Risk and Hyperconnectivity: Media and

Memories of Neoliberalism 1st Edition

Andrew Hoskins
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/risk-and-hyperconnectivity-media-and-memories-of-n
eoliberalism-1st-edition-andrew-hoskins/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Digital Memory Studies Media Pasts in Transition Andrew

Hoskins

https://textbookfull.com/product/digital-memory-studies-media-
pasts-in-transition-andrew-hoskins/

Risk Factors for Psychosis: Paradigms, Mechanisms, and

Prevention 1st Edition Andrew Thompson

https://textbookfull.com/product/risk-factors-for-psychosis-
paradigms-mechanisms-and-prevention-1st-edition-andrew-thompson/

Routledge Companion to Media and Risk 1st Edition

Bhaskar Sarkar & Bishnupriya Ghosh

https://textbookfull.com/product/routledge-companion-to-media-
and-risk-1st-edition-bhaskar-sarkar-bishnupriya-ghosh/

Solving Cyber Risk Protecting Your Company and Society

Andrew Coburn

https://textbookfull.com/product/solving-cyber-risk-protecting-
your-company-and-society-andrew-coburn/
Alternatives to Suicide: Beyond Risk and Toward a Life
Worth Living 1st Edition Andrew Page

https://textbookfull.com/product/alternatives-to-suicide-beyond-
risk-and-toward-a-life-worth-living-1st-edition-andrew-page/

Hyperconnectivity and Digital Reality Towards the

Eutopia of Being Human Kathrin Otrel-Cass

https://textbookfull.com/product/hyperconnectivity-and-digital-
reality-towards-the-eutopia-of-being-human-kathrin-otrel-cass/

3D Printing for Artists Designers and Makers 2nd

Edition Stephen Hoskins

https://textbookfull.com/product/3d-printing-for-artists-
designers-and-makers-2nd-edition-stephen-hoskins/

Manuel Cardona: Memories and Reminiscences 1st Edition

Klaus Ensslin

https://textbookfull.com/product/manuel-cardona-memories-and-
reminiscences-1st-edition-klaus-ensslin/

Rogues of Wall Street How to Manage Risk in the

Cognitive Era 1st Edition Andrew Waxman

https://textbookfull.com/product/rogues-of-wall-street-how-to-
manage-risk-in-the-cognitive-era-1st-edition-andrew-waxman/
Risk and Hyperconnectivity
Oxford Studies in Digital Politics
Series Editor: Andrew Chadwick, Royal Holloway, University of London
Using Technology, Building
Democracy: Digital Campaigning and
the Construction of Citizenship
Jessica Baldwin-​Philippi
Expect Us: Online Communities and
Political Mobilization
Jessica L. Beyer
The Hybrid Media System: Politics
and Power
Andrew Chadwick
Tweeting to Power: The Social Media
Revolution in American Politics
Jason Gainous and Kevin M. Wagner
The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy: Information Technology
and Political Islam
Philip N. Howard
Democracy’s Fourth Wave? Digital
Media and the Arab Spring
Philip N. Howard and Muzammil
M. Hussain
The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected
Transformation of American Political
Advocacy
David Karpf
Taking Our Country Back: The Crafting
of Networked Politics from Howard
Dean to Barack Obama
Daniel Kreiss
Prototype Politics: Technology-Intensive
Campaigning and the Data of Democracy
Daniel Kreiss
Bits and Atoms: Information and
Communication Technology in Areas of
Limited Statehood
Steven Livingston and Gregor Walter-​Drop
Digital Cities: The Internet and the
Geography of Opportunity
Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, and
William W. Franko
Revolution Stalled: The Political Limits
of the Internet in the Post-​Soviet Sphere
Sarah Oates
Disruptive Power: The Crisis of the State
in the Digital Age
Taylor Owen
Affective Publics: Sentiment,
Technology, and Politics
Zizi Papacharissi
Presidential Campaigning in the
Internet Age
Jennifer Stromer- ​Galley
News on the Internet: Information and
Citizenship in the 21st Century
David Tewksbury and Jason Rittenberg
The Civic Organization and the Digital
Citizen: Communicating Engagement
in a Networked Age
Chris Wells
Networked Publics and Digital
Contention: The Politics of Everyday
Life in Tunisia
Mohamed Zayani
 Risk and
Hyperconnectivity
MEDI A AND MEMOR IE S OF NEOL IBER AL I SM

ANDRE W HOSK INS

and

JOHN TULLOCH

1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2016

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of congress cataloging in publication data

Names: Hoskins, Andrew, 1967– author. | Tulloch, John, author.
Title: Risk and hyperconnectivity: media and memories of neoliberalism /
Andrew Hoskins and John Tulloch.
Description: Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, [2016] | Series:
Oxford studies in digital politics | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015034921| ISBN 978–0–19–937549–3 (hardcover: alk. paper) |
ISBN 978–0–19–937550–9 (pbk.: alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Social conflict in mass media. | Protest
movements—Press coverage. | Political participation—Press coverage. | Disasters—Press
coverage. | Neoliberalism. | Risk—Sociological aspects. | Mass media—Social aspects. | Mass
media—Political aspects.
Classification: LCC P96.S63 H67 2016 | DDC 303.6—dc23 LC record available at
http://lccn.loc.gov/2015034921

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Sheridan, USA
 Contents

Acknowledgments    vii

1. Introduction    1

Part I MEMORIES OF NEOLIBERALISM

2. C ultural Memory, Premediation, and Risk Narratives: Remembering

Neoliberalism in the Global Financial Crisis   23
3. P rint Media and the Climax of the Global Financial Crisis: A Case
Study of Images, Narratives, Genres, and Memories   52
4. T he New Protest Movements and Dialogical Thinking: Peripheral
and Connective Logics   88
5. The New Protest Movements and Mainstream Newspapers: A Case
Study of the 2009 London Anti-​G20 Demonstrations   108
6. F rom Tabloids to Broadsheets: A Case Study of “Everyday” and
“Premediated” Journalism during the Global Financial Crisis   161
7. D
 efining Perception in Established Media and the Challenge from
Emergence: Two Case Studies   196

Part II SCARCITY AND POSTSCARCITY

8. M
 emory and the Archival Event: A Case Study of the Coroner’s
Inquest into the 2005 London Bombings   219
v i    contents

9. The 2011 English Riots: A Case Study   243

10. The Piketty Event: A Case Study   258
11. H
 acked Off: A Case Study of the New Risk of Emergence   271
12. On Memory and Forgetting   297

