Received: 27 October 2017 Revised: 25 February 2018 Accepted: 15 March 2018

DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12584

ARTICLE

Revisiting mediated activism

Silvio Waisbord

School of Media and Public Affairs, George

Washington University Abstract
Correspondence In this paper, my interest is to map out central arguments in
Silvio Waisbord, School of Media and Public
recent studies of mediated activism, identify blindspots, and
Affairs, George Washington University,
Washington, DC 20052, USA. call for a sociological approach to link the study of media
Email: waisbord@gwu.edu
activism to a broad conception of social change. On a sub-
ject that brings together various disciplines and fields of
inquiry, a sociological sensitivity to multiple forms of media
activism and social change is necessary to understand not
only what activists do with media but also the contributions
of mediated activism to collective action and social change.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

Sociologists and scholars from other disciplines have recently paid significant attention to mediated activism. Here, I
espouse a broad understanding of mediated activism in terms of tactics, goals, and platforms. It refers to the uses of
media technologies and institutions for collective action which includes expressing demands, giving visibility to iden-
tities, promoting dialogue, raising awareness about social problems and solutions, petitioning authorities, boycotting
products, and advocating for policy and legal changes.1 Mediated activism should not be narrowly associated with
one type of tactics such as protest nor should it be identified exclusively with particular political or ideological goals
and movements, such as prodemocracy or anti‐capitalism. It is engaged with a range of public issues—from environ-
mental policies to domestic violence, from racism to sexism, regardless of ideological underpinnings and objectives.
In this article, my interest is to revisit recent arguments about mediated activism in relation to digital collective
action in order to identify blindspots and call for an approach that links the study of mediated activism to a broad
conception of social change. A sociological sensitivity is not only interested in understanding how activists used
media to achieve social change; it also connects mediated activism to central sociological questions about social
agency, stratification, institutions, and identity.

2 | INNOVATIONS

There has been a remarkable amount of scholarly interest in digital activism during the past decade as reflected by
copious numbers of monographs and edited books, special issues in journals, and articles. Certainly, mediated
activism is more than digital activism, especially considering that roughly half of the global population lacks Internet
access and that the quality of access among the other half is highly uneven. In the din of debates about digital

Sociology Compass. 2018;e12584. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/soc4 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1 of 9
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12584
2 of 9 WAISBORD

activism, it is often forgotten that citizens continue to use nondigital media to participate in public affairs across the
world, such as community radio (Dunbar‐Hester, 2014), documentaries (Robé, Wolfson, & Funke, 2016), and low‐
powered television. Yet digital activism has become the gravitational analytical center in the literature given the
ascent of digital‐enabled participation coupled with built‐in biases of academic geography, namely, the large pool
of scholars interested in mediated activism based in the global North where quality Internet access is the highest
in the world.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico, and anti‐globalization move-
ments in Western cities demonstrated new possibilities for Internet‐mediated activism. During the past decade,
major social movements and protest actions featured innovative forms of digital activism, too (Castells, 2012). The
Occupy (Gitlin, 2012) and Black Lives Matter (Freelon, McIlwain, & Clark, in press) movements in the United States,
Spain's Indignados and similar uprisings in other European countries, anti‐political establishment movements like
Italy's 5 Star movement (Natale & Ballatore, 2014), and the so‐called “Arab Spring” (Howard & Muzammil, 2013)
became emblematic of digital activism. Likewise, the popularity of social media platforms spawned countless, regular
cases of digital activism. From #BringBackOurGirls to #MeToo, numerous examples of hashtag and Facebook‐
mediated activism have become common.
Underlying this voluminous literature is the notion that digital activism has disrupted the old relationship
between media and collective action (Earl & Kimport, 2011). The “media” are no longer just a set of instruments that
citizens use to communicate with various publics in pursuit of diverse goals. As the argument goes, digital platforms
are not simply additions to the communication toolkit of collective politics. They have engendered new forms of
activism that were not possible during the times of analog media. In the pre‐Internet days, the technological and
industrial attributes of old media limited both the opportunities and the type of mediated activism. The hierarchical,
one‐way structure of broadcasting and print media put the power in the hands of governments, private corporations,
and media workers. High costs to access, maintenance, and management significantly limited opportunities for using
legacy media for public action. A combination of journalistic, ideological, and corporate biases explained why the
media ignored, selectively covered, and/or distorted activists and their demands.
In the predigital days, mediated activism primarily consisted of two forms. One form was news and media
advocacy aimed at shaping news coverage and media representations of movements, public issues, and demands.
Organized citizens struggled to influence the media to gain visibility and broaden representations. Such actions were
premised on the conviction that media content affected public perception about specific issues and demands for
social change. Another form of activism took place in the alternative, citizens' media (Lievrouw, 2011; Milan, 2013)
—from zines to community radio. Throughout the world, citizens made extensive use of low‐cost, easy‐to‐access
technologies to promote expression, dialogue, and action. These experiences were typically aligned with organized,
grassroots movements that were critical of the mainstream media.
Digital activism has broken up the traditional nexus between media and activism. No longer the media are
centralized institutions that activists aim to influence to draw attention or to mobilize to garner support for their
causes nor are the alternative media the only vehicles for popular expression that keep governments and corpora-
tions at a distance. Instead, the Internet offers myriad opportunities for citizenship. At a time of abundant oppor-
tunities for public communication, the meaning and the practices of mediated activism have radically changed.
Today, the concept of “the media” refers to a panoply of tools and platforms used to engage individually and
collectively in public life. The mediatization of public life brought about the proliferation of opportunities for
activism. Old divisions between mainstream and alternative media become less obvious as activists regularly use
corporate‐controlled platforms, such as blogs, messaging services, and social networking sites to pursue a wide
range of public goals.
Digital activism is not just the expansion of media tactics for the exercise of citizenship rights. Instead, it repre-
sents a qualitatively different way of conceptualizing, strategizing, and implementing collective action. Digital
activism reshapes the practices of citizenship. It facilitates forms of “connective actions” (Bennett & Segerberg,
2013) among individuals and groups that are not dependent, managed, or controlled by traditional institutions, such
WAISBORD 3 of 9

