Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.

School of Arts Submission Coversheet (All Programmes)Submission Coversheet (All Programmes)Submission Coversheet (All Programmes)Submission Coversheet (All Programmes)Submission Coversheet (All Programmes)Submission Coversheet (All Programmes)Submission Coversheet (All Programmes)Submission Coversheet (All Programmes)

Student Identification

Student Name and Number Daisy Cooper 12818026 Daisy Cooper 12818026 Daisy Cooper 12818026 Daisy Cooper 12818026 Daisy Cooper 12818026 Daisy Cooper 12818026 Daisy Cooper 12818026

Programme Title Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Creative Industries (Arts & Media)

Module Title Dissertation MA Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Dissertation MA Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Dissertation MA Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Dissertation MA Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Dissertation MA Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Dissertation MA Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Dissertation MA Creative Industries (Arts & Media)Module Code (listed on student timetables) BBK_ARMC118D7_1213BBK_ARMC118D7_1213BBK_ARMC118D7_1213BBK_ARMC118D7_1213BBK_ARMC118D7_1213BBK_ARMC118D7_1213BBK_ARMC118D7_1213

Module Tutor Scott Rogers Scott Rogers Scott Rogers Scott Rogers Scott Rogers Scott Rogers Scott Rogers

Coursework Title Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.

Word Count 15,09215,09215,092 Date SubmittedDate Submitted 18/09/1318/09/13

Late Submission: If you submit late work that is to be considered for assessment then you should provide written documentation, medical or otherwise, to explain why the work was submitted late (we do not give extensions). You will need to complete a standard pro-forma [obtainable from http://www.bbk.ac.uk/mybirkbeck/services/administration/assessment/exams/mitigating-circumstances ] and submit it, with documentary evidence as appropriate, to the Chair of the Examination sub-Board responsible for the module concerned. The case will then be considered by the appropriate sub-board or delegated panel. If no case is made then a penalty mark will be given. If a case is made and accepted then the examination board may allow the "real" mark to stand.








Marking:Your mark is described as provisional as it is subject to change at the discretion of the final Board of Examiners. Please see your handbook or the MyBirkbeck Helpdesk for more information, or contact your module convenor for more information regarding marking timetables. Marking criteria are given in your programme handbook.








Academic Declaration: Students are reminded that the electronic copy of their essay may be checked, at any point during their degree, with JISC or other plagiarism detection software for plagiarised material.

"I certify that this piece of work in entirely my own and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged."















Student Signature (or re-enter your student number)

Student Signature (or re-enter your student number)

128180261281802612818026128180261281802612818026

I agree that registered MA students can view this dissertation (re-enter your student number)

I agree that registered MA students can view this dissertation (re-enter your student number)

128180261281802612818026128180261281802612818026

Daisy Cooper

1

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/mybirkbeck/services/administration/assessment/exams/mitigating-circumstances




Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.

12818026Word Count: 15,0922013Birkbeck UniversityCreative Industries (Arts & Media) MA.

Daisy Cooper

2

Abstract

The internet can be seen as both cultural text and environment. The structural features of websites, rhetoric and graphic design - tenants of the internet as text - mediate the way in which interaction and expression occur, in conjunction with the external cultural contexts of the individual and their interpretations of operating online. Through examination of a particular internet feature on a single platform: Hashtags on Twitter, this study investigates the intersection of user activity and structural convention. This exploration includes textual analysis of the website as an object, and analysis of users’ behavior from the example of #Broadchurch on 22nd April 2013 where the Hashtag refers to the broadcast of an ITV drama of the same name. This textual and empirical analysis is informed by investigation of theoretical discussions of Twitter, digital culture, the internet and discourse surrounding the term culture.

Keywords: Twitter, Hashtag, culture, digital culture, participation, mediations, architecture, agency.

Daisy Cooper

3

Contents

1. Introduction........................................................................................ 6

2. Literature Review............................................................................... 9

2.1 Introduction............................................................................... 9

2.2 The Internet as an Object......................................................... 11

2.2.1 The Internet in Motion...................................................... 12

2.2.2 The Internet Reflecting Society........................................ 13

2.2.3 Power Structures Online.................................................. 15

2.2.4 Marginalization & Hegemony........................................... 18

2.3 The Internet as an Environment.............................................. 20

2.3.1 Identity, Self-Promotion & Culture................................... 20

2.3.2 Online Skills and Cultural Capital.................................... 23

2.3 Etiquette and Architecture Online............................................. 24

2.4.1 Behaviors and Structural Features.................................. 24

2.4.2 Assessing Credibility Online............................................ 25

3. Methodology...................................................................................... 28

3.1 Introduction to Methods............................................................ 28

3.2 An Ethnographic Approach....................................................... 29

3.2.1 Virtual Ethnography - Internet Specific Considerations 30

3.3 Textual Analysis of Twitter as an Artifact ................................ 31

3.4 Approach to Empirical data collection of #Broadchurch........... 32

3.5 Potential Alternative Methods................................................... 35

3.6 Limitations of Study.................................................................. 36

3.7 Ethics........................................................................................ 37

4. Data & Findings................................................................................. 38

4.1 Introduction to Textual Analysis of Twitter Hashtags ............. 38

4.2 Examining the Hashtag............................................................ 38

4.3 Introduction to #Broadchurch................................................... 41

4.3.1 Findings of the Empirical Study into #Broadchurch...... 42

Daisy Cooper

4

4.3.2 Content analysis of #Broadchurch - Promotion............ 44

4.3.3 Content analysis of # Broadchurch - Commentary....... 50

4.3.3.1 Spoilers and the Social Values of Twitter......... 54

4.3.3.2 Fandom and Intertextuality.............................. 55

5. Conclusions....................................................................................... 57

5.1 Textual Analysis....................................................................... 57

5.2 #Broadchurch........................................................................... 58

5.2.1 Promotion...................................................................... 58

5.2.2 Content......................................................................... 59

5.2.3 Methodological Notes................................................... 60

5.3 Recommendations for Further Study....................................... 60

5.4 Summary.................................................................................. 61

6. References........................................................................................ 62

7. Appendices........................................................................................ 73

1. Background: Twitter and a Glossary of Terms.......................... 73

2. Twitter Screen Capture with Features Key................................ 76

Daisy Cooper

5

1. Introduction

The internet is both an arena in which cultural actions play out and cultural artifact, shaped and created by the effort of individuals and industry. As both object and environment its structure, purpose, use, potentials and limitations have been debated and discussed by critical, academic and amateur commentators. It is a medium with huge variety of purpose, operating on a global scale, a reflection of offline community, encompassing activity such as shopping, socializing, consuming cultural texts and sourcing information, news and entertainment. It is a vast network shaped, used, and accessed by a huge variety of masters and is an arena for multiple commercial, political and personal agendas. It is accessed by each unique user for many different purposes, to fulfill a variety of needs coexisting within the individual, and it has been argued that in some aspects, this community is able to surpass an offline one in reaching and pleasing its audience.

The internet may be a reflection of offline interactions and activities, grown from the imagination, demands and interests of users and authors, but it also has its own structure dictated by format which shapes and alters these actions. This is reflected in boyd’s definition of Networked Publics - ‘the space constructed through networked technologies and the imagined collective that emerges as a result of the intersection of people, technology and practice’ (boyd, 2010, p39). I will explore how cultural interaction and communication is being played out in this structured arena - the idea of ‘digital culture’. The online community is influenced by users’ existing behaviors, operating under the conditions of an inherent structure: a place where understanding and rules of organization meet. There is also an organic, communally understood set of values and etiquette, shaped by users, developers and owners that is edited, reinforced and altered continually online, which impacts on structural features and how they are used. Through focus on the micro blogging site Twitter, and analysis of one of its key

Daisy Cooper

6

structural features, the Hashtag, I will explore how the format and structure of the internet mediates cultural interaction online. I will examine the example of a single Hashtag, #Broadchurch, in the 24 hour period of 22nd April 2013, where the feature was used to categorize Tweets relating to the final episode of ITV’s crime drama Broadchurch. Through a dual examination of content and authorship, I will examine the motivations for tweeting about the program using the Hashtag, and investigate how users’ interactions and communications inspired by a cultural text are mediated through not only language, personal history, circumstance and knowledge, but also through a third party website with its own rules, visual and linguistic grammar.

I will explore theoretical discussion to aid and ground this process. Firstly I will explore theory that addresses the internet as an object, commenting on the changeability of the internet, and the internet as a reflection of society, with issues of unseen power structures and marginalization online. This informs my analysis of Twitter as a cultural text.

Secondly I will explore literature that approaches the internet as a cultural space, focusing on identity, cultural context and cultural capital which inform the development of ‘Online Skills’, establishing literacy and confidence in a digital culture. This informs my investigation into active Twitter users examined in the example of #Broadchurch, providing theoretical information key to interpreting their movements.

Finally I will navigate theory which focuses on the conjunction of architectural features and etiquette online, addressing the internet as both object and space. Investigations into issues of expression and assessing credibility online examine aspects of online activity which are negotiated through the cultural context of the individual and structural features of the internet.

Daisy Cooper

7

Following the discussion of the relevant theory I will examine the case of Twitter Hashtags, outlining the methodology required for this study: a multi methodological approach of virtual ethnography, textual analysis and empirical data collection. Through close textual analysis of Twitter and the graphic, rhetorical and structural features which promote Hashtag use and exploration of the example of #Broadchurch, I aim to reveal what features of a website’s infrastructure can tell us about culture online. I have included as appendices a brief description of Twitter, a glossary of associated terms and a keyed screen capture of the website for those unfamiliar with the source material.

Digital culture is an arena for communication and interaction, with its own inherent layers of structure created by format, ownership and maintenance. There are also more subtle layers of etiquette, or ‘grammar’: communally understood codes of conduct users adhere to, create and change. Understanding the way in which culture is being played out online is an important development in our theoretical understanding of culture. Just as language is seen as a mediating force - ‘Reality exists outside of language but it is constantly mediated by and through language’ (Hall, 1980, p131) so is the structured environment of this digital community which therefore must be investigated and examined. As we adopt and develop new forms of communication, it is important to examine and understand structures and conventions associated with them, since ‘understanding the properties, affordances and dynamics common to networked publics provides a valuable framework for working out the logic of social practices’ (boyd, 2010, p39). This study is informed by two dualities, where the internet is a cultural arena and product, and culture is both experience and the texts we create.

Daisy Cooper

8

2. Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Within discourse surrounding Twitter specifically there appears to be a focus on one of its key attributes - the ability to contribute to a discussion which runs concurrently with real time events, allowing users to engage in a global conversation about events or media easily organized though the use of Hashtags (Wohn & Na, 2011; Larrson & Agerfalk, 2013).

Wohn & Na approach this aspect from the perspective of individual users, analyzing Tweets concerning two broadcast events: an episode of television program So You Think You Can Dance, and American President Barack Obama’s speech announcing his intention to accept the Nobel Peace Prize (2011, p4). Through classification of these Tweets they explore how some individuals share a television experience, creating a digital social space to discuss an external event. They conclude that users are engaging in a ‘Pseudo group viewing’ of television, expressing opinions as part of a larger group (2011, p10).

Wohn and Na focus on Tweets taking place during broadcast television, which are self-identified through use of relevant Hashtags and key words, such as #SYTYCD, #NNP and Obama. Due to this approach they are unable to explore an additional facet of this shared television experience - the appeal to users who want to ‘check in’ on a wider conversation regarding the two programs discussed, but who do not necessarily have a desire to contribute their thoughts to it through tweeting. This group is hard to quantify due to Twitter’s reluctance to grant access to data, but Twitter’s ‘About’ page seems to recognize these users as distinct group, stating ‘You don’t have to Tweet to get value from Twitter’ (Twitter, 2013). However, in an examination of structural features intersecting with user participation and communication, Wohn and Na’s study is extremely relevant. Their study will provide the basis for this paper, which will focus on the example of a Hashtag relating to a real time

Daisy Cooper

9

media event, and adapts their methodology to explore an architectural feature of the internet mediating cultural activity. Whilst their focus is on the type of Tweets published, this study aims to expand beyond this, examining the type of Tweets published in relation to the potential motivations for tweeting based on the type of author.

To set the context for this exploration it is important to first examine the surrounding theory establishing some of the features of the internet as an object, exploring the internet as a cultural space and demonstrating the conjunction of the two.

Discursive work on the internet, and specifically concerning Twitter as a platform, follows many diverse threads. This study divides this discourse into three key topics. The first explores issues such as the agile nature of the medium, the internet as a reflection of offline society, power structures at play online and marginalization. The second focuses on identity online, individual cultural context and the required online skills for mediating in this environment. The third brings together the internet as an object and a cultural environment, the intersection of architecture and etiquette which requires mediation of communally understood values and structural features simultaneously.