Notes    311
References    317
Index    325
 Acknowledgments

Our collaboration on Risk and Hyperconnectivity was significantly aided

through John Tulloch’s award of a senior research fellowship at the Adam
Smith Research Foundation, College of Social Sciences, University of Glasgow,
UK, in 2012–​2013 and we are grateful for their recognition and support of our
interdisciplinary work.
Over the four years of this collaboration we are indebted to many people
who have generously given their time and assistance, including personal sup-
port as well as intellectual guidance. Shona Illingworth first introduced us
at her Memory and War Forum at the Wellcome Collection in 2008 and we
are grateful for her continuing inspiration and support on a number of proj-
ects, including on her innovative Amnesia Forums. Our collaboration on
the 2005 London bombings work began through an Arts and Humanities
Research Project led by Hoskins (Conflicts of Memory: Mediating and
Commemorating the 2005 London Bombings, Award no. AH/​E002579/​1)
and on this and for wider support we are very grateful to Nuria Lorenzo-​Dus,
Steven D. Brown, and Matthew Allen, and we are also grateful to Annie Bryan.
William Merrin’s bold interventions in Media Studies have influenced our
thinking on this work, as has Hoskins’ collaboration with Ben O’Loughlin on
numerous projects and books. We are also grateful to Stevie Docherty for her
help through several stages of the preparation of the manuscript and her advice
on our media and riots case study chapter. Our thanks are due also to Marian
Tulloch for her careful and intelligent reading of the copy edited proofs, and to
Janet Andrew for her extremely professional work on the index.
The development of our work has benefited from critical feedback from a
diverse set of academic and public audiences, including our panel with Shona
Illingworth at the “Anxiety in Late Modernity” Symposium, Central Saint
Martins College of Arts and Design in 2014; Tulloch’s masterclasses and other
talks at the University of Glasgow; Hoskins’ talk on the “Crisis, What Crisis”

vii
v i i i    acknowledgments

Panel, The Sociolinguistics of Globalization Conference, University of Hong

Kong; and at the “Threats to Openness in the Digital World” Conference,
Northumbria University, both in 2015.
We are very grateful to the Digital Politics Series editor Andrew Chadwick
for his support from outline proposal stage through to final manuscript and
also to our OUP editor, Angela Chnapko for her faith in the project, and also
to Princess Ikatekit. We are grateful to the anonymous proposal readers and to
the reader of the final manuscript for their constructive comments and impor-
tant advice.
Risk and Hyperconnectivity
1
Introduction

The British newspaper the Guardian on May 5, 2014 published a letter,

“Economics Teaching and the Real World,” signed by several members of
the Glasgow University Real World Economics Society. Their letter opens by
arguing that not only is the world economy in crisis, but the “teaching of eco-
nomics is in crisis too, and this has consequences far beyond the university
walls” because “What is taught shapes the mind of the next generation of poli-
cymakers and so shapes the societies we live in” (25).
The letter elaborates that 41 associations of economics students from 19
countries “believe it’s time to reconsider the way economics is taught,” their
primary target being the “dramatic narrowing of the curriculum” that has
taken place since the 1980s.

This lack of intellectual diversity does not only restrain education and
research. It limits our ability to contend with the multidimensional
challenges of the 21st century—​from financial stability to food secu-
rity and climate change. The real world should be brought back into the
classroom, as well as debate and a pluralism of theories and methods.

The signatories admit that in calling for a cross-​border change in the domi-
nance of neoliberal (“free market”) economics teaching they don’t claim to
have the answer, but

We have no doubt that economics students will profit from exposure to

different perspectives and ideas. Pluralism could help to fertilize teach-
ing and research, reinvigorating the discipline and bring economics back
into the service of society. Three forms of pluralism must be at the core
of the curriculum: theoretical, methodological and interdisciplinary.

Ultimately, the writers insist, this much-​needed change “is a matter of

democracy.”

1
2    risk and hyperconnect ivit y

The Guardian economics correspondent, Phillip Inman, in his accompany-

ing article the same day, “Economics Students Call for a Shakeup of Subject
to Address 21st-​Century Challenges,” points to the influence of the develop-
ment of these student protest groups “from Britain and the US to Brazil and
Russia.” This includes the important role of the Post-​Crash Economics Society
of undergraduates at Manchester University, who “recently issued their own
manifesto for reform with the endorsement of the Bank of England’s incoming
chief economist, Andy Haldane.” As Inman notes,

Haldane said that economists had forgotten the links between their
subject and other social science disciplines, which can give a broader
and more accurate picture of how an economy works. “The [global
economic] crisis has laid bare the inadequacies of economic models.
These models have failed to make sense of the sorts of extreme macro-​
economic events, such as crises, recessions and depressions, which
matter most to society.”

In particular, Inman notes of these “multidimensional challenges” and eco-

nomic crises that Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the Twenty-​First Century,
has “accused academics of believing in mathematic models without looking
at mounting evidence of growing inequality and its influence on GDP growth
since the 1970s.” Against this trend, Inman says, the move by economics stu-
dents from 19 countries “follows a series of protests in the UK against aca-
demics who have been accused of being cheerleaders for the market-​fi nancial
models that helped push the global financial system into crisis.”
Above Inman’s article in the Guardian that day is a piece by the newspaper’s
economics editor, Larry Elliott, headed “AstraZeneca and Policies Stuck in the
1980s.” Elliott is commenting negatively here about the British conservative gov-
ernment’s support for the US Pfizer company taking over Britain’s pharmaceu-
tical company AstraZeneca, thus allowing “one of the country’s few genuinely
world-​class companies to be swallowed up.” The argument is consistent with
Elliott’s position on the global financial crisis (GFC), which, as we will see in
the chapters that follow, has been to challenge the neoliberal economics that has
dominated international globalization since the early 1980s, suggesting alterna-
tive, neo-​Keynesian economic models in order to reduce the power of the finan-
cial over the manufacturing economy. Elliott notes of the AstraZeneca deal,

Government policy remains locked in the mindset of the 1980s, where

the solution to each and every problem is to cut taxes, lower trade bar-
riers and expose companies to the full blast of global competition. The
success of this approach can be judged by the fact that manufacturing’s
 In t r o d u c t i o n   3

share of GDP is barely above 10%, the UK share of world manufactur-

ing is down to 3%, and there has not been a trade surplus in goods
since the early 1980s. … As far as the City is concerned, the clock has
been turned back. The glory days of deal-​making are back. The crash
was all a bad dream. Nothing has changed. Business as usual. (19)

It is clear that the call for change in the economic “free market” model
that has dominated Western globalization since the days of Thatcher and
Reagan is not confined to economics students. It is evident in the “21st-​
Century” thinking of significant economics journalists in one of Britain’s
leading liberal-​left broadsheets as well. At one level this is a matter of politi-
cal affiliation; but, at the deeper level of financial and economic failure in the
West signified by the GFC, it is a matter of economic facts: facts about a sig-
nificant widening of the poverty/​wealth gap, and the manipulation of facts
by way of a hegemonic economic-​political ideology, theory, and method.
Nor has this critique on behalf of change been confined to the liberal-​left
press in Britain. An economics specialist for the center-​r ight British broad-
sheet newspaper The Times, Anatole Kaletsky, applauded the founding of a new
interdisciplinary and pluralist economics research foundation in the United
States in 2009, the Institute of New Economic Thought (INET). He wrote that
fundamentally the three big ideas in economics transforming the politics of
the previous 20 years had been (1) the theory of “rational expectations,” which
did away with the need for government stabilization; (2) the theory of “effi-
cient markets,” which emphasized that competitive finance always allocates
resources in the most efficient way; and (3) the idea that descriptive study of
human behavior must be replaced by a brand of mathematics that was clear
enough to express human behavior in algebraic formulas. Via these “rational,”
“efficient,” and “mathematical” big ideas, Kaletsky said, “income inequalities,
industrial dislocation, vast bonuses for top executives could all be presented as
the impersonal result of market forces” (The Times, 23 October 2009).
Kaletsky hoped that the new INET would generate a variety of ways of
“understanding unpredictable reality”—​f rom new mathematics techniques of
nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory to the literary and anecdotal traditions
of the past (just as Larry Elliott was also saying at that time in the Guardian).
This variety of methodologies should build, too, Kaletsky argued, on the work
of sociologists, psychiatrists, historians, and political scientists, all disdained
by the present orthodoxy. It seems, then, that the current call for cross-​border
theories, new methodologies, and interdisciplinary teaching and research is
much wider than mere political affiliation; and wider, too, in its sources than
the manifesto for reform from the economics students of the Post-​Crash
Economics Society at Manchester University and the letter to the Guardian
4    risk and hyperconnect ivit y

