Social Science Computer Review 16(2):158-168.
10. Foot, Kirsten A., and Steven M. Schneider. 2002. Online action in campaign 2000: An exploratory analysis of the U.S. political web sphere. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 46(2):222-244.
11. Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin. 1995. Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62:2-18.
12. Fraser, Nancy. 1992. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In Habermas and the public sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
13. Gill, Rosalind. 2000. Discourse analysis. In Qualitative Researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook, edited by Martin W. Bauer and George Gaskell. London: Sage.
14. Gitlin, Todd. 1977. Spotlights and shadows: Television and culture of politics. College English 38(8):789-801.
15. Gitlin, Todd. 1980. The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.
16. Golding, Peter. 2000. Worldwide wedge: Division and contradiction in the global information infrastructure. In Media studies: A reader, edited by Paul Marris and Sue Thornham. New York: New York University Press.
17. Gregg, Richard B. 1971. The ego-function of the rhetoric of protest. Philosophy and Rhetoric 4(2):71-91.
18. Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. Structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Translated by Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
19. Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Translated by William Rehg. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
20. Hall, Stuart. 1993. Encoding, decoding. In The cultural studies reader, edited by Simon During. London: Routledge.
21. Haughney, Christine. 2003. Protestors in New York stage "die-ins". The Washington Post, 28 March.
22. Jacobson, Thomas L., and Won Yong Jang. 2001. Rights, culture, and cosmopolitan democracy. Communication Theory 11(4):434-453.
23. Johnson, Reed. 2003. A feminist decries pacifists "rubbish". Los Angeles Times, 24 March.
24. Jones, Steven. 1998. Understanding micropolis and compunity. Journal of Electronic Communication 8 (3/4); INTERNET. http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v8n398.htm
25. Kaplan, E. Ann. 1992. Feminist criticism and television. In Channels of discourse reassembled, edited by R. Allen. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.
26. Koopmans, Ruud. 2004. Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society 33(3/4):367-391.
27. Ku, Agnes S. 2000. Revisiting the notion of "public" in Habermas' theory: Toward a theory of politics and public credibility. Sociological Theory 18(2):216-240.
28. Langman, Lauren. 2005. From virtual public spheres to global justice: A critical theory of internetworked social movements. Sociological Theory 23(1):42-74.
29. Marvin, Carolyn. 1988. When old technologies were new: Thinking about communications in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. McChesney, Robert W. 2004. The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the 21st century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
31. Murdock, Graham. 1995. Across the great divide: Cultural analysis and the condition of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12(1):89-95.
32. Myers, Daniel J. 1994. Communication technology and social movements: Contributions of computer networks to activism. Social Science Computer Review 12:250-260.
33. O'Connor, Ann-Marie. 2003. Pink tide against Iraq war. Los Angeles Times, 15 March.
34. O'Donnell, Susan. 2001. Analysing the Internet and the public sphere: The case of womenslink. Javnost-The Public 8(1):39-57.
35. Papacharissi, Zizi. 2002. The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society 4(1):9-27.
36. Peters, John D. 1993. Distrust of representation: Habermas on the public sphere. Media, Culture & Society 15:541-571.
37. Rakow, Lana F. 1986. Rethinking gender research in communication. Journal of Communication 36(3):11-26.
38. Rhodes, Jane. 1999. Fanning the flames of racial discord: The national press and the Black Panther Party. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics 4(4):95-118.
39. Rowe, Claudia. 2003. Deep convictions, deep ambivalence. The New York Times, 23 March.
40. Spears, Rusell, Martin Lea, Rolf Arne Corneliussen, Tom Postmes, and Wouter Ter Haar. 2002. Computer-mediated communication as a channel for social resistance: The strategic side of side. Small Group Research 33(5):143-163.
41. Squires, Catherine. 2002. Rethinking the black public sphere: An alternative vocabulary for multiple public spheres. Communication Theory 12(4):446-468.
42. Steyaert, Jo. 2000. Local governments online and the role of the resident: Government shop versus electronic community. Social Science Computer Review 18(1):3-16.
43. Straub, Noelle. 2003. Demonstrators arrested near white house. The Boston Herald, 22 March.
44. Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2002. New voices in the public sphere: A comparative analysis of interpersonal and online political talk. Javnost-The Public 9(2):23-41.
45. Tempest, Rone. 2003. Devotion to life of political activism in family's blood. Los Angeles Times, 27 March.
46. Weare, Christopher, Juliet Musso, and Matthew Hale. 1999. Electronic democracy and the diffusion of municipal web pages in California. Administration & Society 31(1):3-27.
47. Wilson, Brian. 2002. The "Anti-Jock" movement: Reconsidering youth resistance, masculinity, and sport culture in the age of the Internet. Sociology of Sport Journal 19(2):206-233.
48. "With Passion and a Dash of Pink." 2003. Women gather to protest war. The New York Times, 8 March.
49. Wodak, Ruth. 2001. The discourse-historical approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer. London: Sage.
50. Zernicke, Kate, and Dean Murphy. 2003. Antiwar effort emphasizes civility over confrontation. The New York Times, 29 March