These discussions are informed by two heralded principles of internet activity, user participation, and the ‘harnessing of collective intelligence’, which together create websites ‘that get better the more people use them’ (O’Reilly, 2005, p7). 1

User participation and users’ contribution to, and exploitation of, collective intelligence is seen by some as the ultimate chance for users to increase their political, social and commercial agency (Anderson, 2012, O’Reilly 2005, O’Reilly & Battelle 2009). Collective intelligence relates to both specific

Daisy Cooper

10

1 Key attributes of the internet are often drawn from O’Rielly’s definition of ‘Web 2.0’’, a term coined by him to define activity which constituted a change of focus in websites that followed in the wake of the bursting of the 2001 dot.com bubble - social networks, blogs and Wikis (O’Reilly, 2005, p1). However the convention of naming iterations of the internet in this manner has recently become contested by theorists (Allen, 2012; Barassi & Treré, 2013).

websites such as ‘Wikis’, which aggregate crowd sourced information; and structural features of websites such as Google (O’Reilly & Battelle, 2009; Beer, 2009; Tapscott & Williams, 2006; Jessen & Helms Jorgenson, 2012). These websites use algorithmic functions which respond to users’ activity and amend their services accordingly, creating a ‘feedback loop’ (O’Reilly & Battelle, 2009, p2). These websites are reliant on user participation, and are promoted as platforms for users’ content. Internet activity inline with these principals has come to represent a users manifesto for content creation and a philosophy aimed at creating a ‘democratic’ internet through the development and nurturing of equal and engaged users for internet champions such as O’Reilly and Anderson (Allen, 2008).

As internet commentators and investors, Anderson and O’Reilly may be predisposed to be among the more optimistic advocates of online participation. Much critical discourse focuses on the implications and reality of user participation and is skeptical of the internet as an environment for creating agency for users due to power structures and inequality (O’Neil, 2005; Carpentier, 2009). This discourse is informed by and relates to wider cultural theories considering the development of media, hegemonic dominance and the role and culture of the individual (Gitelman, 2006; Butler, 1997; Williams, 1958).

2.2 The Internet as an Object

There are four points of discussion important to the investigation of Hashtags which can be drawn from literature addressing Twitter and the internet as an objects. Firstly, demonstration that the internet is a continually developing and changing text. Secondly, the migration of existing social hierarchies online which have informed its development. Thirdly, examinations of the power structures at play, and finally their impact on the issue of marginalization online.

Daisy Cooper

11

2.2.1 The Internet in Motion.

Through exploring historical discussion of Twitter, it can be deduced that the platform is continually developing. Huberman, Romero and Wu, through analysis of a sample of Twitter users and their Tweets, attempt to explore how many Followers an individual directly communicates with, in comparison to how many Followers they have (2009). This study, published in 2009, focuses on Twitter as a medium in which users can directly communicate with each other, and in doing so, classifies Twitter as a Social Network rather than a Micro Blogging site. Their expectations of Twitter users is much more in line with users on Facebook or MySpace, where users create circles of acquaintances and communicate within these circles, either directly, or as a curated audience (Marwick & boyd, 2010). It would appear that in more recent critical discussion, Twitter has evolved, now serving a wider variety of purposes, including self-publication and promotion, socializing, monitoring and contributing to global conversations about news events, television programs and political debate (Marwick & boyd, 2010; Larrson & Agerfalk, 2013; Wohn & Na; 2011). The movement towards this way of seeing the website can be found in the same year as Huberman, Romero and Wu’s study, with Herring and Honeycutt concluding that there was potential for the expansion of Twitter to be used in a more collaborative manner, connecting users digitally, moving away from previous views of the site which focused on self-broadcasting and connecting ‘friends’ (2009). Huberman, Romero and Wu’s study therefore, whilst providing an interesting contribution to the historical discussion regarding Twitter, is flawed within the context of current reference and use, in that it does not address the diversity of motivations for using the site (2009).

It can be inferred from the view that Huberman, Romero and Wu’s discussion of Twitter is outdated that the internet is a cultural text which is continually developing. This relates to a wider theory of media development discussed by Gitelman in her work Already Always New. (2006). Gitelman argues that the internet cannot historicize itself, ‘change itself is a paradoxically consistent

Daisy Cooper

12

feature of the World Wide Web’ (2006, loc 1800). The medium is in continual motion, updating and changing with little archiving of what has come before, and is ‘scant help’ to create a history of this new media (Gitelman, 2006, loc 2006). Since the internet cannot aid our understanding of its history, analyzing academic discussion such as Huberman, Romero and Wu’s paper as historic documents can. It is important to place discussions of media within this context of development and change. Gitelman’s work also discusses the danger of focusing too much on the ‘newness’ of a medium upon its introduction to society, an issue which has been the subject of much debate in discussion of the internet, especially in relation to users’ agency (2006).

2.2.2 The Internet Reflecting Society.

Much discussion of the internet initially focused on the increased opportunity for users’ agency, heralded by champions such as O’Rielly, Battelle and Anderson (2005, 2009, 2010). Even the established rhetorical device of naming different ‘versions’ of the internet ‘Web X.0’ is indicative of the tendency in commentary to focus on the ‘newness’ of the internet. The convention of adding the suffix ‘X.0’ is derived from software development, and implies that one version replaces what has gone before, improving and surpassing it whilst still relating to an individual item, ‘the new version implies both continuity and change’ (Allen, 2013, p261). The internet, Barassi and Treré write, is in fact ‘an integrated socio-technical system, in which different web applications and stages co-exist’ (2012, p1273). Heavy handed focus on the novelty of its features and over stating its potentials downplays the idea that pre-existing social factors, hierarchies and conventions have informed and shaped its development (boyd, 2010).

Carpentier is perhaps one of the most damning voices of discussion of participatory potentials online, labeling it ‘a reductionist discourse of novelty’, concerned with the enthused literature surrounding participation that focuses too readily on the internet as a ‘new’ chance for users to speak and be heard (2009, p407). Carpentier argues that a rich history of participation with older

Daisy Cooper

13

forms of media such as radio is dismissed. (2009). Fuchs argues that the potential impact of broadcasting oneself has been exaggerated, ‘giving people a voice by involving them in media production does not therefore mean that their voice is also heard’ (2010, p148). O’Neil also subscribes to this view, stating:

If social networks have migrated online, it is logical to assume that the process of differentiation, hierarchization and control which, by all accounts structure offline human interactions, have also done so (O’Neil, 2005, p1)

O’Neil comments on a confusion between retrievability and visibility on the web, simply because any page of any public website can be viewed by users does not mean that the majority of internet users will see it (2005). Here O’Neil appears to be equating success with popularity, discounting the success of sites aimed at smaller groups of dedicated users and fans (Jenkins, 2006). This relates to Anderson’s theory, The Long Tail, where users utilize the internet to meet their niche and specialist needs (2006).

However, if the aim is to reach as wide an audience as possible, it is clear that this issue is significant in discussing Twitter, since popular Twitterers will reach more users, as Tweets appear in the timeline of every follower. Critics such as Carpentier, Fuchs and O’Neil address the internet as a cultural text: a product of endeavor and invention that is reflective of preexisting social hierarchies, power structures, capitalist imperatives, social and personal discriminations and favoritism, where not all users have equal opportunity.

This line of investigation relates to the theory of Remediation, which argues that no media can be directly or indirectly replaced by another, since the development of a new media is not independent and isolated, prior formats and their legacy influence the new (Bolter & Grusin, 2000; Humphreys et al. 2013; Gitelman, 2006).

Daisy Cooper

14

No medium...seems to do its cultural work in isolation from other media, any more than it works in isolation from other social and economic forces. What is new about new media comes from the particular ways in which they refashion older media and the ways in which older media refashion themselves to answer the challenges of new media (Bolter& Grusin, 2000, p15)

Discussion of the internet has often focused on the ‘new’ opportunities for agency afforded to users, and criticism reacting to this has focused on one of the aspects of society that has affected the development of the internet: the power structures which shape online interaction as they do offline.

2.2.3 Power Structures Online

An important aspect of understanding the internet as a reflective object is investigation into corporate influence and use of websites. Larrson & Agerfalk examine an example of Twitter use assisting companies during crisis (2013). They explore Swedish national train operator SJ’s communications regarding the weather’s effect on services in the winter of 2010 to 2011 (2013). They conclude that:

The traditional sender-receiver notion of communication needs to be replaced by an interactive model where the organization participates in a co-creative and responsible manner (2013, p9).

This highlights that Twitter is not just a forum for self-broadcasting and advertising, but for interaction, communication and development of relationships, available to commercial and independent users alike. Whilst these interactions have been available to consumers prior to the internet, they are now taking place on a larger scale and in a public and immediate forum (Larrson & Agerfalk, 2013). Twitter has not created the desire to communicate with consumers to keep them up to date, but it has facilitated a new structure in which to do so (Hsieh, 2012; Hargittai & Litt, 2011). In this way Twitter as a

Daisy Cooper

15

medium, and the wider internet in general are serving multiple masters with differing agendas. This example of corporate use of Twitter demonstrates that internet services are becoming tools for companies, and that their continued use of these services influence how such services are structured and developed. Initially the social networking site Friendster did not permit corporate or branded accounts, but Twitter, following MySpace’s example, encourages such accounts and has features which support them, such as the Verified User, opening up the service up to companies such as SJ (boyd, 2006). The development of Twitter’s features is responsive to the demands of many different users, and in this way, online society like offline society is subject to corporate agendas and demands.

A key aspect in the discussion of participation online is that of unpaid labour (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010; Tapscott & Williams, 2006; Zwick et al, 2008; Van Dicjk & Nieborg, 2009). There is a rich vein of discourse around the impact of users volunteering their time and skills on developing consumer culture and aiding capitalist agents (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010; Tapscott & Williams, 2006; Zwick et al, 2008; Van Dicjk & Nieborg, 2009). Corporate efforts to create digital communities can simply be seen as a way to build a brand, using the unpaid and unrewarded labor of consumers (Van Dijck & Neiborg, 2009). Corporate reliance on unpaid labor through use of social networks, micro blogs and blogs, is increasingly becoming a stable factor of internet communication. Twitter is a tool for corporations to extend their reach online, and the interactive model recommended by Larrson and Agerfalk is reliant on the work of employees for SJ and their customers. In this case, it is practically useful for consumers to be able to engage in this kind of communication with a service provider, but this internet activity also assists the creation of a consumer culture where unpaid labor is an important resource for corporations.

Cammaerts discusses the corporate agenda of website owners themselves - the ‘hyper capitalist logic of the internet’ (2008, p360). He comments on the systems of control, bias and influence that are designed and enforced by the

Daisy Cooper

16

third party websites which host users’ expressions of participation. An example of this is Twitter’s introduction of Promoted Tweets, a form of targeted advertising. Twitter’s economic imperative to be profitable is met by creating an avenue for advertising from within the service, which can be sold as a commodity to brands. The economically focused owners and corporate users influence mediation online - Twitter users’ timelines are no longer curated spaces made by their own efforts.

Optimism about participation appears to be built into the rhetoric of many popular and powerful websites encouraging users to ‘have their say’. Youtube invites you to ‘Broadcast yourself’ (Youtube.com, 2013), Blogger hosts ‘a personal diary. A daily pulpit. A collaborative space. A political soapbox.’ (Blogger, 2013) and Soundcloud enables you to ‘Share your sounds’ (Soundcloud, 2013).

Appreciation of the rhetoric, graphic design and structural features that websites use to re-enforce the positive idea that the internet is an opportunity for increased agency through participation, is an important aspect of discursive work on power structures at play in digital cultures. Gillespie’s analysis of the term ‘platform’ highlights the focus given to the carefully chosen terminology that websites have developed. He suggests that YouTube’s use of the term deliberately positions the website as an opportunity, with little responsibility for the quality of the content, or copyright infringement (2010). Gitelman agrees with Gillespie’s emphasis on the medium’s structure - ‘it makes no sense to think about emphasis on “content” without attending to the medium that both communicates that content and represents or helps to set the limits of what that content can consist of’ (Gitelman, 2006, loc 136).

Beer highlights that software and algorithmic functions are shaping and mediating our interactions and activity online, ‘new vital and intelligent power structures are on the inside of our everyday lives’ (2009, p995). Beer encourages us to examine not only the self-selected rhetoric, features and design of websites but also the algorithmic data collection which constitutes

Daisy Cooper

17

the structure of many websites. Furthermore he argues that intelligent systems are able to collect and assess data in ways that are unpredicted and sometimes unknown, even to their authors - there is ‘a complex under weave of power at play in the digital mundane’ (Beer, 2009, p999). The work of Gillespie and Beer stresses the necessity of critical investigation into the rhetorical, visual, linguistic and literal code of websites and the motivation behind it - ‘they represent an attempt to establish the very criteria by which these technologies will be judged, built directly into the terms by which we know them.’ (Gillespie, 2010, p359).

Capitalist imperatives, rhetoric, code, and terminology online shape our understanding of the development of the internet, and the power structures at play influencing this process.

2.2.4 Marginalization & Hegemony

‘Participation is neither neutral, nor is it distributed evenly, instead, it is constrained by market forces and hierarchies of power that interweave offline and online contexts’ - discourse that holds this statement to be true subsequently addresses the issue of marginalization online (Page, 2012, p182). The study of what voices are promoted, and which are hidden online has been the subject of critical analysis (Selvin, 2000; Page, 2012, White, 2010). White comments on the inherent bias built into eBay towards particular demographics: the white heterosexual couple and nuclear family (2010). This work is partially in reaction to the notion of the democratic internet but is also an investigation into hegemonic viewpoints2.