from the Glasgow University Real World Economics Society. Our book about
risk events of the early twenty-​fi rst century is designed for that task, with its
first half focused specifically on the media and the GFC.

Risk and Hyperconnectivity

This book began in the collaboration of Professor Andrew Hoskins, interdis-
ciplinary research professor in the College of Social Sciences, University of
Glasgow, Scotland, and Professor John Tulloch, professor of communication
at the University of Newcastle, Australia, and formerly director of the Research
Centre for the Cultural Study of Risk, Charles Sturt University, Australia. The
collaboration was formalized by the award of a senior research fellowship to
Professor Tulloch at the Adam Smith Research Foundation, University of
Glasgow in 2012–​13.
From the beginning our research was devised as both intra-​and inter-
disciplinary: intradisciplinary because, by way of its target of debating both
“established” and “emergent” media within one research project and within
the covers of one book, it was always going to engage different substantive,
methodological, and theoretical domains within communication and media
studies; and interdisciplinary because the two authors themselves were experi-
enced in (and promoted in their research) a variety of interdisciplinary fields.
In particular, our research planned to engage for the first time, in relation
to media, three important contemporary fields in communications and the
broader social sciences: new risk theory, neoliberalization theory, and con-
nectivity theory. In addition, the substantive focus of the book on “risk events
of the early twenty-​fi rst century” required what the economics students of
the Glasgow University Real World Economics Society call the pluralism of
“exposure to different perspectives and ideas.”
The GFC, we believed from the beginning, was going to be at the heart of
those “risk events,” and we devote the first half of the book to analyzing the
relations between established media (in this case the press) and the GFC, in
particular around debated models of economic thinking and the widening
gap between rich and poor. But, on the other hand, and as a signifier of both
our intra-​and interdisciplinary intent, we were also committed to exploring,
alongside “poverty,” the “glut” of emergent media possibilities for new ways of
communication, and for new voices claiming alternatives of expression and
substantive debate. This latter emphasis lay at the heart of recent claims in the
social sciences and communication studies about the liberating and demo-
cratic potential of new media.
It was clear, too, that this research was never going to embrace a binary dis-
tinction between “old” and “new” media. We were always going to be exploring,
 In t r o d u c t i o n   5

via our intra-​and interdisciplinary methodologies and theories, across that

“established/​emergent” media divide. And we were always concerned to focus
on the plurality of debate, which the Glasgow University economics students
emphasize as a “pluralism of theories and methods.”
But “debate” suggests to us a dialogical method (a discussion via equal inter-
party and interdisciplinary dialogue) rather than the top-​down, monological
“free market” model that both economics students and economics journalists
are now targeting as “Nothing has changed. Business as usual.” So the chap-
ters that follow explore key risk events and the media in Britain since the year
2000: the GFC, the 2005 terrorist attack on London, the News of the World (and
other newspapers’) phone-​hacking crisis, and the London riots of 2011. What
are the continuities and differences across media coverage of these risk events?
British media are the focus of these chapters, mainly because the massive
empirical research emphasis underlying the methods and theories debated in
our book requires some manageable closure of research time and book chap-
ter space. But the themes explored—​GFC, the financialization of state econo-
mies, international terrorism, corporate media ethics and power, persistent
public demonstrations against neoliberal globalization, domestic and world-
wide poverty, riot and unrest—​are global in voice and implication.
In some areas differences, like the British configuration of tabloid, middle-​
market, and broadsheet national newspapers (in contrast, for example to the
United States), necessarily become part of our methodology and theory. But
the “local” must always be considered more broadly in the context of the
“global” (“glocal” has become the fashionable academic word). That is what
our book seeks to do, as one, we hope, of many similar projects of this inter-
disciplinary kind. If there are 41 associations of economics students from 19
countries involved in “the critical mass needed for change” (Guardian, May
5, 2014), so too we need to see a similar number “from Britain and the US
to Brazil and Russia” of pluralistic research-​based debates around risk, media,
and the international dominance of “free market” economics. The letter from
the Glasgow University economics students shows us the way.

THE AUTHOR S
The authors of Risk and Hyperconnectivity have a strong interdisciplinary
background, which we believe is needed for this book. Andrew Hoskins was
educated in sociology at Lancaster University from undergraduate through to
his PhD (the basis of his first book, Televising War). This launched his inter-
disciplinary work in two fields marked today by the two Sage journals he
cofounded in 2008: Memory Studies and Media, War & Conflict.1 He has led
empirical projects on Google Data Analytics, media and commemoration,
media and radicalization, and most recently an AHRC Research Fellowship,
6    risk and hyperconnect ivit y

“Technologies of Memory and Archival Regimes: War Diaries before and after
the Connective Turn.”2 John Tulloch has degrees in history (including eco-
nomic history and political science) from Cambridge University, an interdisci-
plinary masters in sociology and literature (focusing on the intersection of the
sociology of culture with literary and media theory) from Sussex University,
and a Sussex University PhD embracing different theoretical paradigms in
sociology, history, political science, and literary and theater theory. He has
taught and researched for 40 years as an academic, led several national and
international research projects in the field of risk and media, and published 20
books and several commissioned reports in the areas of risk and media sociol-
ogy, film history and theory, media, cultural and communications studies, and
literary, performance, and theater theory.

