In this article, the intricate relationship between the logic of damage as an act of political communication and its mediation is addressed. The mediation of protest by mainstream media is often deemed to be one-sided, biased in favor of the establishment and predominantly antiprotest, focusing on the spectacular crowding out real debate on the issues. A content analysis of the 2010 U.K. student protests as reported by four U.K. newspapers found this to be only partially true. The use of symbolic damage tactics by the protesters did not squeeze out attention for the issues, rather it increased media attention and coverage considerably. Militant voices were more quoted and given more space in articles than moderate voices. In all newspapers there was a degree of understanding for the anger of the students, but the use of symbolic damage tactics did produce much negative exposure. The use of symbolic damage tactics not only relates to a mainstream media opportunity structure, creating spectacle and drama, but also potentially produces division, negative representation, and delegitimization. Finally, the use of insurrectionary symbolic damage is a reminder of the failings of representative democracy in how it deals with political conflicts.
BarryAndrew. 2001. Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society. London: Athlone Press.
2.
BroussePaul. 1877. “La propagande par le fait” [Propaganda by the Deed]. Bulletin de la Federation Jurassienne, August5.
3.
CammaertsBart. 2012. “Protest Logics and the Mediation Opportunity Structure.” European Journal of Communication27 (2): 117–34.
4.
CammaertsBartCarpentierNico. 2009. “Blogging the 2003
Iraq War: Challenging the Ideological Model of War and Mainstream Journalism?” Observatorio3 (2). http://www.obs.obercom.pt/ (accessed June 20, 2013).
5.
CarterApril. 2005. Direct Action and Democracy Today. Cambridge: Polity.
6.
ChomskyNoam. 2002. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. 2nd Edition.New York: Seven Stories Press.
7.
CohenStanley. 1972. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and the Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
8.
CottleSimon. 2008. “Reporting Demonstrations: The Changing Media Politics of Dissent.” Media, Culture and Society30 (6): 853–72.
9.
della PortaDonatella. 1995. Social Movements, Political Violence, and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
della PortaDonatella. 1999. “Protest, Protesters, and Protest Policing.” In How Social Movements Matter, ed. GuiniMarco G.McAdamDougTillyCharles, 66–96. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
11.
della PortaDonatellaDianiMario. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
12.
DeLucaKevin Michael. 1999. Image Politics: The New Rhetoric of Environmental Activism. New York: Guilford Press.
13.
DeLucaKevin MichaelPeeplesJennifer. 2002. “From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the ‘Violence’ of Seattle.” Critical Studies in Media Communication19 (2): 125–51.
14.
DonsonFionaChestersGraemeWelshIanTickleAndrew. 2004. “Rebels with a Cause, Folk Devils without a Panic: Press Jingoism, Policing Tactics and Anti-Capitalist Protest in London and Prague.” Internet Journal of Criminology. http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Donson%20et%20al%20-%20Folkdevils.pdf (accessed June 22, 2013).
15.
EldridgeJohn. 1995. Glasgow Media Group Reader, Volume One: News Content, Language and Visuals. London: Routledge.
16.
EtzioniAmitai. 1970. Demonstration Democracy. New York: Gordon and Breach.
17.
EubankWilliamWeinbergLeonard. 2001. “Terrorism and Democracy: Perpetrators and Victims.” Terrorism and Political Violence13 (1): 155–64.
18.
GamsonWilliam A.WolfsfeldGadi. 1993. “Movements and Media As Interacting Systems.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science528:114–27.
19.
GitlinTodd. 1980. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
20.
HalloranJames D.ElliottPhilipMurdockGraham. 1970. Demonstrations and Communication: A Case Study. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
HewsonPaul. 2005. “‘It’s the Politics, Stupid.’ How Neoliberal Politicians, NGOs and Rock Stars Hijacked the Global Justice Movement at Gleneagles . . . and How We Let Them.” In Shut Them Down! The G8, Gleneagles 2005 and the Movement of Movements, ed. HarvieDavidMilburnKeirTrottBenWattsDavid, 135–50. Leeds, UK: Dissent! and Autonomedia.
23.
HobbesThomas. (1651) 2004. Leviathan: Or the Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil. New York: Barnes & Noble.
24.
HonderichTed. 1989. Violence for Equality: Inquiries in Political Philosophy. 3rd Edition.London: Routledge.
25.
KeaneJohn. 2004. Violence and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
MalatestaErrico. 1995. “Anarchy and Violence.” In The Anarchist Revolution. Polemical Articles 1924-1931, ed. MalatestappErrico, 59-61. London: Freedom Press.
27.
McChesneyRobert W.2008. The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. New York: Monthly Review Press.
28.
McCurdyPatrick. 2008. “Inside the Media Event: Examining the Media Practices of Dissent! At the Hori-Zone Eco-Village at the 2005 G8 Gleneagles Summit.” Communications—The European Journal of Communication Research33 (3): 295–313.
NieburgHarold Leonard. 1962. “The Threat of Violence and Social Change.” American Political Science Review56:865–73.
31.
OliverPamela E.ManeyGregory M.2000. “Political Processes and Local Newspaper Coverage of Protest Events: From Selection Bias to Triadic Interactions.” American Journal of Sociology106 (2): 463–505.
32.
PurvisJune. 2005. “The Suffragette and Women’s History.” Women’s History Review14 (3–4): 357–64.
33.
RousseauJean-Jacques. 1755. Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes [Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men]. Amsterdam: Marc-Michel Rey.
34.
RuchtDieter. 2004. “The Quadruple ‘A’: Media Strategies of Protest Movements since the 1960s.” In Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens, and Social Movements, ed. van de DonkWimLoaderBrian D.NixonPaul G.RuchtDieter, 29–58. London: Routledge.
35.
RuchtDieter. 2013. “Protest Movements and Their Media Usages.” In Protest Movements and Mediation, ed. CammaertsBartMatoniAliceMcCurdyPatrick, 249–68. Bristol: Intellect.
36.
ScalmerSean. 2002. Dissent Events: Protest, the Media and the Political Gimmick in Australia. Kensington: University of New South Wales Press.
37.
TaylorCharles. 2002. “Modern Social Imaginaries.” Public Culture14 (1): 91–124.
38.
TillyCharles. 1986. The Contentious French. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
39.
TillyCharles. 2000. “Violent and Nonviolent Trajectories in Contentious Politics.” Paper presented at the Symposium on States in Transition and the Challenge of Ethnic Conflict at the Russian Academy of Sciences/U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Moscow. http://130.203.133.150/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.8.6842 (accessed June 22, 2013).
40.
Van ZoonenElizabeth A.1992. “The Women’s Movement and the Media: Constructing a Public Identity.” European Journal of Communication7 (4): 453–76.
41.
WilliamsGwyn. 2008. Struggles for an Alternative Globalisation: An Ethnography of Counter Power in Southern France. Aldershot: Ashgate.
