Affective publics and structures of storytelling: sentiment, events and mediality

References

• Armstrong, C. l., & Gao, F. (2010). Now tweet this: How news organizations use twitter. Electronic News, 4(4), 218–235. doi: 10.1177/1931243110389457
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, C. l., & Gao, F. (2011). Gender, twitter and news content: An examination across platforms and coverage areas. Journalism Studies, 12(4), 490–505. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2010.527548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. Paper presented at HicSS-43 (Hawaii international conference on System Sciences), Ieee, Kauai, Hi. doi:10.1109/HicSS.2010.412.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. l., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A., & Walker, S. (2014). Organization in the crowd: Peer production in large-scale networked protests. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 232–260. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.870379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colleoni, E. (2013, May). Beyond the differences: The use of empty signifiers as organizing device in the #occupy movement. Paper presented at the workshop Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics, University of Milan.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 23(4), 525–535. doi: 10.1080/10304310903003270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York, NY: Putnam.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, J. (2010). Affective networks. Media Tropes eJournal, 2(2), 19–44.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, I. (2010). Geography and community: New forms of interaction among people and places. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1194–1207. doi: 10.1177/0002764209356250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossberg, L. (1997). Bringing it all back home. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grusin, R. (2010). Premediation: Affect and mediality after 9/11. New York, NY: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, l. K., Arvidsson, A., Nielsen, F. A., Colleoni, E., & Etter, M. (2011). Good friends, bad news – affect and virality in Twitter. In Future Information Technology: Proceedings of 6th international conference (pp. 34–43), Futuretech 2011, Loutraki, Greece.
   Google Scholar
• Henneburg, S., Scammell, M., & O'Shaughnessy, N. (2009). Political marketing management and theories of democracy. Marketing Theory, 9(2), 165–188. doi: 10.1177/1470593109103060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the news. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 297–308. doi: 10.1080/17512781003640703
   Google Scholar
• Hohl, M. (2009). Beyond the screen: Visualizing visits to a website as an experience in physical space. Visual Communication, 8(3), 273–284. doi: 10.1177/1470357209106469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS–42), (pp. 1–10). Retrieved from http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~ herring/honeycutt.herring.2009.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Howard, P. N., & Hussain, M. (2013). Democracy's fourth wave? Digital media and the Arab Spring. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169–2188. doi: 10.1002/asi.21149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karatzogianni, A., & Kuntsman, A. (2012). Digital cultures and the politics of emotion: Feelings, affect and technological change. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lacey, K. (2013). Listening publics. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. (1953). The unique perspective of television and its effect: A pilot study. American Sociological Review, 18(1), 3–12. doi: 10.2307/2087842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on #egypt. International Journal of Press and Politics, 18(2), 139–166. doi:10.1177/1940161212474472
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (in press). Networked framing, gatekeeping, and the fluid news ecology. In T. Witschge, C. W. Anderson, D. Domingo, & A. Hermida (Eds.), The Sage handbook of digital journalism (pp. 1–29). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2012). Without you, I'm nothing: Performances of the self on Twitter. International Journal of Communication, 6. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1484
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective publics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z., & Blasiola, S. (in press). Structures of feeling, storytelling, and social media: The case of #Egypt. In A. Bruns, E. Skogerbø, C. Christiansen, A. O. Larsson, & G. S. Enli (Eds.), Routledge companion to social media and poiltics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2012). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 266–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01630.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Protevi, J. (2009). Political affect: Connecting the social and the somatic. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, S. (2009). ‘Searching for my own unique place in the story’: A comparison of journalistic and citizen-produced coverage of Hurricane Katrina's anniversary. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Journalism and citizenship: New agendas in communication (pp. 166–188). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, A. (2011). Networked. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Seigworth, G., & Gregg, M. (2010). An inventory of shimmers. In M. Gregg & G. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 138–57). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, H. (2009). Reference utility of social networking sites: Options and functionality. Library Hi Tech News, 26(5–6), 4–6. doi: 10.1108/07419050910985246
   Google Scholar
• Tomkins, S. (1995). Exploring affect: The selected writings of Silvan S. Tomkins. V. E. Demos (Ed.). New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, V. W. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (2013). Twitter and society. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, R. (1961). The long revolution. London: Chatto and Windus.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, S., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Who says what to whom on Twitter. Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference Committee (pp. 705–714). Danvers, MA: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Yardi, S., & Baoyd, D. (2010a). Tweeting from the town square: Measuring geographic local networks. ICWSM ‘10: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 194–201). New York, NY: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010b). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 30(5), 316–327. doi: 10.1177/0270467610380011
   Google Scholar