as political parties, unions, and civic and religious associations. The organizational costs are lower than traditional
forms of collective action. Activism is not only embedded in the traditional institutions of public life—the associations
admired by democracy theorists, from Tocqueville to Putnam, as schools of civic life and the bulwark against states
and markets. Organizing has become a communication phenomenon for citizens connected through digital platforms.
Activism consists of the aggregation of interests and the connections among activists and supporters through loosely
structured networks (Juris & Pleyers, 2009). Even if offline organizations remain important, activists constantly
develop original forms of digital activism as well as hybrid, offline and online forms of expression and organization
(Ganesh & Stohl, 2013).
Digital organizing taps into the particular properties of the Internet and specific platforms. In principle, the
decentralized structure of the Internet allows for open, flexible, dispersed, individualized, and horizontal participation
(for a critique of this argument, see Gerbaudo, 2017; Poell, Abdulla, Rieder, Woltering, & Zack, 2016). Constant
connections make instantaneous, large‐scale actions possible. With a few strokes, citizens are able to participate
on ubiquitous personal screens and quickly and easily engage in various forms of activism. They produce and
recombine open‐ended narratives and actions. Multiple global forms of communication and decision‐making are
not subjected to traditional hierarchical dynamics (Kavada, 2016).
Digital platforms become the gateway for multiple acts of citizenship—voting, demonstrating, boycotting,
protesting, volunteering, campaigning, and expression. Connected citizens raise awareness about social issues;
express personal sympathies through visual and written messages; document social problems; produce data; provide
services; deliberate and organize; recruit members; conduct dialogue; and influence various publics (Bonilla & Rosa,
2015; Brown, Ray, Summers, & Fraistat, 2017; Milan, 2016; Theocharis, Lowe, van Deth, & García‐Albacete,
2015). Participation becomes tailored to specific interests and demands. Citizens can easily express their views on
public issues. Lower risk and cost of participation foster citizens' expression and connections, particularly in settings
controlled by repressive governments.
In summary, digital technologies have spawned unprecedented transformations in mediated activism. First,
networked activism fosters constant connections among citizens with shared interests and demands. Connectivity
is permanent as users share, comment, discuss, mobilize, express, and engage in other actions. Second, digital
activism has expanded the “repertoire of contention” of collective action (Earl & Kimport, 2011). Activists use a
broader, creative, sophisticated set of communication platforms. This represents a qualitative jump in the history
of “contentious politics” (Tilly & Tarrow, 2007). Third, digital networks facilitate the regular expression of personal
and collective politics, opinion, sentiments, arguments, and identities. The “expressive” power of networked citizen-
ship is a quotidian affair—it is always on. It is egalitarian, at least for those with quality Internet access—any person
and issue may become visible, known, and recognized. It blends various types of expression—from rational to
emotional, from serious to jocular, from cerebral to playful, and from civil to aggressive. All in all, the connective
and expressive power of networked activism is fundamental innovations that radically transformed citizenship and
collective action.