The Gramscian theory of cultural hegemony in which a dominant ideology is perpetuated by a ruling class has been highly influential in cultural theory (Hall et al., 1980b). In Structuralism, this theory is often employed to explore a cultural dominance imposed by media and cultural producers, in which an

Daisy Cooper

18

2 It should be noted that some of the discussion surrounding marginalization also relates to the quality of the output, Van Dijck and Neiborg argue that not all participants are equally creative (2009).

individual is afforded little agency (Hall et al., 1980b). Butler outlines a Post-Structuralist argument from Laclau and Mouffe, which builds on Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, arguing that change is possible from within a system, as otherwise the system is seen as ‘eternal’ (1997, p14). Butler goes further, stating that the reinforcement needed to maintain a system is what makes it vulnerable to opposition. She uses the example of patriarchy: a reinforced hegemonic structure that feminism can alter by questioning, examining and rejecting the reinforcement (1997).

This examination of the hegemonic view is an integral part of Culturalist theory. Hall examines media output and audience interpretation: how an individual interacts with authorial intent and ‘decodes’ messages ‘encoded’ in media (1980c). He argues that there are three types of audience interpretation; the ‘dominant’, where an audience decodes the message in the same way it was encoded which subscribes to the hegemonic view; the ‘negotiated’, where an individual decodes co-existing and perhaps contrary views, which constitutes a partial rejection of hegemony; and the ‘oppositional’, where an individual decodes in a completely contrary way to the hegemonic one (1980c).

This work was seen as a seminal step in understanding audiences, and one of the first studies that placed the audience as an active agent, able to reject the hegemonic viewpoint. In this way Culturalists such as Hall have been able focus on the polysemic nature of texts: that they can be intended, interpreted and reinterpreted in a variety of ways, all of which are specific to the creator and receiver (Hall, 1980c; Baker & Galasinski, 2001). Latterly some Culturalist theory has been criticized for not accounting for a polysemic reception of a text within an individual, failing to recognize that a single audience member interpreting a text can hold contradictory views on it (Philo, 2008; Baker & Galasinki, 2001). Philo also argues that Hall’s theory of Encoding/Decoding puts faith in audience ability to resist messages and so critical investigations into media power have since slowed down (2008). He recommends that theorists retain an aspect of examining the power of media authors in their

Daisy Cooper

19

work (Philo, 2008). White’s investigation into eBay’s hegemonic reinforcement is an example of current theory investigating the way a website propagates an accepted viewpoint, and the way users subsequently reinforce it with their activity (2010).

The issue of marginalization relates to Twitter use as it holds users’ popularity as one of the key ways of reaching a wide audience. However, Hashtags can be seen as one of the ways in which users can transcend boundaries of external fame and notoriety to make their output more discoverable. This phenomena has been assessed critically by Page, to investigate the process of self-promotion that a user can attempt on Twitter (2012). This work will be explored in further detail in the next section focused on identity and self-promotion on Twitter.

2.3 The Internet as an Environment.

Theorists such as Marwick, boyd, and Page have focused on Twitter as a platform, viewing the internet as a terrain where culture is played out. Here the impetus appears to be on user’s behavior, stemming from the fact that a large proportion of internet activity requires the users to author themselves into being online. Theory focuses on the issues of identity, individual context and the required skills for navigating online experiences.

2.3.1 Identity, Self-Promotion & Culture

Online, users engage in a process of creation, editing, self-assessment and imagining an audience to create a public facing persona of their private selves. Users structure communication in a manner they perceive to be appropriate for an ‘imagined audience’, just as they do offline (Marwick & boyd, 2010). Marwick and boyd argue that this online audience can be varied and unknowable, users must imagine this unpredictable audience and tailor their identity accordingly. Tweets are mostly publicly available, and extend beyond the reach of just those that ‘follow’ particular users - ‘nearly all Tweets

Daisy Cooper

20

are read by relatively few people - but most Twitterers don’t know which few people’ (Marwick & boyd, 2919, p117). This concept of altered and amended identity is not however, created by the internet, ‘Goffman conceptualized identity as a continual performance’ (Marwick & boyd, 2010, p123). In offline interaction individuals are able to tailor identity to suit unique face-to-face interactions, whereas online we interact with a diverse imagined audience: real world acquaintances, family, friends and colleagues intermingle with users we have never physically interacted with, each following our Tweets for a variety of motivations (Marwick & boyd, 2010). The content of output is therefore mediated by an evaluation of what an unknown audience would deem worthwhile. In Networked Publics, boyd argues that social networks and online communities blur the lines between public and private; media is not only entering the home (a comment commonly made about television) it is asking users to broadcast from their home, using their own identity to do so (boyd, 2010).

Page explores the concept of authored identity, examining the idea that online one can turn into a commodity to be consumed, a personal brand (2012). Page argues that Twitter is self-promotional, rather than participatory, analyzing the use of Hashtags by three distinct groups: Celebrity, Ordinary and Corporate users. Page concludes that Corporate and Celebrity Twitterers use Hashtags more frequently, to become more ‘searchable’ and publicly affiliated to the subject of a Hashtag, such as a news event, political movement, or cultural text (2012, p198). The use of functions such as Hashtags are a part of self-authoring an identity on Twitter from which users can infer information about the author.

This process of self-authoring commented on by Page, Marwick and boyd is demonstrative of Raymond Williams’ theory of culture, where the term refers to both ‘the whole way of life’, and forms of signification: the works of art, media, press, advertising and literature made by a society (1958). For Williams, ‘Culture is Ordinary’, a phrase that marks the cornerstone and title of his much regarded work on the matter (1958). This work marked a significant

Daisy Cooper

21

shift away from thinking of the Great Tradition era, best summarized by Matthew Arnold’s definition of culture as ‘the best that had been thought and said’ (Arnold, 1869). Culture, in Arnold’s Culture and Anarchy is a civilizing force: the height of art and literature brought to the masses for their betterment, and stands in stark contrast to current interpretations of the term (Hall, 1980). Williams argues that each society has its own context and meanings, and that each individual within that society understands these meanings in a unique and personal manner, through their own evaluations and navigations within it. Williams describes items such as the landscape, geography, education, family, history, employment, religion, and politics of his childhood in order to illustrate the very specific and personal culture of his upbringing, which informs his navigation through life (1958). Hall, in praising Williams’ theory, notes that our idea of culture has been democratized and socialized, since Williams rejects the previously held distinction between high (good and worthy) and low (bad and disposable) culture. A central part of Williams’ argument is that the process of understanding culture is both ‘traditional and creative’, that society is ‘made and remade in every individual’s mind’ as perceived meanings are added to or amended by experimentation, evaluation and experience (1958, p93). This view of culture makes it highly personal, meaning that signifiers such as names do not hold ‘real’ meaning, making them ‘an infinite site of contest’ (Butler, 1997, 15).

Williams’ work on culture has been highly instrumental in theoretical discussion, founding ‘Culturalist’ theory. Highmore, for example, praises Culture is Ordinary in his investigation into pedestrian aspects of life, Ordinary Lives: Studies in the Everyday3. Culturalists began to analyze texts focusing on the medium, meaning and content of messages, the structures that frame them and the role of the individual (Hall et all, 1980b). Culturalists’ concern with audience and author, and their focus on the individual, introduces the concept of audience as an active agent in a manner sometimes lost, but not wholly discounted in its predecessor, Structuralism (Hall, 1980a, Ellis, 1980).

Daisy Cooper

22

3 Highmore aims to better understand ‘aesthetics’ - ‘the arena of the mind’s passions’, which can be found, examined and celebrated in the mundane, and inform an individual’s concept of culture (Highmore, 2011, 9).

As we can see from boyd, Marwick, and Page this idea of culture as created through learnt experience, tested assumptions and interaction with cultural text is vital in deconstructing and understanding the internet: a medium where users capitalize on their own identity to produce cultural texts (2010; 2012).

2.3.2 Online Skills and Cultural Capital

The discussion of an individual’s cultural context relates to their ability to confidently navigate online. Beyond the barriers of physical access to the internet, theorists have discussed the idea of online skills: the ability, confidence and understanding necessary to use a platform in line with individual needs (Hsieh, 2012; Livingstone 2004; Hargittai & Litt, 2011). Users need a certain amount of knowledge in order not only to navigate online, but also to customize their digital experience. Within the web users create their own media ‘repertoires’, networked structures reflecting their own tastes and beliefs (Tanjea, et al 2012). This is particularly relevant to Twitter, where users choose who to follow, curating their own unique experience of the website.

Sociologist and anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu’s Distinction is regarded as a seminal work in discourse surrounding culture, and relates to Williams’ assertion that experience and context of an individual informs their cultural behaviors and comprehension. Bourdieu argues that a person’s class, their background, family life and education imbue them with ‘cultural capital’, which determines their consumption of cultural texts (1979). Bourdieu argues that consumption is a cultural act - a ‘stage in the process of communication, that is, an act of deciphering, decoding, which presupposes practical or explicit mastery of a cipher or a code’ (1979, p2). The choices an individual makes about the cultural texts they consume is a reflection of the confidence they have in decoding their wider significance, which is determined by class (Bourdieu 1979). By making choices in consumption of cultural texts individuals are displaying their taste and appreciation for what is appropriate and valuable, an expression of their Habitus, ‘the conscious dispositions, the

Daisy Cooper

23

classificatory schemes and take for granted preferences which are evident in an individual’s sense of the appropriateness and validity of their taste for cultural goods’ (du Gay et al, 2013, p92).

Bourdieu has been criticized for focusing too much on class, not taking account of gender, sexuality, and ethnicity as influencing factors on consumer decisions. He also fails to accommodate any sense of social mobility, or offer an explanation of subcultures that transcend class boundaries (du Gay, 2013, p92). However, the appreciation of consumption as a cultural process is significant for investigating Hashtags on Twitter, as in many cases they are publicly advertising an individual’s consumptive choices. Additionally, the concept of cultural capital is instrumental in appreciating the aspect of non-physical limits to internet access that can influence a user. Twitter users must feel they have a level of internet literacy - cultural understanding of appropriate etiquette and appreciation of the site’s purpose - to operate confidently within Twitter as a cultural environment.

2.4 Etiquette and Architecture Online.

Much of the discourse surrounding digital culture centralizes around the point at which the structural features of the internet as an object intersect with users’ expressions of identity within an online environment.

2.4.1 Behaviors and Structural Features

Online interactions build up a communally understood and accepted set of behaviors which are often influenced by features of a website, and have ramifications on users’ relationships (boyd, 2006). boyd uses the example of the ‘Top 8 friends’ feature on Myspace, but this logic could easily be applied to the etiquette surrounding Retweets and direct messages on Twitter (boyd, 2006). Reagle writes of the etiquette of Wikipedia, which is built into its features, such as linking pages within the site and ‘bots’ which search for contentious material; and into the website’s guidelines for activity, such as the

Daisy Cooper

24

‘Neutral Point of View’ policy (2010, p11). ‘Assume Good Faith’ is one of the key tenants of Wikipedia, an unenforceable guideline rather than policy, which asks users to think well of each others’ motives, to create a value system for a specific society (Reagle 2010, p61). Wikipedia aims to promote conflict resolution between anonymous users who edit the site by suggesting general guidelines for behavior and relying on users to uphold the ethos of the site.

Within the community of a micro-blogging site such as Twitter, users must navigate a society much as they do offline, with etiquette specific to the setting (boyd, 2006). In such a public forum where actions are archived and catalogued (so historic transactions can be analyzed and interpreted) motivations for reciprocal interactions can be complex (boyd, 2006; Pelaprat & Brown, 2012). Pelaprat and Brown move the conversation away from Rational Choice Theory towards Reciprocity: exploring the symbolic nature of transactional exchange in order to discuss the way users’ navigate relationships and community online, and to justify actions which appear to have no direct benefit back for an individual user, such as answering questions posted by others on Yahoo Answers (2012). Pelaprat and Brown do not address the fact that crowd sourced information is not necessarily the result of dedicated time and effort of a committed group, with no ‘staff turnover’, but that it can be the contribution of a wider group whose individual activity is more sporadic. Jenkins highlights the transitory and temporary nature of some internet groups, arguing that ‘people do not remain in communities that no longer meet their emotional or intellectual needs’ (2006, loc 1134).

2.4.2 Assessing Credibility Online

Another issue facing the average Twitter user is that of assessing credibility. As discussed by Jessen and Helms Jorgenson, Fogg & Tseng’s theory of assessing credibility in which an individual personally evaluates the trustworthiness, expertise and believability of a source must be re-imagined for modern internet sources (Jessen & Helms Jorgenson, 2012; Fogg and

Daisy Cooper

25

Tseng, 1999). The internet facilitates the ability to check up on a source with empirical data, such as a website’s history and Google ranking. Wikipedia has an article grading system that indicates some level of quality control (Reagle, 2010, p7). Jessen & Helms Jogenson argue however, that it is the influence of collective judgement which has most affected a user’s analysis of credibility online (2012). Jenkins argues that individual online societies have their own ways of determining credibility (2006, loc 758). There is an example of this within Twitter, a specific mechanism, that of the Verified User which offers proof that Twitter users are in fact who they say there are. This feature often only applies to users of note outside of Twitter; celebrities, politicians and corporate accounts. Individuals trying to evaluate the credibility of a less well known Twitterer must rely on perceptions of whether a Twitterer is believable and trustworthy, aided by a collective judgement - how many and what kind of Followers an account has - making evaluating credibility on the site a structural and societal process.

Within the environment of the internet, users can access architectural features which aid their assessment of an author’s credibility. In discussing Hall’s work on audience interpretations of codes through their own cultural background and understanding, Harsin and Hayward argue that since the 30 years of Hall’s writing, events and developments have necessitated a change in the way we explore culture, largely due to new ‘modes of expression’ (2013, p202). Reflecting Reagle, Jessen and Helms Jorgenson, they restate the importance of exploring new ways of examining communication technologies when investigating culture, especially in light of the purported power for collective agency and democratic change online (2013).