A REFLE X I VE PRO JEC T

From the outset this interdisciplinary collaboration—​perhaps all interdisci-
plinary collaborations—​needs to be reflexive about theory and methodology.
This is not least because where, on the one hand, a connectivity/​memory theo-
rist like Andrew Hoskins speaks of the postscarcity glut of digital media forms,
content, and archives, and, on the other, a risk sociologist like John Tulloch
discusses the increasing economic scarcity among many populations with
resulting social breakdowns and upheavals during the eras of neoliberalism,
there may seem to be apparent contradiction between the theoretical penum-
bras of “glut” and “scarcity.”
Further, risk theorists of the media have been especially concerned with
enabling changed relationships between risk communication and the demo-
cratic process, and the need to replace a “top-​down focus on information
transfer with dialogic forums that bring together the values, questions, anxi-
eties and experiences of ordinary people, the provision of independent and
accessible expositions of the current state of scientific debate and uncertainty,
and sustained debate on the social and ethical implications of current initia-
tives” (Murdock, Petts, and Horlick-​Jones 2003, 176).
These notions of “deliberative democracy” relating to risk and media have
led to a focus on civil society versus elite media constructions of knowledge.
The considerable current concern over mass surveillance of citizens from both
corporate and secret state sectors (Fuchs 2014) can feed on new risk theory’s
notion of major risk events generating “uncertainty” pressure groups and large
civil society movements “outside the core of formal decision-​making institu-
tions,” thus shifting mainstream media attention from “core” to “periphery”
areas of the public sphere (Strydom 2002, 113; Tulloch and Blood 2012). An
 In t r o d u c t i o n   7

important conceptual contrast in new risk thinking here has been the link-
age between “lay” and “expert” perceptions of risk, and the differentiated and
stratified nature of media sources in different local and globalized geographies.
So the juxtaposition of—​and dialogue between—​conceptualized terms
like “glut” and “scarcity” was always going to be a reflexive starting point
between the two authors, and it lay at the heart of Tulloch’s application for
a senior fellowship at the Adam Smith Research Foundation, University of
Glasgow, where Hoskins was director. So two quite different paradigms within
communications and social scientific research that had rarely, if ever, debated
with each other were institutionally joined; and this intellectual nexus quickly
added a third paradigm, because of Tulloch’s interest in neoliberalism critique,
another field focused on systemic inequality and scarcity.
Parallel to this, and key to Hoskins’s development of connectivity and mem-
ory studies, 3 is the idea of “emergence.” Emergence is the massively increased
potential for media data to literally emerge at an unprescribed and unpredict-
able time after the moment of its recording, archiving, or loss. The likelihood
of potentially transcendent missed or hidden or deleted images, videos, emails,
and so on, emerging to transform what was known or thought to be known
about a person, place, or event, constitutes a spectacular uncertainty for the
future evolution of memory and of history.
Emergence is the ongoing and unpredictable potential of the onlife 4 world
to transform past personal, semipublic, and public relations through the reac-
tivation of latent and semilatent connections of a living or even a “shadow”
archive: a perpetual databasing of risk.
The risks posed by emergence come from the greater entanglement of
humans and what we set out below as the “media ecology” of the day to the
extent that some speak of connectivity in terms of “sociotechnical life” (Nigel
Thrift 2004, 175; Hoskins 2014a). The once anonymous consumption of the
broadcast-​era media audience is replaced by the “user” whose multiple daily
digital communications deposit a set of accumulating traces that can pinpoint
the archival self. And although preservation and remembering are not the
same, digital data constitute a significant new risk of a dormant and unwieldy
memory of self, organizations, society, with little in the way of effective curato-
rial or security solutions available to manage such risk.
The massive growth in the unintentional and the intentional recording of
events by pervasive digital media (CCTV, smart phones, tablets, etc.) in posts-
carcity culture builds the uncertainty over emergence. “The cumulative effect
is a bit like watching a lava lamp. Decontextualised globules of data surge
from below, loom briefly large, detach themselves and subside as others take
their place in a mesmeric flux” (Newey 2011, 35). Glen Newey here provides a
stark characterization of WikiLeaks, notably the archetype of organizational
8    risk and hyperconnect ivit y

emergence, showing how entire governments well-​practised in the business

of keeping secrets, are suddenly vulnerable to exposure from the scale and
spreadability of digital data compared with earlier physical and thus more con-
tainable forms of record-​keeping.
Our book, Risk and Hyperconnectivity, takes “connectivity” to be the mas-
sively increased pervasiveness and accessibility of digital technologies,
devices, and media, which shape a new knowledge base—​an “information
infrastructure” (Bowker and Star 2000) producing new conflagrations of risk
actors, discourses, and events. As Mick Dillon observes, we are witnessing
“new modes of experiencing propinquity—​of how things relate, adhere, and
may newly belong together—​in and through multi-​agency, multi-​medial, and
multi-​channel processes of global dissemination” (2007, 17).
One example is the news coverage of the aftermath of the murder of the
British Army soldier Lee Rigby, by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale
in broad daylight on a busy street outside Woolwich barracks on 22 May 2013.
This highlighted the impact of the connectivity between established and emer-
gent media as graphic mobile phone footage of Adebolajo holding a bloodied
machete speaking directly to camera was made available on mainstream news-
paper live blogs and pushed television news into using this footage earlier than it
might otherwise have done. Yet it was the television news coverage that stirred
up the bigger response. For example, the UK media regulator Ofcom, follow-
ing nearly 700 complaints over coverage of the Woolwich attacks, although
clearing several broadcasters, nonetheless expressed concern over ITV London
Tonight’s regional news program for “looping” this sequence, playing the same
material four times without audio and without prior warning. 5 Thus, within the
same media ecology, the same (and shocking) images “weigh differently” when
seen in different media (Hoskins 2004, 134; Sontag 2003, 119–​20).
Our book is set in an age of fast-​developing media ecologies that con-
nect and collide with one another, bringing established and emergent media
into new relations, conflicts, and dependencies. There is a considerable body
of work addressing the significance of “media ecologies” (McLuhan 1964;
Postman 1970; Fuller 2007). For us, media ecology concerns the media imagi-
nary (how and why media envision the world within a particular period or
paradigm and its consequences) and our imaginary of the media of the day
(how media are made visible or otherwise in that process of making the world
intelligible), in which some ecologies are perceived as inherently more “risky”
than others, by news publics, journalists, policymakers, and scholars. In short,
as William Merrin (2014: 47) puts it: media ecology “implies a worldview: it
evokes a world.”
And it is advances in digital and everyday connectivity that we take as a key
driver and shaper of shifting media ecologies and the relations between key
 In t r o d u c t i o n   9