3 | B LI N D S P O T S

Is this the whole story of contemporary digital activism? Do these arguments adequately capture the essential les-
sons of the vast, sprawling, and variegated phenomenon of networked citizenship in contemporary global politics?
Are we missing anything?
Although it sheds light on important aspects, the literature has three important analytical blindspots: limited
attention to forms of mediated activism beyond protest and expressive actions, the multidimensional and longitu-
dinal impact of networked citizenship, and the experience of right‐wing digital activism. Addressing these issues is
important to produce sharper propositions about mediated activism and its consequences for collective actions
and social change.
4 of 9 WAISBORD

3.1 | Mediated activism beyond protest and expression

Recent scholarship on digital activism has primarily focused on protest and expression. Certainly, protest and
expression remain central tactics for mobilized citizens, especially when other forms of expression are too risky or
are not possible such as in cases of authoritarian control of public spaces. Mediated activism, however, is more than
contentious and expressive actions. It includes a menu of tactics tied to particular strategies to promote social change
(Theocharis & van Deth, 2016). Activists conduct advocacy with allies and adversaries in different spheres of govern-
ment and society, engage in dialogue and negotiation with sympathizers, critics, and governments, and use litigation
to achieve legal and policy changes (Obar, 2014; Segura & Waisbord, 2016). In fact, the most successful cases of
progressive social change reflect both tactical flexibility and political acumen to determine suitable actions in specific
moments. From anti‐colonial campaigns to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, successful social
movements used multiple tactics (including mediated actions) and shifted tactical gears as conditions changed. By
the same token, limited tactical approaches and failure to adjust actions to changing circumstances may explain
why movements fail to achieve goals and have long‐standing presence.
A focus on digital protest cannot fully explain the multidimensional character of activism and the fact that social
change is a complex field of action. There is no single path from action to change. For example, without grappling
with strategic issues such as electoral politics, elite conflict, political junctures, and coalition‐building, it is impossible
to understand the evolution and the consequences of mediated activism. A broad perspective, sensitive to historical
and political context as well as to the media tactics chosen by specific movements, can adequately situate specific
actions such digital protest and expression and wrestle with important questions that await further attention. The
relative ease of expression, protest, and organization does not guarantee the long‐term sustainability or impact of
a case of collective action. Digital activism makes quick, instantaneous engagement possible, but it does not neces-
sarily lead to consistent actions to achieve social change, especially when confronting huge obstacles and powerful
interests (Van Laer & Van Aelst, 2010).
What explains the sampling bias in favor of protest and expressive actions over other forms of mediated
activism? Scholars have been fascinated by spectacles of protest and multiple forms of public expression in streets
and squares. The attraction to digital expression and protest also dovetails with the long‐standing progressive
romance with massive street gatherings as potentially disruptive events. The reasons are legitimate: Protests may
lead to major cataclysmic changes. They are riveting, magnetic, exhilarating moments of Bakthinian carnivalesque
politics when everyday life is suspended and citizens take over urban spaces to confront power. They signal the
surfacing of pent‐up civic energies as citizens raise their voices, risk personal safety, articulate hidden identities,
and show solidarity with excluded and silenced causes. Massive assemblies also capture news cycles and public opin-
ion. Authorities may tremble as the established order seems to be turned upside down. In other words, the inclination
to focus on protest and expression is perfectly understandable. Other forms of mediated activism, such as letter
writing, e‐petitions, public service announcements, fundraising, grassroots education, and news advocacy, lack similar
popular fervor and spectacle. Yet they should not go unnoticed and deserve similar level of attention to introduce
more nuanced into arguments about the impact of digital activism.