The assessment of credibility is a negotiation of structural features and a user’s cultural background: a mixture of etiquette and function-limited behaviors. The deployment of Hashtags on Tweets is a similar negotiation, mediating the internet as a created object reflective of the society it has developed from, and the cultural conditions of the individual. It is from this

Daisy Cooper

26

standpoint, and with assistance from this informative theory and Wohn and Na’s study of Hashtags that I will analyze #Broadchurch.

Daisy Cooper

27

3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction to Methods.

In order to explore the influence of structure on internet communities I will be employing three methods, a combination of qualitative and quantitative research. Each method: ethnography, textual analysis and empirical data collection have strengths and weaknesses, so I aim to build a fuller picture by employing a multi-methodological approach as recommended by Davis (2008). I will embed myself within the community of Twitter as an active user, and from this ethnographic standpoint analyze the website and its features as a cultural text, and complete data collection and textual analysis of a specific example - the use of the Hashtag #Broadchurch on 22nd April 2013, the date of the series finale of ITV’s Television crime drama Broadchurch. Primary source data examined will be the website of Twitter as an object, empirical data collected from the example of #Broadchurch, and content of the sample Tweets using this Hashtag.

Twitter as an object is subject to change, both at the demands of users and through implementation of alterations by developers. These changes can occur quickly and continually, and so analysis of Twitter is a snapshot of an object in motion. Study of this type can be illuminating about wider cultural behaviors that occur in various environments and circumstances. Lessons learnt from Myspace, Facebook and Twitter can be instrumental in our understanding of other digital texts (boyd, 2006). In consideration of this I have adopted an approach encompassing theoretical recommendations for methodology and my own pragmatic assessments of solutions for study of a developing subject.

Daisy Cooper

28

3.2 An Ethnographic Approach.

Twitter is a micro-blogging community with aspects of social networking, information searching, self-publication and promotion. It is a contained community, in that it has its own domain, web and mobile device applications that are used to access the primary source material. However, it is also integrated across external hosts, with websites and devices inviting users to tweet purchases they have made, articles they have read, photos they have taken and so on, through the click of an embedded button. I will apply an ethnographic approach to the study Twitter and the example of #Broadchurch, with myself as an active and embedded user of the website’s services and features.

Writing on ethnography typically warns of a key flaw: that the researcher is identified as the ‘other’, influencing information offered by subjects observed, which could be said to alter a phenomena (Pickering et al, 2008). As Twitter is an open website, where the majority of Tweets are public and retrievable by any visitor, this factor is slightly reduced from the subject’s perspective. As Marwick and boyd explore, Twitter users imagine an audience, self-edit, and create an online version of their identity (2008). The act of observation by a researcher has not altered this process, whilst it may not have occurred to the average Twitterer that their output is the subject of academic scrutiny, they are already aware that it is subject to public scrutiny. Research must pay close attention, not to its own observing influence on Twitterers, but instead to the general opportunities for public observation, which are a significant and inherent facet of the website, influencing the actions of users.

Close attention must be paid to the role of the researcher in ethnographic study, the researcher is no neutral observer, ‘while experience is common to both researcher and researched, the specific experiences we have are always in some degree different and individual’ (Pickering, 2008, p17). There must be epistemological considerations, since as a continuing subscriber and user of microblogs, blogs and social networks, I may interpret Twitter users’ actions in

Daisy Cooper

29

biased ways. Awareness of this factor should aid the research in question, but in future study of this area it may beneficial to adopt a collaborative approach. This could help mitigate the influence of personal experience on the study.

3.2.1 Virtual Ethnography - Internet Specific Considerations.

The medium of the internet has additional factors that must be considered in ethnographic study - from users accessing and navigating skills, and perceived differences in the organization of social relationships online, to credibility and authorship (Hine, 2000). However, Hine believes that the central factor to be considered in virtual ethnography is the fact that there are two distinct ways of viewing the internet. Firstly, that the internet is a place, where culture is ‘formed and reformed’, a space in which interaction is mediated (Hine, 2000, p9). Secondly, that the internet itself is a cultural artifact, to be examined as the product of endeavor and creation. Hine advocates a dual approach, combining the two ways of viewing the internet in order to practice virtual ethnographic study, but writes that this raises difficulties in reconciling the issues of ethnography and space. Moving away from a traditional interpretation of ethnography, Hine recommends focusing on sharing connections and environment online, not physical space, summarizing:

online and offline worlds are connected in complex ways. The space in which online interaction occurs is simultaneously socially produced through a technology that itself is socially produced (2000, p39).

Ethnographic research in this way enables me to explore this digital community from within, gaining experience, knowledge and confidence in activity in this arena and observing the internet itself as a unique cultural artifact. This study of the internet as both community and artifact still holds inherent and traditional ethnographic issues of bias and individual

Daisy Cooper

30

interpretation. In order to address some of these issues I will also be applying textual analysis of Twitter as a cultural object.

3.3. Textual Analysis of Twitter as an Artifact.

Twitter is a text that can be analyzed in the same manner as other cultural products. I will first focus on analysis of the website and a specific feature: the Hashtag, and will secondly apply textual analysis of content as part of the study of #Broadchurch. Focus on Twitter as a cultural text includes analysis of structural features, their history, graphic design and presentation, textual information and examples of use. Gillespie and Beer’s studies highlight the importance of analyzing the digital formats users engage with, the way they aim to shape interactions, and the potential for re-appropriating them. In order to understand the way culture is being played out online with its conditions of structured formatting it is important to identify what these formats are, what their prescribed purpose is and how they are being used by individuals. The benefit of such an approach is that it deepens our understanding of the object itself and its conditions and features, questioning them closely.

An issue facing those undertaking textual analysis can be defining the sample of texts to study (Davies, 2008). I have chosen to explore the single example of Twitter for a combination of practical and ideological reasons. The sample of texts (websites) to be investigated had to be limited to one due to issues of time and resources, and the example of Twitter Hashtags appeared to be a rich and suitable demonstration of structured formatting and communication. Further, study of the entirety of the internet would be practically complex due to its size, but would also potentially not be informative to theoretical discussion, partly due to the diversity of motivations behind users’ interaction. Further study into examples of activity on other single platforms, such as Instagram and Vine, may be beneficial in future explorations of this theme, and a comparative analysis of similar forms of internet based communication would further this line of enquiry.

Daisy Cooper

31

Another issue for textual analysis is limited access to the subject at hand which can weaken the scope of enquiry (Davies, 2008). Study of a website such as Twitter suffers from the opposite problem: its content is publicly available and extremely varied. It would be very difficult to analyze the sum of all content available and investigation into all Tweets would be unlikely to generate informative results. Limiting the study enables me to analyze the structural features at play in a single example with a limited scope of enquiry that may generate results applicable to other circumstances. I have chosen to complete initial textual analysis on Twitter as an object, and then to complete textual analysis of content of Twitter, Tweets from users, as part of the study of #Broadchurch. A potential weakness of textual analysis is the lack of additional supporting evidence available from investigation into an example, and so my examination of #Broadchurch will also explore empirical data to address this issue.

3.4 Approach to Empirical Data Collection of #Broadchurch.

I will explore a single example that is limited by a specified date and topic. The benefit of studying Twitter activity in this way is that it provides factual evidence, a factor Pickering claims is lacking in Cultural Theory (2000). In doing so I am able to explore the thematic issues of this enquiry in an example of real events, providing data to analyze and substantiate or disprove assumptions. In order to mitigate issues of personal interpretation of this collective data I will define clear parameters of study and strict frameworks of analysis, outlined below.

The circumstances of the example selected, that of the 24 hour period of 22nd April 2013 (GMT), and #Broadchurch means that it is most likely that authors of the Tweets analyzed will be based in the UK and engaged with the TV program. On this particular date viewers tuned in to find out who killed the character Danny Latimer, the central issue in this TV crime drama. Since I have chosen to study the season finale it is likely that Tweets from this date with the Hashtag #Broadchurch will be higher in number than at any other

Daisy Cooper

32

time in the series run. The sample itself will be a random selection of 200 public Tweets from 22nd April that use #Broadchurch. In a departure from Wohn and Na’s methodology this study will not encompass other Tweets on the subject which did not employ the Hashtag, since I am examining the influence of voluntary external structure on communication (2011). The sample size has been determined as 0.1% of the total number of Tweets with #Broadchurch from 22nd April 2013. Data was collected through Twitter’s API search and screen shots of Tweets were taken as a backup, as recommended by Wohn & Na (2011). The data has been collected from the primary source Twitter, and due to established complexities of drawing historical data from Twitter I have cross-referenced using internet and Twitter analytics program Topsy (Wohn & Na, 2011, Marwick & boyd 2008). The framework I have developed for this analysis is adapted from Wohn & Na’s AEIO Matrix (2011).

The sample of Tweets will be categorized from 2 angles. Firstly, the status of the author as Celebrity, Viewer, Media Commentator or Producer. Celebrities will be categorized due to their status as a person of note for their work in a particular field (authors, actors, pop stars etc.) or for their own personality (reality TV contestants, TV personalities). Media Commentators will be so grouped due to their status as individuals or organizations that comment on media stories or cultural texts as their primary industry (Television magazines, bloggers and Newspaper journalists). Producers are any individuals or institutions related to the authorship of the program (actors, casting agents and broadcasters etc.). Viewers are considered to be individuals viewing the program, and not falling into any other category. Information about authors will be gleaned from their Twitter profiles, pre-existing knowledge, verified account status and cross referenced with Google searches. There maybe some cross over between Celebrities and Media Commentators, as many bloggers and TV reviewers are renowned in their own right. In this case I will cross-reference with external sources such as newspaper websites and blogs to see if the Twitterer did comment on the TV program elsewhere, in which case they will be determined a Media Commentator. Within the world of user participation

Daisy Cooper

33

these distinctions may have additional crossover, and so the same process will be applied to the Viewers.

Content of the Tweets will also be assessed and classified as promotion or comment. Promotional Tweets are considered to be in anticipation of the program, boosting the program profile, whether this is the intended purpose, advertising the program from broadcasters such as ITV; or the unintended purpose, viewers tweeting their own excitement and anticipation. Commentary Tweets deal specifically with the content and narrative of the program itself, including speculation on the identity of the killer prior to broadcast. Analysis of the content of Tweets will follow strict frameworks based on words and terminology used. Phrases such as ‘Looking forward to’, ‘6 hours and 12 minutes until’ and ‘#Broadchurch tonight’ will be categorized as promoting the program. Phrases employing emotional reactions, surprise or exclamations such as ‘OMG’, ‘Wow’, and ‘Amazing’ will be deemed as commentary. The intention here is to clarify between Tweets directly engaged with the content of the text and those engaged with the idea of the text. It can be argued that there is crossover as, since Twitter is a public forum, all Tweets helped to promote the program, indeed on 22nd April 2013 #Broadchurch was a Trending Topic in the UK. However the distinction here is to separate which Tweets had a different purpose as well, that of engaging with the content on offer.

This will provide me with a two-step categorization for all Tweets in the sample. Authorship will be grouped into media focused authors: Producers and Commentators; and observers of the program: Celebrities (not directly involved with the production of Broadchurch) and Viewers. Examination of who is tweeting, and whether the Tweet is promoting or commenting, will enable me to create a two by two table with four different categories: Industry Lead Promotion, Industry Lead Discussion, Fan Lead Promotion and Fan Lead Discussion.

Daisy Cooper

34

Promotion Comment

Producers & Media Commentators

Industry Lead Promotion

Industry Lead Content Discussion

Celebrities & Viewers

Fan Lead Promotion

Fan Lead Content Discussion

Fig. 1 Matrix of assessment for Tweets

This will enable me to examine how different types of Twitterers are using Hashtags and to what purpose, and explore how interactions online regarding a specific topic are mediated by structure. 3.5 Potential Alternative Methods.

Other methods that could have been employed are interviews and questionnaires for the Twitterers. It would have been interesting to analyze external information regarding the circumstances of someone tweeting #Broadchurch: whether they watch alone or with others, and what their level of engagement with the show was, both the final episode and those leading up to it. Other factors requiring further analysis could be how often they watch broadcast TV and use Twitter at the same time, and what is their level of interaction with Twitter on an average day. Due partly to the limitations of time and resources I have focused on the initial process of textual and empirical analysis, but also have elected to take this approach in order to examine the issue at hand from the standpoint of an anonymous internet user. As the content of Twitter is publicly available, authored for an imagined and unknowable audience, I wish to investigate the influence of structure from the perspective of this audience, who have no further information regarding the circumstances or identity of the Twitterer other than that which is offered.

Daisy Cooper

35

Inferences in this study made about these factors mirrors inferences that can be made by other observers in general internet activity.

This secondary process of analysis such as questionnaires or interviews also has practical drawbacks. There is the issue of gaining access and adequate levels of interest and response to find a suitably sized sample for analysis (Hewson et al., 2003). Responses to internet based research are heavily reliant on volunteers, and in such a specific example the return rate of voluntarily offered information might be limited (Hewson et al., 2003). There are also the considerations of the previously mentioned issue of the role and influence of the researcher in ethnographic study.