actors and with media, within and across them. For example, we take the 2011
English riots (­chapter 9) as a defining UK risk event in its shaping through a
cross-​fertilization of communication and information between and through
different media, for a range of actors: a precarious media ecology. But we also
suggest that some readings of the nature and the causes of the riots did not fully
account for these connectivities, in other words their analyses fell short of or
misread the media ecology of the day. And Merrin (2014) applies a similar cri-
tique to the discipline of Media Studies more broadly in his Media Studies 2.0.
In this book, we go beyond using the term “connectivity” only as signal-
ing a new immediacy and pervasiveness of the relatedness of actors with oth-
ers, with events, and with what the Glasgow economics students call “the real
world” out there through increasingly mobile and digital networks. Rather,
hyperconnectivity is a multidimensional mechanism of late modernity in its
affordance of temporal proximity (and distance) to the past and to an emer-
gent future. In this way, to probe and understand risk and related uncertainty
requires understanding hyperconnectivity as a new shaper of patterns of expe-
rience both synchronic and diachronic, forging and reforging new assemblages
of remembering and forgetting.
And a corollary of hyperconnectivity is mediatization, namely “the pro-
cess of shifting interconnected individual, social and cultural dependency on
media, for maintenance, survival, and growth” (Hoskins 2014a, 662). This
book in part is about the mediatization of risk: the process by which risk is
increasingly embedded in and penetrated by media, such that to understand,
predict, assuage, employ, historicize, remember, forget, and imagine risk
requires attention to that media (established and emergent) and its uses (cf.
Hoskins and O’Loughlin 2015). Mediatization, however, is not some determi-
nant or consistent process of media influence—​note the use of the term “shift-
ing” above. Rather, we use it to signal the importance of understanding risk as
entangled in a longer period of media change that requires the study of media,
events, and actors not only at particular junctures but also over time. The mul-
tiple case study approach we have taken here affords some perspective on the
mediatization of risk and the memory of risk.
To invoke hyperconnectivity is to highlight how changes in networks of
remembering and forgetting disrupt the certainties offered by the passage of
chronological time and the commensurability of past with present. A paradox-
ically pervasive but highly selective past has a new incursive force in and on the
present. It has acquired new scale through its incredible volume and profound
accessibility, and because it is no longer being kept in check by living memory
or by elite media/​archival gatekeepers (at least this is a popular interpretation).
This rapidly emergent “postscarcity culture” is illuminated here from the cross-​
fertilization of connectivity and memory studies in a dynamic and reflexive
10    risk and hyperconnect ivit y

relationship in their shaping of twenty-​fi rst-​century risk discourses and hori-

zons. So, as we set out in this book, the shifts in the assemblages of remem-
bering and forgetting operate unevenly across and through established and
emergent media and cohere differently around a variety of events over time.
This is also partly owing to the dramatic changes in digital media even over
the course of their lifetime, and particularly over the past decade, so that, for
example, it makes little sense to speak of “the Internet” without first contextu-
alizing the “which” or rather the “when” of the Internet being referred to. Thus,
as David Karpf (2012, 640) observes: “Standard practices within the social
sciences are not well suited to such a rapidly changing medium.” And this is
precisely why a connectivity/​memory studies framework is needed that offers
a dual synchronic and diachronic perspective for tracing shifting cultures of
connectivity (cf. Dijck 2013) in shaping risk and uncertainty. To this end we
structure the book around a series of twenty-​fi rst-​century risk events to track
and illuminate these trajectories over what at least at present seems like an
intensive media history.
The early years of the twenty-​fi rst century opened with a spiraling sense of
catastrophe, loss of political control, and dystopic fear. In Britain alone a media
frenzy greeted the 7/​7 terrorist attack on London in 2005; the 2008 collapse
of major financial institutions and the massive bank bailouts at the expense
of the taxpayer that followed; the huge 2009 anti-​G20 globalization demon-
strations in London; the 2011 London riots, quickly repeated in many other
English cities; the 2011 revelation of the hacking of a murdered schoolgirl’s
mobile phone by the News of the World, followed by many more exposures of
illegal abuse of public privacy by media corporations; and the ever-​increasing
concerns throughout the decade with cyberwars and cybersecurity.
These risk events were often replicated and linked globally: other terror
attacks in New York, Madrid, Mumbai, and worldwide; further financial col-
lapse followed by recession, with results threatening to bring even the world
growth economies of India and China to their knees; further antiglobalization
street protests and encampments worldwide; and growing public concern with
Western air attacks on “rogue” or “evil” nations.
In 2015 the spiraling sense of catastrophe intensified. Islamist carnage on
the streets of Paris in the offices of Charlie Hebdo in January and across the
capital in November, brought new terror into the heart of Europe, whilst Isis
advances in Syria, Libya and Iraq, for example, added to the forced migration
of Biblical proportions, with more than a million refugees and migrants cross-
ing into Europe in 2015 alone.
The refugee crisis and notably the image of the drowned three-​year-​old boy,
Alan Kurdi, his body lying face-​down on a Turkish beach in September 2015
as his family fled war-​torn Syria, galvanized the world’s media and at least the
 In t r o d u c t i o n   11

rhetoric of Europe’s politicians. Public sympathy appeared to translate into

public empathy with a spike in donations to refugee aid charities.6
But a new saturating and globally linked pattern of visceral images of atrocity
and suffering had emerged between those of Isis barbarity in Paris, Tunisia, and
Syria, for example, and of the outpouring of refugees. With accelerating syner-
gies between established and emergent media, one glut of images displaced the
next, modulating public support from providing shelter to yet more war.
Although hyperconnectivity may afford a greater sense of proximity to and
continuousness of risk events, they may also blot others out. In fact, over a lon-
ger timespan, responses to a number of risk events help perpetuate neoliberal
modernity, according to Henry A. Giroux, through “the violence of organized
forgetting” (2014). A paradox of the abundance of postscarcity culture is that
this apparently massive media aid to living memory forges for some a depen-
dency on media that produces the opposite effect. Giroux, for example, argues:

Memory work is dangerous, particularly to those defenders of tyr-

anny such as Cheney, Kristol, Rice and other warmongers for whom
the politics of forgetting is crucial to their own legitimation. When
such anti-​public intellectuals have returned to the national spotlight
in order to revel in history’s erasure, it is time to make trouble and to
hope, as Herbert Marcuse once stated, that “the horizon of history is
still open.7

Debates over shifting types of media producing an excess of information

are not particularly new, but twenty-​fi rst century media bring haunting and
forgetting into a new struggle, disrupting the settling of history for a clear view
on present and future risks.

The Following Chapters

Our earlier emphasis on a dialogue between “lay” and “expert” perceptions
of risk carries with it implications for both the writing and the reading of this
book. As the University of Glasgow economics students insist, this kind of
book must be about theories (and their different critical assumptions), meth-
odologies (and their contingent strengths and weaknesses), and interdisci-
plinary dialogue (which will leave all of us, at some point, as “lay” rather than
“expert” readers). The book is aimed at students in different disciplinary fields,
so the abstractions of discussing theory and method will find each of them as
an amalgam of “expert” and “lay” at some points too. Because of that there may
arise the problem of “easy reading” of some parts of the book, not only for a
1 2    risk and hyperconnect ivit y

broader public at which this book is also aimed, but among university students
as well. We have tried to address this problem in three ways.
First, we have chosen to focus on case studies, which have both a lot of
empirical data and (because of the recent nature of all these risk events) will
resonate with the experience of most readers in some form or another. Second,
in our collaborative writing process (which has applied to all chapters) we have
focused in all of our writing and editing sessions on avoiding academic jargon
wherever possible, and editing for readability. Avoiding jargon is not, however,
the same thing as avoiding formality of language when discussing abstract
issues, such as the critical assumptions underpinning different disciplines
and intellectual paradigms. Entering dialogue about these different critical
assumptions is essential to interdisciplinary work. Interdisciplinarity is about
interrogation in dialogue between these critical assumptions, and achieving
some pathway forward as a result. Some researchers refer to a multidisci-
plinary project as an adding together of the advantages of different disciplin-
ary approaches. But that is not our understanding of “interdisciplinary.” To be
interdisciplinary is, for us, to engage in dialogue between different paradigms
of thought and between their attached concepts, as we have already begun to
do in discussing “scarcity” and “glut.” And some of this discussion is bound to
be abstract in part.
So, as well as using recognizable, recent case studies and constantly chal-
lenging each other’s style of writing as authors, we have adopted a third strategy
for readers. Those readers less interested (or accustomed to) the abstractions
of debate about disciplinary (or paradigm) critical assumptions are encour-
aged to turn first to those chapters subtitled “case study.” We hope, of course,
that these readers will be sufficiently interested to then turn to the chapters
that discuss the theory, methodology, and paradigm debate. However, for uni-
versity students exposed to a number of the disciplines in the social sciences
drawn on in this book, we hope our other two writing strategies will suffice to
encourage you to read chapter by chapter.
And it is chapter by chapter that we now outline what follows ­chapter 1.