3.2 | The multidimensional impact of mediated activism

Another blindspot is limited attention to the broad impact of mediated activism. The focus has been primarily on how
digital technologies change activism more than on the multiple consequences of digital activism for social change.
Undoubtedly, digital activism can be reasonably credited for transforming connectivity, expression, and organizing.
Yet we know less about whether and how digital activism contributes to social change. Did activists accomplish
goals? Did networked activism make a difference? How did mediated activism contribute to political and social
change beyond the ostensible goals of a movement, say, stopping wars, overturning regressive tax policies, or
WAISBORD 5 of 9

establishing constitutional democracy? A fuller understanding of the consequences of mediated activism is needed
(Bosi, Giugni, & Uba, 2016).
Mediated activism may contribute to three types of changes: cultural, organizational, and political. First, it may
bring about media and sociocultural transformations, such as temporary changes in news cycles and social media
feeds, shifts in public opinion, and cultivating a rights‐based lexicon and a legacy of participation and memories of
struggle. Subsequent social movements may tap into these changes. Second, mediated activism may also bring about
organizational changes by equipping activists with innovative competencies used in subsequent actions, developing
strategies, strengthening resources, safe spaces for dialogue, and so on. Third, mediated activism may contribute to
political changes—raising the public presence and the reputation of certain causes and organizations, driving legal
changes, strengthening political leverage, and improving the implementation of certain policies (Amenta, Caren,
Chiarello, & Su, 2010).
A related problem is limited interest in understanding the long‐term impact of mediated activism. The focus has
been on the immediate impact of particular events such as protest actions or expressive moments on social media.
Did uprisings contribute to overthrowing dictatorships and paving the way for democratic societies? Did they change
specific policy decisions? Did they bring justice to victims? Did hashtag activism foster sentiments of belonging and
recognition? Did it raise the public profile of specific demands and identities?
Limiting the analysis to short‐term impact is problematic. It directs attention to actions that although they briefly
capture media and public attention, they do not necessarily lead to further changes. Fleeting moments of newswor-
thy activism are enormously appealing, particularly compared to the drudgery, ups‐and‐downs of any process of
social change. Social change, however, is generally a multidimensional, long‐haul process, punctuated by actions with
different visibility and impact. The lifespan of citizen activism is rarely a perfect arc. Impact cannot be fully deter-
mined until the political dust settles. It may take time to provide clear‐minded assessments of the legacy of specific
actions and movements. Examining short‐term impact runs the risk of focusing on unique moments that do not fully
represent the complexities of mediated activism and collective action. It would be as if the study of the Civil Rights
movement would only consider the boycott of the segregated bus system in Montgomery, Alabama, or the analysis of
the gay rights movement stopped after the Stonewall events.
The study of “peak publicity” moments skews the analysis into the direction of “episodic” studies that miss
“invisible” and sustained forms of activism. Just as journalism has been correctly criticized for a tendency to offer
disconnected newsy snapshots of collective action, academic scholarship may suffer from a similar problem—bring
mediated activism into focus when it displays time‐bounded, short‐lived events, especially when they get media
coverage. The point is not to belittle the significance of particular episodes. In fact, one could draw important lessons
by studying the dynamics of bursts of activism that quickly fade into memory without apparent big successes.
Instead, my point is that the study of particular mediated actions should be placed within the study of the lifespan
of particular cases of social activism. A sociological approach demands a sensitivity to historical context and a longi-
tudinal analysis of institutional developments, strategies, and impact.
What is needed is to examine what happens after crowds vacate the streets, Twitter trends change, and televi-
sion cameras turn attention away. In some cases, performing autopsies of past mediated action may be enlightening
to understand the strengths and the weaknesses of specific cases. What happened to digital networks once teeming
with activity? Are they moribund? Did they implode? Do they have a latent existence? Are they active but less visible
in media and academic radars? What explains swings in levels of energy and enthusiasm? Did activism move offline or
turned into organizational hybrids (Chadwick, 2007)? Did activists utilize experience in subsequent movements? Only
an approach sensitive to the stages of mediated activism may produce insights into these questions (della Porta &
Mattoni, 2014).
In summary, it is necessary to explore the impact of mediated activism across multiple dimensions of social
change. The focus should be not only on how activists use digital technologies to address perennial problems of
collective action—interest aggregation, coordination, expression, funding, and messaging. Studies should also seek
to understand the contributions of mediated activism to multifaceted processes of social change.
6 of 9 WAISBORD