3.6 Limitations of Study.

In addition to the potential benefit of a second step of research into Twitterers, the lack of which could be seen as a limitation on this study, there is another factor which has been encountered by other studies into Twitter activity (Wohn & Na, 2008; Jessen & Helm Jorgenson, 2012). Studies have only encompassed one example of interaction on Twitter, those of the active participants. There is anecdotal indication that many registered users of Twitter don’t tweet regularly, but log into the site to ‘monitor’ conversations and communications. Unfortunately Twitter guards access to this information very closely, and so until their own statistics on Twitter use, or access to external parties is made available, there is little opportunity to conduct a line of enquiry into this factor.

Another limitation of this study is exploring it in isolation, without the context of other media commentary, which may have been pushing and encouraging users to monitor or participate in a conversation about Broadchurch on Twitter. Whilst wider cultural contexts are not to be dismissed in discussion of mediated culture online, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the influence they have on each individual user, to what extent they were aware of them and to

Daisy Cooper

36

what degree they were a factor in motivating users to Tweet about the program.

3.7. Ethics.

The ethics of this study are somewhat determined by Twitter’s status as a public website. The Tweets are already in the public domain and intended for public consumption (Wohn & Na, 2011, Marwick & boyd, 2008). Analysis of the data is intended to explore behaviors of Twitter users, rather than expose them for controversial views, or questionable activity, and so I do not consider reproduction of the Tweets to be sensitive information. I have reproduced Tweets where needed verbatim, as they can be found easily by searching for #Broadchurch and so could be considered to be in the public domain. The public nature of communication via this website is clear to all users signing up for the service (Wohn & Na, 2008).

Daisy Cooper

37

4. Data & Findings

4.1 Introduction to Textual Analysis of Twitter Hashtags.

The invention of Hashtags is attributed not to Twitter itself, but to user and Google developer Chris Messina, who in 2007 suggested the use of the # symbol to categorize conversations in a way that could be easily adopted, circulated and dropped (Gannes, 2010). According to Messina, Twitter was not initially receptive to the idea, but Hashtags have now been adopted by the website and are promoted in the ‘Help Centre’ (Twitter 2013). Hashtags are considered to be an organic convention of habit that groups topics together in an ad hoc manner, as defined and promoted by individual users. Search functions and features of Twitter make it easy for users to access a list of Tweets, all self-categorized, with a particular Hashtag. Hashtags have been employed by a wide variety of users, for a range of motivations and are today presented positively and promoted by Twitter.

4.2 Examining the Hashtag.

The appeal of the convention of the Hashtag could be said to be its ease of use; users only have to prefix a word or phrase with a single symbol to make it searchable and traceable. Hashtags can be used to identify a Tweet to all other users as relating to some external cultural text, sensation or emotion, repeating meme, live event, or can be used as a rhetorical device - a way of adding emphasis to an argument.

The responsibility of categorization falls to the user, stating a Hashtag (if they wish to) in the body of a Tweet in order for that Tweet to be grouped. This is not an automatic process, but one the user chooses to engage with. Users employing Hashtags pick their own phrasing, spelling and capitalization. The Hashtag is a stream of characters broken only by a space in the text, punctuation, or if a user reaches their 140 character limit. Hashtags are then searchable through Twitter’s API search function, and popular Hashtags can

Daisy Cooper

38

go on to become ‘Trending Topics’; a list of 10 topics and Hashtags, presented to users in a summary text box. Users can opt to filter these Trending Topics to see the worldwide, country or city based Trending Topics at any given time.

The graphic design of the website encourages users to engage with Hashtags. They are differently colored to the rest of the text within a Tweet, along with links and @username directed addresses. The blue text used on these aspects relates to a common internet feature, indicating to users that these sections of a Tweet are hyperlinked: clicking on a Hashtag will take users to a stream of other Tweets with that Hashtag. It is extremely easy to use this additional feature, separate from the Search function, to track a real time conversation.

The help pages of the Twitter website encourage best Hashtag practice, promoting the function and setting out guides for its proper use. The Twitter blog features articles such as How to Choose a Hashtag, reviews of Hashtags, success stories and promotes their own Hashtags, for example #TweetDeckHelp (Macmillan, 2013). In this way Hashtags have been incorporated and welcomed into the ‘official’ Twitter culture and rhetoric.

Twitter also encourages use of certain Hashtags in another way: upon a user composing a Tweet and entering text after the hash symbol, Twitter starts to provide suggestions of Hashtags that they might be typing. For example, a user entering ‘#Ba’ could be provided with the suggestions of #Barcelona, #Barca and #Bartoli in a dialogue box (Twitter, 2013). These suggestions vary at any given time, seemingly in accordance with the Trending Topics. The same process occurs when a user starts to enter text in the search box.

The Hashtag is a cultural convention that has now spread to other websites, being used on Instagram, Facebook, and Tumblr to categorize acts of expression. It would appear that Twitter, through these graphical and navigational conventions, rhetorical commentary, and introduction of supporting features, are actively encouraging Hashtags. The use of Hashtags

Daisy Cooper

39

adds value to the site for users, allowing them to make it personal and responsive to individual needs and desires. Hashtags are an additional feature that make navigating the site easier for the average user looking for specific information. Thought and self-publication on Twitter are not unconnected and unlinked. Audiences can tie their own expressions to a wider community, taking the site from social network where users only reach their immediate Followers, to micro blog, where thoughts can be grouped together and connected as described in Page’s examination of self-promotion through Hashtag use (2012). The convention allows users to engage with a producer, author or corporate owner regarding a single event or product, and review other users’ reactions to these things. As mentioned previously, Hashtags are already prevalent across internet culture, and so Twitter gains more by embracing the format than by attempting to reject it.

Hashtags also provide a promotion of the service. Each time a media outlet or corporate account launches a new Hashtag it publicizes Twitter itself. What is trending on Twitter, how a Hashtag is received and entertaining examples of interaction on the site now constitute a significant part of media and news commentary.

Hashtags appear to add value to the service provided by Twitter for individual and corporate users for very little cost to the providers themselves, and aid the promotion of the site externally. They represent a cultural convention that Twitter users become aware of and comfortable with, and like offline forms of etiquette they become tools for Twitter literate users to deploy for a wide variety of purposes to achieve multiple goals (Hsieh, 2012). Hashtags have been adopted by corporate users for the purposes of branding4 and created by political groups to raise awareness or to encourage individuals to take action such as #projguardian (Martinson, 2013). They can also be used for personal ends, in line with the increasing reach of image based sites such as Tumblr and Instagram, personal hashtags are growing more popular (Greenfield, 2013). Users can create ad hoc databases for images and stories

Daisy Cooper

40

4 Promotional Hashtags are not always successful, see Our Foreign Staff, Telegraph, 2012.

from personally significant events such as wedding days. Hashtags can also be used as a rhetorical device to emphasize a statement within the body of a Tweet5. Forms of structured etiquette such as #ff, Follow Friday, where users on a weekly basis cross promote Twitterers can also be found.

Cultural producers such as the BBC’s political debate program Question Time adopt Hashtags to encourage viewers to engage with content, promoting the function during broadcast and occasionally Tweets are used as part of the content of the program. Hashtags are also created to promote a text, such as those created by the corporate account of the pop group One Direction for the band’s new releases. Hashtags are often created officially or spontaneously for real time events, such as the Super Bowl or the London Riots of 2011 (BBC, 2011).

The variety of these examples of the use of Hashtags demonstrates how users have adopted the suggestion of a single user to suit their own purposes. Above is a small selection and many more demonstrations of Hashtags use, and multiple motivations can be found. Adding the ‘#’ symbol to keyword or phrase remains constant, but the reasons why people do so shift and vary. Often multiple motivations can be drawn from a single Tweet. I will examine the example of a single Hashtag related to a cultural text to explore the way in which this convention mediates cultural interactions online, and what it can tell us about reflections on culture in a structured digital environment.

4.3 Introduction to #Broadchurch.

I have selected the case study of a sample of Tweets with the Hashtag #Broadchurch from the 24 hour period of 22nd April 2013 (GMT), the date of the series finale of the 8 episode ITV murder mystery of the same name. Broadchurch was a crime drama focused on solving the murder of the character of Danny Latimer, an 11 year old boy. The drama centralized on the investigation and the impact of Danny’s death on his family and community of

Daisy Cooper

41

5 An example of this can be found in the example of #Broadchurch explored later.

the small town of Broadchurch. It adopted the traditional murder mystery tropes of red herrings, multiple suspects and cliff hangers that engaged the viewer in predicting and anticipating the outcome. 9 million viewers tuned in to the final episode, broadcast at 9:00pm on 22nd April 2013 (Metro, 2013).

4.3.1 Findings of the Empirical Study into #Broadchurch

A total of 200 Tweets were sorted according to the following matrix:

Promotion Comment

Producers & Media Commentators

Industry Lead Promotion

Industry Lead Content Discussion

Celebrities & Average Viewers

Fan Lead Promotion

Fan Lead Content Discussion

Fig. 2 Matrix of assessment for Tweets

Daisy Cooper

42

Industry Lead Promotion equated to 19.5% of all Tweets analyzed, Industry Lead Content Discussion 18%. Fan lead Promotion was 20% of the activity investigated and Fan Lead Content discussion represented 42.5%, as shown in the graph below.

! ! !

Fig. 3. Percentage distribution of Tweets

Of Industry Lead Promotion, Producers dedicated 87.5% of their Tweets to promotion of the show, Media Commentators were more balanced, with 42% of their Tweets promoting Broadchurch. Fan Lead Promotion was more equal, with Celebrities tweeting promotionally 33% and Viewers 30% of the time. Content discussion was a much more significant activity for Fans, with Celebrities and Viewers spending 67% and 70% respectively of Tweets discussing content. 58% of Media Commentators’ Tweets concerned content, whilst Producers of the show only dedicated 12.5% of Tweets to commentary.

0%

12.50%

25.00%

37.50%

50.00%

Promotion Comment

Percentages of Tweets

Industry Fan

Daisy Cooper

43

19.5% 20% 18%

42.5%

Fig. 3. Percentage Tweets by Author

4.3.2 Content Analysis of #Broadchurch - Promotion.

#Broadchurch was used on the site as a tool for promotion in a dual way. Firstly, the body of Tweets themselves could be found, read and analyzed by those with an existing interest, seeking out additional information by searching for the Hashtag. Secondly, the frequent use of a Hashtag contributes to it becoming a trending topic, bringing it to the attention of all Twitter users, not just the ones seeking it out. #Broadchurch on 22nd April 2013 was a UK Trending Topic, the conversation was approaching viewers and potential viewers on two fronts. This was aided by promotional Tweets originating not only from the Producers of the show, but from all other groups analyzed as well.

Producers of the TV program were, perhaps unsurprisingly, the most significant promoters, dedicating 87.5% of their Tweets marketing the program and building ‘hype’ before broadcast.

@ITV: It’s time for #closure #Broadchurch

0%

22.500%

45.000%

67.500%

90.000%

Producers Media Commentators Celebrities Viewers

Percentage of Tweet by Author

Promotion Comment

Daisy Cooper

44

12.5%

87.5%

42%

58%

33%

67%

30%

70%

@ChrisChibnall: Tonight. The answer. No Cheats. The ending we planned, and laid clues for all along. And maybe watch right to the end. #Broadchurch #Closure!!

The manner in which Producers promoted the episode, was not to bombard users with continual reminders that it would be airing, but to drop clues and release additional content. Viewers were reminded to ‘watch to the end’ by writer Chris Chibnall, producer Richard Stokes and Broadcaster ITV, at which point it was revealed that there would be a second series in a post credits announcement that ‘Broadchurch will return’. They also used Twitter to promote an additional scene of the final episode available on YouTube and the ITV website. By introducing and promoting these additional topics, Producers were able to promote the program with rewards for vigilant viewers, those engaging in a conversation about the show away from their immediate surroundings and companions. Twitter followers of #Broadchurch gained by this additional level of engagement, structured through the micro blogging site. These tactics are a perhaps a surprising form of promotion, a move away from traditional expectations of advertising which aims to continually remind consumers of the product on offer. This direct approach to communicating with audience members also enabled Producers to thank viewers for their interest and support. Actress Vicky McClure directly addresses Twitterers engaging with the show, and producer Richard Stokes thanks and reminds simultaneously:

@Vicky_McClure Thanks for all your lovely Tweets! Love from the Journo team! @pickles_carolyn @jonny_Bailey #Broadchurch x

@RichardStokes7: #Broadchurch tonight - don’t miss the beginning and please watch to the very, very end. Thanks for joining us on the ride

Daisy Cooper

45

Producers utilized the conventions and culture of Twitter, to promote through both traditional methods of reminders and direct engagement with their audience to reward them with additional content and information.

Media Commentators were more balanced - 42% of their Tweets promoted the show. Their promotion appeared to split into two threads: individuals genuinely anticipating the broadcast of the final episode, and institutions simultaneously promoting the show and their own place in the media landscape. TV reviewer for the newspaper The Guardian Julia Raeside engages in promotion of the program, but with a seemingly personal motive, anticipating the story’s conclusion, retweeting the message of Broadchurch’s TV production company Kudos, adding her own sentiment:

@JNRaeside: *chases tail* RT @KudosTV: Less than three hours to go! #Broadchurch

Individual Media Commentators promoting the show are doing so in a manner similar to the Viewers and Celebrities tweeting about the show. Fan lead promotion of the program accounted for 33% of Celebrity Tweets and 30% of Viewers’ Tweets. Both groups appeared to be engaged in promotion by expressing genuine anticipation and excitement.