PA R T I : M E M O R I E S O F N E O L I B E R A L I S M
Chapter 2, “Cultural Memory, Premediation, and Risk Narratives: Remem­
bering Neoliberalism in the Global Financial Crisis,” begins our theoretical
task of engaging in an intra-​and interdisciplinary way key concepts from new
risk sociology, neoliberalization theory (including sociology, anthropology,
critical human geography, and political science), and connectivity/​memory
studies of emergent media. From new risk theory the chapter explores concepts
 In t r o d u c t i o n   1 3

of “risk modernity,” risk and media, and risk and governmentality, and con-
cludes with Ulrich Beck’s recent call for a new, cosmopolitan “architecture of
institutions” from the “bottom up” in the face of “the worst excesses of a risk
capitalism out of control” on behalf of a democratically renewed Europe (Beck
2013, 79). From recent connectivity/​memory theory the chapter explores
concepts of schema and multidirectional cultural memory, with a focus on
the concepts of premediation and organized forgetting. Within the frame of
neoliberalization studies we explore the “curious case” of the forgetting of the
term “neoliberalism” itself within most parts of the British newspaper indus-
try, and note its re-​emergence in specific institutions of the British broadsheet
press in the midst of the GFC. This chapter also highlights one of our prime
focus points in this book in terms of our source material: journalists as public
intellectuals.
Chapter 3, “Print Media and the Climax of the Global Financial Crisis: A
Case Study of Images, Narratives, Genres, and Memories,” offers a detailed
study of the British newspaper media at the height of the GFC in September
2008. It analyzes images, narratives, and press genres to explore “memories”
of economic crisis: such as the 1930s and 1970s as contextualization for the
“credit crunch” of 2008. The intellectual focus in this chapter is narrative and
discourse analysis of three major broadsheets, the Guardian, the Times, and the
Daily Telegraph as, across the different modalities of editorials, current news
reportage, specialist comment via opinion pieces, photographs, cartoons, and
letters, these newspaper “assemblages” seek to explore, explain, and recom-
mend old schemas and mythologies as well as new alternatives in relation to
a different economic future at the height of the GFC. In the “week the world
changed,” as the Guardian’s Larry Elliott described it, in September 2008,
newspapers reported the collapse and buyout of the world’s biggest mortgage
companies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the crisis and collapse of Lehman
Brothers, and the imminent threat to international banks and other finan-
cial institutions on the verge of catastrophic breakdown via headlines, such
as those of the Daily Telegraph: “The Free Market Remains Our Best Hope,”
“Wall Street Shock Waves Will Buffet Britain,” “The Fall of HBOS Augurs
Hard Times to Come,” and “Who’s to Blame for the Great Financial Crisis?”
Here journalists performed both as mythologists of “core” economic values
and as public intellectual agents searching for alternative voices from the
“periphery.” The chapter concludes with a comparison of financial and social
“viral contagion” from the pages of the Telegraph and from the contemporary
social sciences as we continue to explore the dialogue of risk, connectivity and
neoliberalization in the established media.
Chapter 4, “The New Protest Movements and Dialogical Thinking: Peri­
pheral and Connective Logics,” focuses centrally on recent debates within
14    risk and hyperconnect ivit y

neoliberalization theory to elaborate our distinction between monological talk

and dialogical conversation. We argue that the long-​term debate over mono-
logical and dialogical thinking in the social sciences, especially evident in the
“ethnographic turn” in several disciplines, is important to the current discus-
sion of neoliberal globalization and the academic framing of the antineoliberal
globalization movement. For example, James Goodman and Paul James argue
that within the current hegemonic era of globalization “the dominant ideo-
logues of neoliberal globalism herald a new era of corporate globalization …
[B]‌ut at the same time broader processes of globalism generate new founda-
tions for identification and mobilization” (2007, 4). Goodman and James focus
on the antineoliberal globalization solidarity movements that have sprung up
internationally to challenge the notion of “philosophical or political proce-
dures proclaimed in a single voice from a distance”—​the single monological
voice of neoliberal capitalism. In contrast they support a new political alter-
native “dialogically through discussion and argument in democratic delibera-
tion. Global justice movements engage in this dialogical approach when they
assert the right to make claims or criticize harmful structures and practices”
(2007, 18). Further, as Nancy Fraser has argued, “The shift from a monological
to a dialogical theory requires a further step, beyond those envisioned by most
proponents of the dialogical turn. Henceforth, democratic processes of deter-
mination must be applied not only to the ‘what’ of justice, but also to the ‘who’
and the ‘how.’ In that case, by adopting a democratic approach to the ‘how,’ the
theory of justice assumes a guise appropriate to a globalizing world: dialogi-
cal at every level” (2007, 181). In the concluding part of this chapter we begin
to apply this dialogical methodology (challenging what Fraser calls the “all-​
affected but with few deciding” principle of corporate globalization framing)
in our interpretation of one recent application of connectivity theory, Bennett
and Segerberg’s (2011) analysis of digital media, connective, and collective
logics in the anti-​G20 demonstrations when world leaders met in London in
April 2009 to resolve the GFC.
Chapter 5, “The New Protest Movements and Mainstream Newspapers:
A Case Study of the 2009 London Anti-​G20 Demonstrations,” presents our
second detailed study of key media moments during the GFC: newspaper
responses to the London meeting of G20 leaders in May 2009 and the mass
demonstrations against them. We trace both consensual and alternative explan-
atory discourses in newspapers over the same 12 days analyzed by Bennett and
Segerberg (2011, chap. 4). But rather than content analysis, our methodology
is textual, narrative, and discursive analysis of standard generic items in news-
papers such as headlines and editorials, photographs and cartoons, authored
items, comments, and readers’ letters; as well as discussion of the layout of con-
tiguous items on the page. Our focus is a comparison of the Times’ emphasis on
 In t r o d u c t i o n   1 5