3.3 | Limited attention on conservative and reactionary activism

A third blindspot is limited attention paid to conservative and reactionary mediated activism—from mainstream
conservative movements to radical neo‐Nazi insurgencies, as Bennett (2017) observes. The better‐studied cases of
mediated activism are ideologically aligned with a range of liberal, progressive, and radical causes on the Left, such
as prodemocracy, anti‐globalization, anti‐corporate, antineoliberal, feminist, minority rights, and other movements.
In fact, many scholars identify digital activism with left‐wing politics or the cyber‐left (Gerbaudo, 2017; Wolfson,
2014). What is missing is similar level of attention to activism by conservative movements like the Tea Party (Daniels,
2009) in the United States, the radical Right (Padovani, 2016), and various forms of networked activism championing
reactionary causes—racism, misogynism (Banet‐Weiser & Miltner, 2016), and sexism. To state the obvious, these are
not minor footnotes to contemporary politics, considering their huge impact on elections, public opinion, and identity
movements across the globe and the backlash against various progressive causes.
A focus on progressive movements makes it difficult to ascertain if certain attributes of networked citizenship,
such as horizontalism and “leaderless” activism, are the result of technological affordances, ideology, or a combination
of both set of factors (Sampedro & Mosca, 2018; Schradie, 2015). The flattened structures of digital activism, central
to movements such as Occupy and Black Lives Matter, resonate with egalitarian and anarchist views of participation
on the Left. But are they also found in right‐wing movements? Do right‐wing movements use a similar playbook of
networked politics? Do ideological convictions shape the uses of digital affordances?
Also, the emphasis on progressive mediated activism leads to incomplete conclusions about the state of contem-
porary democratic politics. It may inform a hopeful picture about democratic change that does not fully capture the
sorry state of things. One is struck by the exhilarating enthusiasm of early studies about digital activism. Conclusions
about a range of cases—from the Zapatista insurgency to antiauthoritarian movements—were brimming with
optimism. Change seemed imminent, as the labels of Internet, Facebook, Twitter, and social media “revolutions”
triumphantly announced. Scrappy movements that intelligently tapped into digital platforms seemed poised to make
history—shake up institutional racism in Mexico, overthrow authoritarianism in Egypt, and hold corporate power
accountable in the United States. As Tufecki (2017, x) observes, “it was hard not to be hopeful.”
One could argue that it was equally hard not be cautious or pessimistic considering the sinewy course of progres-
sive social change and the mixed record of past prodemocracy, anti‐globalization movements. Even if we recognize
that progressive movements left a valuable cultural, expressive, and organizational imprint, how do reconcile the high
hopes of the past with the grim realities of today's politics? If everything seemed promising, how do we account for
current reactionary politics and political malaise? In retrospect, the notion of “changing the world” by digital activism
seems simplistic considering the renewed strength of conservative, reactionary politics in countries were liberal,
progressive, and radical movements poured on the streets and social media a few years back.
Attention to ideologically diverse cases of mediated activism may help to produce prudent assessments about
the state of networked citizenship and its significance for democratic politics. It may also help to explain the
unbounded optimism driving the study of mediated activism. No doubt, activists' courage, ingenuity, participation,
and persistence are admirable, especially in the face of threats and repression. Yet vibrant mediated activism is not
sufficient evidence to conclude that societies are on a sure path to emancipation and social justice. The complexity
of social change demands nuanced perspectives instead of love letters to digital technologies or gleeful prospects
grounded in limited evidence. Sociological scholarship should reckon with how networked citizenship confronts
variegated obstacles to social change.

4 | NEXT DIRECTIONS

In summary, the sociology of mediated activism has produced textured analyses that document novel opportunities
for citizenship. We have some solid, valuable insights and ambiguous evidence and unanswered questions. Expressive
and connective politics are important acts of citizenship, but they do not inevitably lead to democracy and social
WAISBORD 7 of 9