Celebrity:

@SamanthaFairers: Way too excited for #Broadchurch tonight !!! #whodoneit x

@MattEdmondson: It’s the final of #Broadchurch tonight! YES. Yes. YEEEEEES. @ITV

Daisy Cooper

46

Viewer:

@torygirl170: Morning.....I’m already thinking about THE FINAL #Broadchurch!!

@g_vickers: Im so excited for #broadchurch tonight #whodoneit?

For individual Viewers, who generally directly address a smaller audience of Followers than Celebrity Twitterers, this expression of excitement and correlating promotion of the program represents a contribution to a wider conversation, through expressions of individual taste. Some users did not do more than tweet the Hashtag of the program, without further commentary:

@tamsinbest: #Broadchurch

@cornishladett3: #broadchurch

In this way Viewers are self-identifying their approval of the show and subsequently boosting its profile. Unlike Producers, the main purpose of their Tweets is not to promote the text, but to be part of a fan community. Promotion is a by-product of fandom. This aspect is closely tied to Bourdieu’s assertion that consumption is a reflection of individual cultural understanding. Here Viewers, Celebrities and individual Media Commentators are publicly advertising their culturally based acts of consumption. Navigating their own cultural awareness, determined by context, history and biography, users have selected a cultural text, and a format in which to express their approval of it. Users must have the skill, access and confidence to use Twitter as a forum to discuss and promote their individual choices in order to participate in and define a micro community online.

For Celebrity Twitterers, due to their wider following and capitalization on public image, the appeal of tweeting appears to be twofold: both to express

Daisy Cooper

47

individual excitement, and to gain the kudos of being involved in a popular discussion. They offer a declaration of taste understood and appreciated by an audience of Followers. In this way they are utilizing their publicly perceived promotion of Broadchurch for self-promotion as well by stating a choice that contributes to their own public and cultural image (Page, 2012). Twitter users are able to author and edit a public facing identity, built up in part by declarations of cultural choices.

It is notable that many of the Celebrity Twitterers in the sample are associated with other ITV programming, such as TV Presenters Ant and Dec, Phillip Schofield, The Only Way is Essex’s Samantha Faiers and Coronation Street actor Natalie Gunmede. This promotion of a channel’s content by active agents with a vested interest in promoting the status and perception of the broadcaster’s brand gives some hint at the media power structures at play on the internet (Cammaerts, 2008; Gillespie, 2010).

For Celebrity Twitterers and individual Media Commentators this would be apparent of the blurring of professional and private spheres. Individual Media Commentators are publicly known for their professional endeavors reviewing cultural texts in media outlets such as newspapers. But they use Twitter to comment on private habits and routine, to promote the personal choices of media engagement they will make in their own homes on the evening of 22nd April. Sam Baker, editor of Red Tweets:

@SamBaker: Serious real-time TV dilemma tonight: new ep of #gameofthrones or last ep of #Broadchurch?

In the sample individual Media Commentators do not promote their own products, reviews of the show or outlets where they can be found. They are self-positioned as average viewers but have increased credibility and wider audience reach because of what they do professionally. Their private realities and choices are made into public statements, regarded by others because of the status of the author. Tweeting has placed ‘public and private influx’ in an

Daisy Cooper

48

arena where ‘attention becomes as commodity’ (boyd, 2010, p51). The evidence of this sample supports the view that Twitter is a public/private sphere where users capitalize on their public status to express private activities and taste preferences to an interested group of Followers.

Media Institutions operate in a different way, more in line with the kind of promotion under taken by Producers of the show. TV magazine The Radio Times tweeted about articles they had published about British crime dramas, with Broadchurch as the leading hook, and about their live blog of the final episode:

@RadioTimes: Is Broadchurch the perfect TV murder? radiotimes.com.news/2013-04-22... #Broadchurch

@RadioTimes We’re live blogging the #Broadchurch finale. Feel free to join in and add your thoughts here as we count down to 9pm: radiotimes.com/news/2013-04-2...

Here they are promoting the show, and their own products, engaging with a cultural text with its own following in order to appear tuned into the zeitgeist. They are utilizing their cultural capital to assess a marketplace, and promote their own brand by associating themselves with a valuable and popular text (Bourdieu, 1979). By capitalizing on the cultural legacy of a program such as Broadchurch they gain credibility with a specific audience of viewers. Through tweeting about the show using its Hashtag they are providing audiences with more information in order to make a cultural assessment of their position as reviewer and commentator.

This would appear to be the common thread through all promotion of the show, regardless of the status of the authors. Users wish to express their own understanding of culture and valuations of cultural products so they can be publicly associated with something that they deem to be valuable and

Daisy Cooper

49

appropriate. The motivations for such action shift according to the status of the author: self-promotion by association in the Tweets of Celebrities and Media Commentators; promotion of a product by Producers; a public declaration of taste preference by viewers and individual Media Commentators to a wider audience than those in their immediate surroundings. Users are utilizing the formatting of Twitter and its structural features to align themselves with a product that they see as an expression of their taste and value system, both to the outside world, and to a group of like-minded individuals who are also using the categorization feature to express the same approval. In doing so they have created a temporary community, brought together by a single object (Jenkins, 2006).

4.3.3 Content Analysis of #Broadchurch - Commentary.

Fan lead content discussion was the most significant, accounting for 42% of all Tweets analyzed. Users postulated on the outcome of the mystery before the broadcast:

@paulstanworth: For the record, I’m off the Joe Miller theory. I think we might have all been had on that one #Broadchurch #closure

@char_turner8436: I wonder if alec did it in #Broadchurch ?? thatd be interesting x

@paulstanworth: Going to spend the day finalising my #Broadchurch theory #closure

In doing so, users engaged with the format, and demonstrated their understanding of the product on offer: a mystery with a set conclusion to be revealed in the series finale. Viewers shared their own theories, invited others to discuss theirs and expressed excitement that they would finally know the outcome. In doing so, users were demonstrating a dual process of

Daisy Cooper

50

understanding. Firstly, understanding of the format of the show, and the cultural legacy of a whodunit mystery. Many Tweets were open ended, using question marks and the Hashtag #whodoneit. They were expecting an answer to a problem, created by the authors and commenting on an obligation of the authors to create a satisfactory solution - a social contract understood by both parties due to the genre and expectations of the form. Secondly, users were expressing an understanding of the format of Twitter, as a facilitator of conversation. Couldry, Livingstone and Markham’s view of publics as a groups aligned around a text is at play here, with the Twitter audience as an active public of both Twitter and Broadchurch (Couldry et al. 2004). This was also an aspect of Celebrity Tweets about the content of the program before the finale was aired:

@DianaVickers: #Broadchurch tonight! Can’t wait! The lady coppers kid and husband have got something to do with it big time I think. What are your thoughts?

In categorizing their thoughts on the outcome of the program with the Hashtag #Broadchurch, Fans were addressing those who had also understood the format of the show, and the use of Twitter to discuss it. The imagined audience at play were individuals similarly minded, appreciative of an interesting problem and demanding a satisfactory conclusion. Users were able to address an audience beyond their physical contacts and friends, moving the discussion of the program into a digital arena (Wohn & Na, 2011).

During the program’s broadcast, and after it had been shown, the conversation moved towards discussion of the content. There appear to be two strands of discussion at play: emotional and evaluative. Emotional Tweets directly reflect the product on offer, questioning its logic and content, and expressing reactions to the solution offered:

Daisy Cooper

51

@stanjnr17 @antanddec but was he dead when he was left on beach, why did Pauline Quire take his skateboard, did she finish rhe job #broadchurch

@gazdevere #Broadchurch - wow

@lucy_love92 Broadchurch... Just wow! Can’t believe I didn’t suspect this. #Broadchurch

Evaluative Tweets provided commentary on the show by fans expressing appreciation of the quality of the product on offer: a reflective and removed form of assessment.

@williamcl191: That was a great final episode to #Broadchurch. Great performance by Olivia Coleman and David Tennant

@sammyromie: OMG #Broadchurch tore me apart, I cried through most of the episode. It was such a great series.

@jessespinx: Completely blow away by Olivia Coleman... What a utterly brilliant performance!! #Broadchurch

In emotional commentary on the action as it happens, Viewers are expressing their own immediate reaction to events presented as part of a wider conversation. Expressions of delight, surprise, sorrow and confusion tie together a real-time stream of reactions from Fans wishing to publish their thoughts into a public arena. In evaluative review of the show viewers were taking up a secondary activity, commenting on the value of the text, observing it as a cultural product that they approved of and was worthy of their time, effort and attention, expressing their own cultural context (Williams, 1958).

Daisy Cooper

52

Individual Media Commentators engaged in this process equally, tweeting surprise at the content of the show:

@Allisonpearson - Poor poor Miller #Broadchurch

@alicearnld1 Bloody Hell.. wasn’t expecting that!. #Broadchurch

And approval of the quality and wider cultural form:

@Mariamcerlane But of course brilliant acting. baftas for Coleman and Tenant #broadchurch

@JessC_M: That was seriously classy television (apart from the slug) #Broadchurch

Emotional reaction was also an aspect of institutional Media Commentary of the show:

@heatmagazine Too obvious??? Too soon? They can’t reveal it before the first ad break surely? #broadchurch

Fan Commentary discussing the content of the program is the largest percentage of activity analyzed. This suggests that the ability to do so is a strong motivation for using Twitter in this context, as seen from the activity of three of the four groups analyzed. Producers of the show are much less involved in this kind of discussion, but perhaps this is due to the nature of the programming, where secrecy is paramount, as summed up by casting agent Kelly V Hendry:

Daisy Cooper

53

@kvhendry: Thank god. Was imploding with the juiciest TV secret around. This motor mouth can again drink wine in confidence #broadchurch

This indicates that in order to keep the outcome secret until broadcast Producers of the show were unable to converse about it publicly, online or off. This aspect of the text discussed could explain why Producers did not engage in a high level of commentary activity on Twitter. This is to be expected of their Tweets in the sample, given the format of Broadchurch as a crime drama.

4.3.3.1 Spoilers and the Social Value of Twitter

Discussion online of ‘spoilers’, giving away important details of the plot before a user had a chance to see the program, highlights Twitter’s role as a real-time, updating timeline. Viewer A Rural Me, demonstrates the danger of navigating on Twitter if an individual wants to remain in the dark about content of the show:

@aruralme: My twitter stream full of #broadchurch spoilers. keep flicking past them quickly

But some users go as far as to mockingly comment on the inadvisability of going on Twitter if you wish to avoid knowing the identity of Danny Latimer’s killer, implying that misunderstanding this is a demonstration that individuals have not quite understood the purpose of Twitter. The Celebrity TV presenter Declan Donnelly, utilizing a secondary rhetorical Hashtag, tweets:

@antanddec **SPOILERALERT** if ur trying to avoid finding out whodunnit in #broadchurch, you really shouldn’t be on twitter!! D #NotRocketScience

Comedian Alan Carr also demonstrates that he understands the form by tweeting:

Daisy Cooper

54

@AlanCarr: Just finished watching #broadchurch -was out doing stand-up so kept off twitter - didn't want any spoilers

In this way, users are not just demonstrating an interest in the object of discussion, but also the nature of the format in which it is being discussed. This demonstrates a shared understanding of the context of Twitter (boyd, 2010). An individual must have cultural capital in both mediums to operate confidently and earn the respect of their Twitter peers (boyd, 2006).

4.3.3.2 Fandom and Intertextuality

In this analysis of Tweets, Twitter is an active space, Twitterers using #Broadchurch are likely to feel strongly about the show. There is little scope to analyze users following the conversation on Twitter without actively tweeting. Tweets in the sample regarding Broadchurch are mostly positive, expressing excitement or appreciation. It is hard to gauge the variety of reactions to Broadchurch using this form of examination, and so hard to assess levels of interpretation as championed by Hall (1980c). Those tweeting about the program are stating their advocacy for the show and for Twitter as a medium to discuss and promote it. They engage in digital participation to extend the scope of their opportunities to participate with a product such as TV crime drama. They have been able to discuss predicted outcomes before the advent of Twitter, but Twitter offers a mainstream platform to broadcast those views within a dedicated online thread.

Amongst the sample of these Tweets there are some examples of those lightly mocking the program. There was a small trend of users capitalizing on an audience awareness of other cultural texts and events:

Daisy Cooper

55

@DarkBunnyTees: the #Broadchurch community is so dodgy and weird, it wouldn’t surprise me if David Tennant ends up being burned inside a big wicker man.

@Michaelhogan: Maybe young Danny called Will Mellor “Jambo” and he lost it #Broadchurch

@ q u a n t i c k : R O S E D O N E I T R O S E T Y L E R #Broadchurch

These Tweets, references and jokes rely on an audience’s cultural understanding of the film The Wickerman, and knowledge of prior work of two of the actors in Broadchurch, Will Mellor who played a character called Jambo, and David Tennant who starred opposite a character called Rose Tyler. In this way Twitter is not just a realm for hegemonic praise of the program, but also a place for intertextual references and comment, a networked community in which communication is reliant on the cultural understanding and appreciation of others, as a reflection of offline communication. The community surrounding discussion of Broadchurch online, whilst brought together by the Hashtag of a single cultural text, do not operate in a vacuum. Users bring their own references, experience and explored symbolic meanings into view.