confrontation, disagreement, and projected violence at the demonstrations and

the Guardian’s “quest for alternatives.” But, again, we are not proposing a sim-
plistic binary. We draw attention to occasions of uncertainty, ambiguity, and
outright opposition to the prevailing neoliberal consensus in the Times, as well
as to both support for and dismissal of the demonstrators against neoliberal
globalization in the Guardian. A key dimension in this chapter is the contrast of
the top-​down closure of space to the protesters via the evolution of the “kettle”
strategy by the police (premised on projected anarchist violence by both the
Metropolitan Police and significant parts of the established media) and the
below-​up “performance” strategy of the G20 Meltdown demonstrators (pre-
mised on the “carnival” of dialogue they were promoting). By discussing the
contrasting “kettle” and “performance” logics of action (and their misinterpre-
tation both in the Times’ reporting and in Bennett and Segerberg’s connectivity
analysis), we draw attention to the detail of an empirical newspaper case study
in explicating issues of theory and methodology that we have first introduced
here in ­chapter 1.
Chapter 6, “From Tabloids to Broadsheets: A Case Study of ‘Everyday’
and ‘Premediated’ Journalism during the Global Financial Crisis,” has a joint
intention. First, drawing on risk research concerning differentiation and seg-
mentation within the British newspaper industry, this chapter again uses nar-
rative, discourse, modal, and generic concepts to compare tabloid, midmarket,
and broadsheet representations of the anti-​G20 public demonstrations in
March–​April 2009. The chapter also dialogues reflexively with earlier chapters’
emphasis on “slippages” of ambiguity and contradiction (a familiar media/​cul-
tural studies strategy over the last 30 years) by arguing that although there are
indeed differences between tabloids like the Daily Mirror and the midmarket
Daily Mail, and differences of narrative and visual representation as between
the “everyday” demotic presentation of the Mirror and the elaborated discur-
sive rationales of the broadsheet Telegraph, there is, nevertheless, an underly-
ing continuity. Despite the greater “intellectual depth” of the Telegraph, the
metadiscourse of “free trade” and “the market” and the “trickle down” schema
for world poverty are much the same as for the midmarket Daily Mail. This
similarity extends to these newspapers’ exploitation of a pseudoethnographic
engagement: in the Mail via the news genre of “undercover” journalists, and
in the Telegraph mobilization of the photo opportunity by one of its journal-
ists becoming “one of the crowd” among London demonstrators. But this kind
of entry into the “everyday life” of demonstrators allows for no dialogue. In
Arthur Martin’s article “Undercover with the Anarchist Mob” in the Daily
Mail, the demonstrators are given no voice, and are characterized from the top
down by their supposedly “banal, largely useless discussion,” until they drift
off to the pub. And in Celia Walden’s “My Part in the Battle of Threadneedle
16    risk and hyperconnect ivit y

Street” in the Daily Telegraph, our final image of a G20 demonstrator is of a

speechless and frightened young woman demonstrator who, in the face of
the police “kettle,” has fallen from her “performance” stilts to creep away
to the Underground station in her torn tutu. The chapter explores this new
risk emphasis on continuity across newspapers in terms of institutional and
media power by way of recent research and writing about both established and
emergent media.
Chapter 7, “Defining Perception in Established Media and the Challenge
from Emergence: Two Case Studies,” marks the transition from the emphasis
on established media to the emergent media focus of the second part of this
book. It does so by way of introducing two connectivity approaches that we find
richer and more robust than Bennett and Segerberg’s. First we turn to Jeffrey
Juris’s ethnographic study within the anticorporate globalization movement
in Genoa and Barcelona prior to the London demonstrations of 2009. Juris’s
account has several advantages, in our view, over the connectivity approach
of Bennett and Segerberg. First, he rightly criticizes them for overstating the
“coherence and ideological thinness” of these demonstrations. Second, Juris
replaces Bennett and Segerberg’s individualist analysis with a focus on social
movements, drawing here on Giddens’s discussion of self-​reflexivity. Third,
he emphasizes the theatricality and symbolic intent of the demonstrations.
Fourth, he specifies, unlike Bennett and Segerberg, that these are anticorporate
globalization movements, making it clear that, contra some of the newspaper
journalists’ views we have discussed earlier, they do not reject all globalization
but specifically the corporate neoliberal model of capitalism rolled out in the
1980s by Thatcher and Reagan. Fifth, he draws attention to the police deter-
mination to destroy physically the mobilizing advantages of demonstrators’
digital networks, thus providing an ironic counter to the “anarchist violence”
representation of the London demonstrators by much of the British press.
Finally, he describes the below-​up, democratic activism of these demonstra-
tors, not only in terms of a new digital culture, but also as a potential model for
the political level.
The second connectivity approach in this chapter is one we will hear much
more about in our second part: the cultural memory approach represented
here by Brown and Hoskins’s article “Terrorism in the New Memory Ecology.”
Though bridging forward into the terrorism risk-​event field (which opens the
second part of the book), this chapter also reviews the value of the connec-
tivity/​memory approach for our discussion of the GFC. In particular here we
explore the usefulness of Brown and Hoskins’s social-​cultural concepts: of cul-
ture as a matter of multiple subjectivities constructed in relation to memories;
of premediation, mediation, and mediatization as historically shifting (yet also
residual) schemas of remembering and forgetting; and of memorialization as
 In t r o d u c t i o n   17

potentially both an opening up and a closing off of memories in the context of

current policy and future ideals. We compare, for example, their discussion of
the “countermonument” set up in Hyde Park for victims of the 7/​7 terrorist
attack on London with the performativity of the 2009 demonstrators in that
same park and around the Bank of England.
In this conclusion to Part I of the book, we draw attention to the bringing
together here of new risk theory relating to the differentiated yet continuous
nature of “established” mediation, of ethnographic “tales from the field,” and
of neoliberalization theory (focusing on anticorporate globalization) with the
connectivity theories of “schema,” “premediation,” and “remediation.” In rela-
tion to notions of grounded meaning, embodiment, performance, and media-
tization, this lays the foundation for Part II of this book.

PA R T I I : S C A R C I T Y A N D P O S T S C A R C I T Y
The second part of Risk and Hyperconnectivity opens with ­chapter 8, “Memory
and the Archival Event: A Case Study of the Coroner’s Inquest into the 2005
London Bombings,” which addresses the terrorism event of the 2005 London
bombings and the coroner’s inquests into 7/​7 to show how twenty-​fi rst-​century
risk is manifested in new conglomerations of media and memory in postscar-
city culture. This “nexus” of media, memory, and risk is key to us: first, for 7/​
7’s (re)shaping of an entire discourse and geopolitics of risk and terror (on
radicalization, “the enemy within”) and marking the beginnings of a digital
turn on memory (newly appropriated through mobile/​pervasive media); sec-
ond, for the unique perspective of John Tulloch as a survivor of the Edgware
Road Tube bombing; third, for our collaborative analysis developed from both
of us spending time at the Royal Courts of Justice during the inquests; and,
fourth, for our treatment of the inquests as an archival event, with media shap-
ing a new nexus of memory. It is through this treatment of the dynamics of the
new memory ecology that we develop Scollon and Scollon’s (2004) pioneer-
ing methodology of “nexus analysis.” This approach reveals how media bring
into play (and into collision) multiple cycles of discourse over time in shaping
memory, risk, terror, and so on, as an ongoing set of dynamics. Nexus analy-
sis offers a critical approach against singular analyses of either established or
emergent media.
In ­chapter 9, “The 2011 English Riots: A Case Study,” we show the sig-
nificance of hyperconnectivity to the media ecology of the 2011 English
riots—​its unique mix of devices, networks, and technologies, including secure
networks—​in reflexively shaping its own development and impact on a range
of actors, and theirs on it. But we also show that it was the archival afterlife that
1 8    risk and hyperconnect ivit y