justice. Digital activism overcomes old obstacles to participation and coordination, but the ease of public engagement
may not evolve into continuous commitment. New digital spaces for collaboration and learning are not necessarily
sustainable or safe. Successful social change may require more than digital‐only connections and associations. The
ascent of reactionary politics, too, puts a cold compress on digital optimism and may turn hope into despair.
Digital optimism is both flat‐footed sociology and naive politics at a time of emboldened authoritarianism,
xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. Future studies should heed recent warnings about the dangers of exuberant
optimism (Couldry, 2014; Kaun & Uldam, 2017; Tufecki, 2017) and approach digital platforms as “complex and con-
tradictory” (Locke, Lawthom, & Lyons, 2018). The mixed impact coupled with troubling developments do not justify
swooning over digital activism. A gust of reactionary rage blows through a world filled with ever‐expanding forms of
digital citizenship. The same platforms used for progressivism and counter‐power are used to reaffirm inequities and
promote intolerance (Cammaerts, Mattoni, & McCurdy, 2013; della Porta & Mattoni, 2014). Mediated activism is
interwoven with the politics of digital surveillance and the unaccountable power of digital corporations and govern-
ments (Trottier & Fuchs, 2014). It would be sloppy scholarship to celebrate digital citizenship, especially in the
aftermath of revelations about the collusion between governments and private companies in monitoring citizens as
well as denouncing and persecuting dissidents.
It is necessary to get a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted actions, consequences, and objectives of
mediated activism. Studies should take a broader perspective that examines the impact of digital mobilization across
various dimensions of social change, situates digital activism in historical and political contexts, and takes a longitu-
dinal approach to examine achievements and failures. Also, a sociology of mediated activism should continue to
examine whether digital mobilization reinforces social inequalities in activism (Schradie, 2018). Such an approach
could not only help to revisit the tired trope of “the revolution will be tweeted”—slogans that smack of corporate
copy more than serious scholarship. It could also contribute to better understanding the changing fortunes and the
broad cultural, organizational, and political achievements of mediated activism in digital times.

ENDNOTE
1
“Mediated activism” should not be confused with “media activism” which refers to collective action aimed at affecting
media systems, policy and regulations, content, management, advocacy, and staffing.

ORCID
Silvio Waisbord http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0026-7111

RE FE R ENC ES
Amenta, E., Caren, N., Chiarello, E., & Su, Y. (2010). The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of
Sociology, 36, 287–307.
Banet‐Weiser, S., & Miltner, K. M. (2016). #MasculinitySoFragile: Culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist
Media Studies, 16(1), 171–174.
Bennett, L. W. (2017). What is media activism? In V. Pickard, & G. Yang (Eds.), Media activism in the digital age. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Bennett, L. W., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious
politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the
United States. Journal of the American Ethnological Society, 42(1), 4–17.
Bosi, L., Giugni, M., & Uba, K. (Eds.) (2016). The consequences of social movements. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, M., Ray, R., Summers, E., & Fraistat, N. (2017). #SayHerName: A case study of intersectional social media activism.
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(11), 1831–1846.
Cammaerts, B., Mattoni, A., & McCurdy, P. (2013). Mediation and protest movements. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
8 of 9 WAISBORD