This specific program, with its convention of mystery and outcome in the series finale was commented on in a communal outlet for shared experience by a variety of users categorizing their responses publicly with a Hashtag. Users were able to express their own confidence with navigating two cultural formats: the conventions of the object commented on and the media used to publish the commentary.

Daisy Cooper

56

5. Conclusions

This study, through examination of an example of Hashtag use on Twitter, aimed to demonstrate cultural interaction and expressions mediated by a structural feature unique to internet communication to explore the idea of digital culture. This study hinges on the idea that the internet is both cultural text, and terrain on which cultural actions play out. This was reflected in the methodology, drawn from Hine, examining the website of Twitter as an object and a cultural environment (2000).

5.1 Textual Analysis

Examination of the rhetoric, structural features and graphic design used by Twitter to adopt Hashtags into their ‘official’ culture is firstly demonstrative of the agility of the internet (Gitelman, 2006). Twitter has developed around the popular and organic convention suggested by one of its users. Secondly, we can see the importance of Gillespie and Beer’s focus on the features and design of websites to see power structures which influence users’ behavior (2010, 2009, 2011). Through the introduction of features such as hyperlinking Hashtags, Twitter promotes their use, capitalizing on their association with a culturally recognized convention, and inviting users to adopt Hashtags for a variety of purposes to mediate their interaction online. Hashtags can be considered a demonstration of the internet as a reflection of offline social hierarchies as different agents with degrees of reach and influence use them for promotional, personal and social reasons (O’Neil, 2005; Carpentier, 2009; Fuchs, 2008).

Daisy Cooper

57

5.2 #Broadchurch

Wohn & Na’s study, which provided the basis this exploration of #Broadchurch, drew conclusions about the desire of users to enter into a group conversation about television (2011). The example of #Broadchurch clearly reinforces and demonstrates this since the most significant category of Tweets was Fan Lead Content Discussion (42.5%), and the fact that users occasionally simply tweeted #Broadchurch alone. This is a demonstration of remediation, since activity on Twitter is directly informed and shaped by engagement with another form of media (Bolter & Grusin, 200). This paper also examined the role of the author in determining reasons for Tweeting about a cultural text. Moving away from Wohn & Na’s focus on the emotional content of users’ Tweets, this study cross-referenced authorship with engagement with the idea of the text, and the content it provided.

5.2.1 Promotion

Promotion through the use of #Broadchurch came predominately from its Producers, but in a demonstration of the many layers of purpose and polysemic interpretation of Tweets, promotion (whether direct or indirect) came from all other groups as well. The choice of Producers’ promotional methods revealed that Twitter was not simply used as an advertising avenue, Producers also offered rewards of additional content to viewers engaging with the program via Twitter. This, and Producers thanking Twitterers for their interest in the program, is demonstrative of Larrson and Agerfalk’s conclusions that Twitter is a tool for corporations to open up a line of dialogue with their consumers (2013).

Daisy Cooper

58

Analysis of #Broadchurch demonstrates some of the power structures at play in this created cultural text, a microcosmic society that holds structures of differentiation based on status and reflective of external hierarchies. As shown by the role of Producers in the conversation and the engagement of Media Commentary Organizations with #Broadchurch, capitalizing on the popularity of the show to cross promote their own services. This along with Celebrities affiliated with ITV using #Broadchurch, indicates the capitalist structures that influence communication online (Cammaerts, 2008).

5.2.2 Content Discussion

Examination of the content discussion of #Broadchurch indicates Twitter blurs the boundary between public and private space, with individual Media Commentators self-positioned as average viewers, and Fan Lead Content Discussion, inspired by personal reactions and thoughts on a domestic activity representing 42.5% of Tweets.

Three of the four groups analyzed dedicated significant energy to engaging with the content of the show. Fans undertake a secondary process of engagement through tweeting amateur review and evaluation of Broadchurch, whereas Media Commentator’s reviews are predominately saved for their own publications. In this space users advertise their consumptive choices based on their cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1979). Advertising this choice is engagement with signifying code, demonstrating approval of Broadchurch to a group of like-minded individuals.

Using Twitter Hashtags to advertise comments on the program’s content demonstrates online navigational skills, appreciation for the societal rules of Twitter and understanding of the format and tradition of the cultural text of

Daisy Cooper

59

Broadchurch (Hsieh, 2012; Williams, 1958). This process is informed by individual efforts of self-authoring, which reflect their own personal cultural information and navigation (Markwick & boyd, 2010; Williams, 1958). Twitter is shown to be an inter-textual landscape, where external references to other cultural texts and reference to mutually understood behaviors (such as avoiding spoilers) is shown. These mutually understood behaviors are similar to those promoted by Wikipedia, or found mediating activity on MySpace (Reagle, 2010; boyd, 2006). The process of using the structural feature of the Hashtag is a demonstration of Williams’ theory that culture is a process of evaluation, observation and experimentation: a person’s ‘whole way of life’ dictates their navigation in the cultural environment of Twitter (1958).

5.2.3 Methodological Notes

Research into #Broadchurch demonstrated that the initially assumed distinction between Viewers and Media Commentators was not straight forward. If we delineated further, between individual Media Commentators and corporate Media Commentators it was clear that the former used Twitter to comment about Broadchurch in a manner similar to Fans of the show. This suggested that these individuals use Twitter to draw together the professional and private spheres, commenting on objects of their professional scrutiny from a private position.

5.3 Recommendations for Further Study

Further study into this area of digital culture could benefit from further knowledge of Twitterers: their viewing environment, tastes, Twitter habits and cultural background. Examination of external circumstances such as media commentary about and promotion of the TV program, legacy of its authors,

Daisy Cooper

60

and other events occurring on the same night which could influence viewers’ attention, would also benefit further study. An examination of both sides of digital interaction, from the perspective of the internet and offline contexts could aid further understanding of digital culture and the way it is mediated by users and architects. This investigation of theory and case study recommends continued examination of the internet as both a cultural text and playground for cultural expression.

5.4 Summary

The functions and features of a website, whether corporately created, or organically grown from the continually repeated habits of users, mediates interaction in an online medium where offline social imperatives play out. The two factors which define the internet as product and space are in continual dialogue, influencing each other, users and creators. This shapes users’ behavior: ‘people are learning to work within the constraints and possibilities of mediated architecture, just as people have always learned to navigate structure as part of their daily lives’ (boyd, 2010, p59). The internet is a microcosmic representation of culture as experience and text, and this examination shows we must address the structures and players, and the relationship between them to further our understanding of digital culture.

Daisy Cooper

61

6. References.

Allen, M., 2008. Web 2.0: An Argument against convergence. First Monday, ! 13(3).

Allen, M., 2013. What was Web 2.0? Versions as the dominant mode of ! internet history. New Media Society, 15(2). pp.260 - 27.

Anderson, C., 2006. The Long Tail: How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited ! Demand. London: Random House Business Books

Anderson, C., 2012. Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. London: Random ! House Business Books

Arnold, M., 1869. Culture and Anarchy. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bakker, T.P. & De Vresse, C.H., 2011. Good news for the future? Young ! people, Internet use and political participation. Communication ! Research, 38(4). pp.51-470.

Barassi, V. & Tere, E., 2012. Does Web 3.0 come after Web 2.0? ! Deconstructing Theoretical Assumption Through Practice. New Media ! Society, 14(8). pp.1269-1285.

Barker, C. & Galasinki, D., 2001. Cultural Studies & Discourse Analysis: A ! Dialogue on !Language and Identity. London: Sage Publications.

BBC, 2011. England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up. BBC ! NEWS [online] 9 August. Available at: ! <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14456857>! [Accessed 30 July 2013]

Daisy Cooper

62

https://blog.twitter.com/2013/how-to-choose-a-hashtag


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14456857

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14456857

Beer, D., 2009. Power through the Algorithm? Participatory Web Culture and ! the Technological Unconscious. New Media Society, 11(6). pp.! 985-1002.

Beer, D. & Burrows, R., 2010. Consumption, Prosumption and Participatory ! Web Culture: An Introduction. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(3). ! pp.3-12.

Bennett, S., 2012. Twitter on Track for 500 Million total Users By March, 250 ! Million Active Users by End of 2012. Media Bistro [online] 13 January. ! Available at: <http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/twitter-active-total- ! users_b17655> [Accessed 19 August 2013]

Berners-Lee T., Hall, W., Hendler J.A., O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N. & Weitzner, ! D.J., 2006. A Framework for Web Science. Foundations and Trends in ! Web Science, 1(1). Available at: ! <http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1800000001> [Accessed 4 August 2013]

Blogger, 2013. Blogger About page. [online] Available at: ! <https://www.blogger.com/tour_start.g> [Accessed 20 August 2013]

Bolter, J. D. & Grusin, R., 2000. Remediation: Understanding New Media. ! Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Booth, W., Colomb, G.G., Williams, J.M., 2008. The Craft of Research, Third ! Edition (Chicago Guides to Writing). 3rd ed. [Kindle Edition]. The ! University of Chicago Press. Available at: Amazon.co.uk ! <http://www.amazon.co.uk> [Accessed 25 July 2013].

Bourdieu, P., 1979. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. ! [Kindle edition] Translated from French by R. Nice.,1984. Routledge ! Classics. Available at: Amazon.co.uk <http://www.amazon.co.uk> ! [Accessed 25 July 2013].

Daisy Cooper

63

http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/twitter-active-total-users_b17655




http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1800000001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1800000001

https://www.blogger.com/tour_start.g

https://www.blogger.com/tour_start.g

http://www.amazon.co.uk




boyd, d., 2006. Friend, Friendsters and Myspace Top 8: Writing community ! into being on Social Networking Sites. First Monday, 11.

boyd, d. 2010. Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordance, ! Dynamics and Implications. In Z Papacharissi, ed. Networked Self: ! Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. London: ! Routledge. pp.39-58.

Buckingham, D., 2008. Youth, Identify and Digital Media. Cambridge MA: MIT ! Press.

Butler, J., 1997. Further Reflections on Conversations of Our Time. Diacritics, ! 27(1), pp.13-15.

Cammaerts, B., 2008. Critiques on the Participatory Potentials of Web 2.0. ! Communication Culture & Critique, 1. pp.358-377.]

Carpentier, N., 2009. Participation is not enough: The Conditions of Possibility ! of Mediated Participatory Practices. European Journal of ! Communication, 24(4). pp.407 - 420.

CNBC, 2013. Meet the Hashtag Godfather. [video online] Available at: ! <http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000188643> ! [Accessed 19 August 2013]

Collins, S., 2010. Digital Fair: Prosumption and the Fair Use Defense. Journal ! of Consumer Culture, 10(1). pp.37-55.

Couldry, N., Livingston, S., & Markham, T., 2004. Media Consumption and ! Public Connection: Beyond the Presumption of Attention. Hampshire, ! UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Daisy Cooper

64

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000188643

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000188643

Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Koed Madsen, A., Mackay, H. and Negus, K., ! 2013. Doing !Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. 2nd ed. ! London: Sage Publications

Dvorak, J., 2006. Web 2.0 Baloney. PCmag.com, [online] 1 March, Available ! at: <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1931858,00.asp> [! Accessed 25 August 2013]

Ellis, J., 1980. Ideology and Subjectivity. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe & P ! Willis, ed. 1992. Culture, Media, Language. London: Routledge. ! pp.186-194.

Farber, D. Twitter Users spawn 24.1 millions super bowl game Tweets. CNET ! [online] 3 February. Available at <http://news.cnet.com/! 8301-1023_3-57567363-93/twitter-users-spawn-24.1-million-super- ! bowl-game-tweets/> [Accessed on 26 August 2013]

Fogg, B.J. & Tseng, H., 1999. The Element of Computer Credibility. In: ! SIGCHI Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction), ! CHI’99 Conference on Human factors in computing systems. ! Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15-20 May 1999. New York: ACM. pp.80-87.

Fuchs, C., 2008. Internet & Society: Social Theory in the Information Age. New ! York: !Routledge

Gannes, L., 2010. The Short and illustrious History of Twitter #Hashtags. ! Gigacom [online] 30 April. Available at: ! <http://gigaom.com/2010/04/30/the-short-and-illustrious-history-of-! twitter-hashtags/ > [Accessed 19 August 2013]

Gillespie, T., 2010. The Politics of Platform. New Media Society, 12(30). !! pp.347-362.

Daisy Cooper

65

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1931858,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1931858,00.asp

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57567363-93/twitter-users-spawn-24.1-million-super-bowl-game-tweets/






http://gigaom.com/2010/04/30/the-short-and-illustrious-history-of-twitter-hashtags/




Gitelman, L., 2006. Always Already New: Media History and The Data of ! Culture. [Kindle Edition] MIT Press Available at : Amazon.co.uk ! <http://www.amazon.co.uk> [Accessed 5 September 2013]

Greenfield, R., 2013. Wedding Hashtag Season Has Arrived. The Atlantic Wire ! [online] 28 June. Available at: <http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/ ! 2013/06/wedding-hashtags/66552/> [Accessed 3 September 2013]

Hall, S., 1980. Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms. Media Culture & Society, 2, ! pp.57-72 (a)

Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., Willis, P., (eds), 1992. Culture, Media, ! Language. London: Routledge (b)

Hall, S., 1980. Encoding & Decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe & P ! Willis, ed. 1992. Culture, Media, Language. London: Routledge. ! pp.128-138. (c)

Hargittai, E & Litt, E., 2011. The tweet smell of celebrity success: Explaining ! variations in !Twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults. ! New Media & Society, 13(5). pp.824-842.

Harsin, J. & Hayward, M., 2013. Stuart Hall’s “Deconstructing the Popular”: ! Reconsiderations 30 years later. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6. ! pp.201-207

Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D., & Vogel, D., 2003. Internet Research ! Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. ! London: Sage Publications.

Highmore, B., 2011. Ordinary lives: Studies in the Everyday. [Kindle Edition]. ! Routledge Available at : Amazon.co.uk <http://www.amazon.co.uk> ! [Accessed 10 December 2012]

Daisy Cooper

66



http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/wedding-hashtags/66552/






Hine, C., 2000. Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage Publications.

Honeycutt, C. & Herring, S,C., 2009. Beyond Mircoblogging: Conversation and ! collaboration via Twitter. In: HICSS (Hawaii International Conference on ! System Sciences), Forty Second Hawaii International conference on ! System Science. Hawaii, USA, 5-8 January 2009. Los Alamitos. CA: ! IEEE Press.

Huberman, B.A., Romero, D.M. & Wu, F., 2009. Social Networks that matter: ! Twitter under the microscope. First Monday. 14(1)

Hsieh, Y.P. (2012). Online Social Networking Skills: The Social affordances ! approach to !digital inequality. First Monday, 17(4).

Humphreys, L. Gill, P. Krishnamurthy , B. & Newbury, E., 2013. Historicizing ! New Media: A content analysis of Twitter. Journal of Communication, ! 63. pp.413-431.

Jenkins, H., 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and new Media Collide. ! [Kindle Edition]. New York University Press. Available at: Amazon.co.uk ! <http://www.amazon.co.uk> [Accessed 11 August 2013]

Jessen, J. & Helms Jorgensen, A., 2012. Aggregated Untrustworthiness: ! Redefining Online Credibility through Social Validation. First Monday, ! 17(1).

Jurgenson, N. & Ritzer, G., 2010. Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The ! Nature of Capitalism in the age of the Digital ‘Prosumer’. Journal of ! Consumer Culture, !10(13). pp. 3-36.

Keen, A., 2008. The Cult of the amateur: How blogs, MySpace, YouTube and ! the rest of today’s user generated media are destroying our economy,

Daisy Cooper

67



! our culture and our values. [Kindle edition]. Nicholas Brealey ! Publishing. Available at : Amazon.co.uk <http://www.amazon.co.uk> ! [Accessed 3 August 2013]

Larrson, A.O. & Ägerfalk, P.J., 2013. Snowing Freezing ... Tweeting? ! Organizational Twitter use during Crisis. First Monday, 18(6).

Lovelink, G., 2008. Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Culture. ! New York: Routledge

Macmillan, Gordon. 2013. How to Chose a Hashtag. Twitter blog, [blog] 21 ! August. Available at: <https://blog.twitter.com/2013/how-to-choose-a- ! hashtag> [Accessed on 25 August 2013]

Martinson, J., 2013. Police act to halt sex harrassment on London buses and ! trains. The Guardian [online] 22 July. Available at: ! <http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/ ! jul/22/sexual- ! harassment-london-transport> [Accessed 30 July 2013]

Marwick, E. & boyd, d., 2010. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter ! users, context collapse and the imagined audience. New Media and ! Society, 13(1). pp.114 - 133.

Metro TV Reporter, 2013. Broadchurch finale a ratings winner as over 9m tune ! in to find out Danny Latimer murderer is. Metro UK [online] 23 April. ! Available at: <http:// metro.co.uk/2013/04/23/broadchurch-finale-a-! ratings-winner-as-over-9m-tune-in-to- ! find-out-who-danny-latimer- ! murderer-is-3663122/> [Accessed 30 July 2013]

Millard, D. & Ross, M., 2006. Web 2.0: Hypertext by any other name? In: ! Hypertext ’06 Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on

Daisy Cooper

68







http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/22/sexual-harassment-london-transport





http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/23/broadchurch-finale-a-ratings-winner-as-over-9m-tune-in-to-find-out-who-danny-latimer-murderer-is-3663122/







! Hypertext and Hypermedia. Odense, Denmark, 22-25 August 2006. ! New York: ACM. pp.27-30.

Moore, K., 2013. Twitter ‘report abuse’ button calls after rape threats. BBC ! News [online] 27 July. Available at: ! <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23477130> ! [Accessed 30 July 2013]

O’Neil, M., 2005. Weblogs and Authority. In: University Technology Sydney, ! Blogtalk Downunder. Sydney, Australia 19-22 May 2005. Available ! at:<http://www.academia.edu/713591/Weblogs_and_authority> ! [Accessed 25 July 2013]

O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0 : Design Patterns and Business Models ! from the Next generation of Software. O’Reilly Media. Available at:! <http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html> [Accessed 25 ! July 2013]

O’Reilly, T & Battelle, J., 2009. Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years on. O’Reilly ! Media. Available at:! <http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194> ! [Accessed 25 July 2013]

Ostman, J., 2012. Information, Expression, Participation: How involvement in ! user-! generated content relates to democratic engagement among ! young people. New !Media & Society, 14(6). pp.1004-1021.

Our Foreign Staff, 2012. McDonalds’s #McDStories Twitter campaign ! backfires. Telegraph [online] 24 January. Available at: ! <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/ 9034883/McDonalds- ! McDStories-Twitter-13campaign-backfires.html> [Accessed 19 August ! 2013]

Daisy Cooper

69

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23477130

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23477130

http://www.academia.edu/713591/Weblogs_and_authority

http://www.academia.edu/713591/Weblogs_and_authority

http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194

http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/9034883/McDonalds-McDStories-Twitter-campaign-backfires.html





Page, R., 2012. The Linguistics of self branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: ! The role of Hashtags. Discourse & communication. 6(2). pp.181-201

Pelaprat, E. & Brown, B., 2012. Reciprocity: Understanding online social ! relations. First Monday, 17(10).

Philo, G., 2008. Active Audiences and the Construction of Public Knowledge. ! Journalism Studies, 9(4), pp.535-544

Pickering, M. ed., 2011. Research Methods for Cultural Studies. Edinburgh: ! Edinburgh University Press.

Reagle, J.M., 2010. Good faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. ! [Kindle Edition]. MIT Press. Available at : Amazon.co.uk ! <http://www.amazon.co.uk> [Accessed 3 August 2013]

Roscoe, T., 1999. The construction of the World Wide Web Audience. Media ! Culture & Society, 21(5). pp.673-684.

Selvin, J., 2000. The Internet and Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Soundcloud, 2013. Soundcloud Homepage. [online] Available at: ! <https://soundcloud.com/> [Accessed 23 August 2013]

Swetnam, D. & Swetnam, R., 2000. Writing Your Dissertation (The How To ! Series). 3rd ed. [Kindle Edition]. How To Books Ltd. Available at: ! Amazon.co.uk <http://www.amazon.co.uk> [Accessed 25 July 2013].

Tapscott, D. & Williams, A., 2008. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration ! Changes Everything. London: Atlantic Books

Daisy Cooper

70



https://soundcloud.com/

https://soundcloud.com/



Tanjea, H., Webster, J.G., Malthouse, E.C. & Ksiazek, T.B., 2012. !Media ! Consumption across Platforms: Identifying User-defined repertoires. ! New Media & Society. 14(6). pp. 951-968

Topsy, 2013. Topsy Homepage. [online] Available at: <http://topsy.com/> ! [Accessed 4 !August 2013]

Twitter, 2013. Twitter Homage. [online] Available at: <http://www.twitter.com> ! [Accessed 1 !July 2013]

Twitter, 2013. Twitter Support pages - Using Hashtags. [online] Available at ! <https://support.twitter.com/articles/49309-using-hashtags-on-twitter> ! [Accessed 15 August 2013]

Van Dijck, J. & Nieborg, D., 2009. Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical ! analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5). ! pp.885-874.

White, M., 2010. What a Mess: eBay’s narratives about personalization, ! hetrosexuality and disordered homes. Journal of Consumer Culture, ! 10(3). pp.80-104.

Williams, E., 2008. How @ replies work on Twitter (and how they might). ! Twitter!blog, ! [blog] 12 May, Available at: <https://blog.twitter.com/2008/ ! how-replies-work-twitter-and-how-they-might> [Accessed on 25 August ! 2013]

Williams, R., 1958. Culture is Ordinary In: Williams, R., 1989. Resources of ! Hope: Culture Democracy, Socialism. London: Verso. pp.3-14.

Wohn, D.Y. & Na, E., 2011. Tweeting about TV: Sharing Television viewing ! experiences via social media message streams. First Monday, 16 (3).

Daisy Cooper

71

http://topsy.com/

http://topsy.com/

http://www.twitter.com

http://www.twitter.com

https://support.twitter.com/articles/49309-using-hashtags-on-twitter

https://support.twitter.com/articles/49309-using-hashtags-on-twitter

https://blog.twitter.com/2008/how-replies-work-twitter-and-how-they-might




YouTube, 2013. YouTube Homepage. [online] Available at: ! <http://www.youtube.com> [Accessed 20 August 2013]

Daisy Cooper

72

http://www.youtube.com

http://www.youtube.com

Appendix 1

Description of Twitter

Twitter is a website that was launched in 2006. It has been described as both a Micro Blogging Site (O’Rielly, 2009) and a Social Network (Huberman et al. 2009). As of 2012 it is approximated that Twitter has 100 million active users (those who log on at least once a month) and 500 million registered users (Bennett, 2012). On Sunday 3rd February 2013 Twitter registered 24.1 million posts during the American Super Bowl, a record high for a single 24 hour period (Farber, 2013).

Users can access the website directly via the internet, through mobile applications such as Tweetbot, and through web applications such as Tweetdeck. Once on the site users can post short status updates of up to 140 characters and view the status updates of others. These status updates are publicly available to all users and observers of the site by default. Private accounts can be set up, but they constitute a significantly smaller proportion of activity on Twitter (Marwick & boyd, 2010).

Glossary of Terms

• Tweet ! 140 character status updates are known as Tweets. They can include ! text, external links to websites, images, video and sound files.

• Twitterers and Tweeters! Twitter users are commonly know as Twitterers or Tweeters, they have ! their own publicly available profile page which is self-authored and ! maintained, including biographical information, interests and a profile ! photo. Information on a profile page does not have to be accurate to

Daisy Cooper

73

! real life, or specific to a single individual and so users can create ! anonymous accounts or corporate ones. All Tweets are clearly marked ! as authored by a specific Twitterer.

• Followers! Twitterers elect to ‘follow’ other users of the site, if user Alan follows ! user Barbara, then user Alan will see user Barbara’s Tweets appear in ! his ‘timeline’. However, the action does not cause user Barbara to ! automatically see user Alan’s Tweets appear in her timeline, she would ! have chose to follow user Alan back. All Twitterers have a ‘following’ ! and ‘Followers’ counter attached their profile page, and details of who is ! following whom can be publicly seen by clicking on these counters to ! access lists. Due this format of following high profile accounts have a ! disproportionate number of Followers to the number of users they are ! following, for example, as of 15th August 2013, the account ! @BarackObama belonging to the current American President and his ! staff follows 659,128 Twitterers, but is followed by 35,320,703.

• Timeline! The timeline is the format that presents Tweets from users followed to ! each! Twitterer - a list of all the Tweets sent by those that a user is ! following, in chronological order. Twitter auto-updates a notification of ! new Tweets that have been sent whilst a user is browsing content in ! their timeline. Other Tweets that appear in a user’s timeline, besides ! those of users they are specifically following are those of ‘Promoted ! Tweets’ - a form of targeted advertising.

• Hashtags ! Hashtags are a way of categorizing Tweets that is adopted by users ! rather than an automatic process. The convention is to enter ‘#subject’ ! into the body of a Tweet. Adding the prefix # to keywords or phrases ! makes Tweets searchable by grouping them. Users can search for

Daisy Cooper

74

! specific Hashtags and see a returned list of all Tweets with that ! Hashtag. In this way Twitter is able to monitor what subjects are ! ‘trending’, and tally the top 10 ‘Trending Topics’ at any given time. Users ! can see what subjects are trending, and can amend settings so they ! are given information about trending topics in specific locations, ! countries or cities.

• @username! All users have an @username which can be any string of text and ! numbers as long as it is unique and not already registered. In order ! to direct Tweets to a specific user, Twitterers can place ‘@username’ of ! the user they wish to address in the body of a 140 character Tweet.

• Retweet! The Retweet function allows users to re-publishing another user’s ! Tweet so that it appears in their own stream of Tweets seen by their ! Followers. The use of the Retweet function is graphically indicated, so ! Followers can see it was originally authored by someone else, not the ! Retweeter.

• Direct Message! Twitterers can send direct messages to users that are private and do ! not appear in any timelines.

Daisy Cooper

75

Appendix 2. Image of Twitter with Key of features.

1. Link to Profile Information! ! 7. Timeline2. Following Counter! ! ! 8. Promoted Tweet3. Followers counter! ! ! 9. Hashtag4.Compose New Tweet! ! ! 10. Directed Tweet5. Search! ! ! ! ! 11. Retweet6. New Tweet Notification ! ! ! 12. Trending Topics

Daisy Cooper

76

Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.

Documents

Transcript of Mediation of Structural Features Online - Exploring the Twitter Hashtag.