Chadwick, A. (2007). Digital network repertoires and organizational hybridity. Political Communication, 24(3), 283–301.
Couldry, N. (2014). A necessary disenchantment: Myth, agency and injustice in a digital world. The Sociological Review, 62(4),
880–897.
Daniels, J. (2009). Cyber racism: White supremacy online and the new attack on civil rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
della Porta, D., & Mattoni, A. (2014). Spreading protest: Social movements in a time of crisis. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
Dunbar‐Hester, C. (2014). Producing “participation”? The pleasures and perils of technical engagement in radio activism.
Public Culture, 26(72), 25–50.
Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (Eds.) (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Freelon, D., McIlwain, C. D., & Clark, M. D. (in press). Beyond the hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the online
struggle for offline justice. Center for Media & Social Impact, American University. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=2747066
Ganesh, S., & Stohl, C. (2013). From Wall Street to Wellington: Protests in an era of digital ubiquity. Communication
Monographs, 80(4), 425–451.
Gerbaudo, P. (2017). The mask and the flag: Populism, Citizenism and global protest. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gitlin, T. (2012). Occupy nation: The roots, the spirit, and the promise of occupy Wall Street. New York, NY: itbooks.
Howard, P. N., & Muzammil, H. M. (2013). Democracy's fourth wave? Digital media and the Arab spring. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Juris, J. S., & Pleyers, G. H. (2009). Alter‐activism: Emerging cultures of participation among young global justice activists.
Journal of Youth Studies, 12(1), 57–75.
Kaun, A., & Uldam, J. (2017). Digital activism – After the hype. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/
10.1177/1461444817731924
Kavada, A. (2016). Social movements and political agency in the digital age: A communication approach. Media and Commu-
nication, 4(4), 8–12.
Lievrouw, L. (2011). Alternative and activist new media. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Locke, A., Lawthom, R., & Lyons, A. (2018). Social media platforms as complex and contradictory spaces for feminisms:
Visibility, opportunity, power, resistance and activism. Feminism & Psychology, 28(1).
Milan, S. (2016). Data activism as the new frontier of media activism. In G. Yang, & V. Pickard (Eds.), Media activism in the
digital age. New York, NY: Routledge.
Milan, S. (2013). Social movements and their technologies: Wiring social change. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Natale, S., & Ballatore, A. (2014). The web will kill them all: New media, digital utopia, and political struggle in the Italian
5‐Star Movement. Media, Culture & Society, 36(1), 105–121.
Obar, J. A. (2014). Canadian advocacy 2.0: An analysis of social media adoption and perceived affordances by advocacy
groups looking to advance activism in Canada. Canadian Journal of Communication, 39(2), 211–233.
Padovani, C. (2016). The media of the ultra‐right. Journal of Language and Politics, 15(4), 399–421.
Poell, T., Abdulla, R., Rieder, B., Woltering, R., & Zack, L. (2016). Protest leadership in the age of social media. Information,
Communication & Society, 19(7), 994–1014.
Robé, C., Wolfson, T., & Funke, P. (2016). Rewiring the apparatus: Screen theory, media activism, and working‐class subjec-
tivities. Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, 28(1), 57–72.
Sampedro, V., & Mosca, L. (2018). Digital media, contentious politics and party systems in Italy and Spain. Javnost ‐ the Public,
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1423959
Schradie, J. (2015). Labor unions, political ideology, and social media: Using the Internet to reach the powerful, not mobilize
the powerless. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1985–2006.
Schradie, J. (2018). The digital activism gap: How class and costs shape online collective action. Social Problems, 65(1), 51–74.
Segura, M. S., & Waisbord, S. (2016). Media movements: Civil society and media policy reform in Latin America. London,
UK: Zed.
Theocharis, Y., & van Deth, J. W. (2016). The continuous expansion of citizen participation: A new taxonomy. European
Political Science Review, 10(1), 139–163.
Theocharis, Y., Lowe, W., van Deth, J. W., & García‐Albacete, G. (2015). Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: Online
mobilization patterns and action repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements.
Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 202–220.
Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2007). Contentious politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
WAISBORD 9 of 9

Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires. Information, Communication & Society,
13(8), 1146–1171.
Trottier, D., & Fuchs, C. (Eds.) (2014). Social media, politics and the state: Protests, revolutions, riots, crime and policing in the
age of Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. London, UK: Routledge.
Tufecki, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wolfson, T. (2014). Digital rebellion: The birth of the cyber left. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1873–1879.

FURTH ER READING
Cammaerts, B. (2012). Protest logics and the mediation opportunity structure. European Journal of Communication, 27(2),
117–134.
Harlow, S. (2011). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved
offline. New Media & Society, 14(2), 225–243.
Treré, E., & Mattoni, A. (2015). Media ecologies and protest movements: Main perspectives and key lessons. Information,
Communication and Society, 19(3), 290–306.

Silvio Waisbord is a Professor in the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. He is
Editor‐in‐Chief of the Journal of Communication and former Editor‐in‐Chief of the International Journal of Press/
Politics. His recent books include News of Baltimore: Race, Rage and the City (edited with Linda Steiner, Routledge,
2017), Routledge Companion to Media and Human Rights (edited with Howard Tumber, Routledge, 2017), and
Media Movements: Civil Society and Media Policy Reform in Latin America (with Soledad Segura, Zed, 2016). He
is currently writing a book on the field of communication, An Invitation to Communication: The State of a Post‐Dis-
cipline to be published by Polity Press. He has lectured and worked in more than 30 countries, published 13
books and over 100 journal articles, book chapters, and newspaper columns. He serves in the Advisory Board
of the Latin American program of Open Society Foundations. He holds a Licenciatura in sociology from the
Universidad de Buenos Aires and PhD in sociology from the University of California, San Diego.

How to cite this article: Waisbord S. Revisiting mediated activism. Sociology Compass. 2018;e12584. https://
doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12584