rapidly crystalized accounts for this urban unrest and responses to it. To this
end, we critically examine the uses of Twitter by the Guardian and the London
School of Economics’s (LSE) empirical study “Reading the Riots” to high-
light the significant challenges for studying crisis and risk under conditions of
hyperconnectivity. Central to our thesis again here is the shift in a range of dis-
courses toward attributing a particular power and influence to emergent over
established media. This is manifested in the appeal to the volume and the ease
of mining data sets such as Twitter against broader and more complex media
ecology analyses that seek to uncover the dynamic connectivities between dif-
ferent media rather than being overdependent on a single medium as the core
corpus for investigation.
Chapter 10, “The Piketty Event: A Case Study,” discusses the publication of
Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-​First Century as a pivotal moment dur-
ing the writing of this book. For us the “Piketty event” affords a major impetus
to our overarching hypothesis on risk and hyperconnectivity. This includes
the simultaneous content, publication, and scholarly, journalistic, and political
reception and debate over this work. We call this the Piketty “event” to draw
attention to Piketty’s defining incursion in the history of the economics of
inequality both as a momentous attack on neoliberalism, and as a critical inter-
vention in the dialogue between us as authors and our respective approaches.
To do this we identify what we see in the Piketty event as three “re-​evaluation
markers” of the nature and the study of twenty-​fi rst-​century politics, econom-
ics, and law.
The first is Piketty’s championing of the kind of interdisciplinary and plain-​
speaking approach (against what he sees as the introverted theory-​burdened
field of economics) that is also central to our collaboration. This involves our
dialogical approach between our respective disciplinary lenses and through
our mix of critical realism and “soft” constructivism (Irwin 2001).
The second is the transformative use of digital data that makes his argument
possible, and we ask in this case whether this use is an enhancer or narrower of
public and political debate. But we are also concerned to highlight the dialogic
dynamics between different modes of analysis in Piketty’s construction of a
different kind of memory of the economics of inequality. We do this through
highlighting the mix of established and emergent media’s visceral engagement
with Piketty’s major attack on neoliberalism. Key to the nature of this engage-
ment with Piketty is our highlighting of a foundational concern of new risk
theory: expert versus lay knowledge.
The third of Piketty’s reevaluation markers is his focus on “scarcity,” which
contributes to our synthesis of risk and hyperconnectivity. We argue that the
weight of risk shifts with emergent and multiple modes of scarcity/​abundance.
To this end we employ David Harvey’s neoliberalism critique to deepen our
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 R571693.
One Monday morning.
LP42980.
One that got away.
LP43026.
On - Line Software, Inc.
MP25127 - MP25131.
On Scene Cine Films.
MP25357.
On the road with Charles Kuralt.
MP25100.
On the shores of Nova Scotia.
R578945.
Operating systems concepts.
MP24940.
Operating systems features.
MP24942.
Operational considerations.
MP24956.
Operation quickfind.
MP25438.
Operation: Time fuse.
LP43229.
Operation: Wastepaper world.
LP43231.
Op - Op the eskimo and the igloos of OOmy.
LU3664.
Optical isomers.
MP25316.
Optimists.
LP42936.
Optimists of Nine Elms.
 LP42936.
Ordeal of a President.
LP43363.
Order in the house.
LP43057.
Organization.
LP43237.
Organization controls in EDP systems.
MP25239.
Organization for Tropical Studies.
MP24969 - MP24974.
Orientation and overview.
MP25449.
Origins of man.
MP24742 - MP24745.
Orson Welles tonight.
MP24878.
MP24880.
Ortho Diagnostics.
MP25355.
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation.
MP24848.
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation.
SEE Ortho Diagnostics.
Osborn, John Jay, Jr.
LP43261.
OS overview.
MP24940 - MP24945.
OS / VSJCL differences.
MP25132.
Other half of the sky, a China memoir.
MU9015.
Other Martin Loring.
LP43423.
Other side of the coin.
LP43022.
Our way of life.
MP25278.
Our wonderful body: how we keep fit.
MP25391.
Our wonderful body: medicines, drugs and poisons.
MP25395.
Out California way.
R568605.
Outcast.
LP43489.
Outdoor play: a motivating force for learning.
MP25165.
Outlaw of the plains.
R569735.
Out West.
R578428.
Overland riders.
R569733.
Overnight.
MU9004.
Over the Santa Fe Trail.
R572338.
Overview.
MP25162.
Owczarzak, Alfred F.
MP25297.
MP25310.
Owen Marshall, counselor at law.
 LP43140 - LP43158.
LP43409 - LP43412.
Oz. of Prevention.
MP25338.
MP25339.
 P
Pace Films Productions.
MP25272.
Pal, Laszlo.
MP25040.
Palmer, Patrick.
LP43310.
Palomar Pictures International, Inc.
LP43208.
Pamar, Inc.
MP25180.
Panasia.
LP42939.
P and A facilities.
MU9007.
P and A inventory management.
MU9006.
Pandora’s box.
MP25108.
Paper chase.
LP43261.
Papua and New Guinea.
MP24875.
Paramount news.
R566187.
R566188.
R566924.
R566925.
R567527.
R567767.
 R567768.
R568370.
R568652.
R569926 - R569929.
R570570 - R570571.
R570573.
R570577.
R572286.
R572287.
R572755.
R572757.
R572758.
R573105.
R573106.
R573321 - R573323.
R574195 - R574198.
R574924 - R574925.
R575366 - R575367.
R576619 - R576622.
R577329 - R577330.
R578416 - R578417.
R579136 - R579139.
R579724 - R579725.
R579895 - R579896.
Paramount Pictures Corporation.
LP42937.
LP43354 - LP43355.
Paramount Pictures Corporation. Paramount Television.
LP43550 - LP43573.
Paramount Pictures, Inc.
R566187.
R566188.
R566924.
R566925.
R567527.
R567767.
R567768.
 R568370.
R568652.
R569926 - R569929.
R570570 - R570571.
R570573.
R570577.
R572286.
R572287.
R572755.
R572757.
R572758.
R573105.
R573106.
R573321 - R573323.
R573497.
R574027 - R574034.
R574195 - R574198.
R574924.
R574925.
R575366.
R575367.
R576594.
R576619 - R576622.
R577329 - R577330.
R578383.
R578390.
R578392.
R578416 - R578417.
R579136 - R579139.
R579724 - R579725.
R579895 - R579896.
Paramount Television, a division of Paramount Pictures Corporation.
SEE Paramount Pictures Corporation. Paramount Television.
Parent counseling child care system.
MP25168.
Park Avenue beat.
LP43386.
Park Avenue rustlers.
LP43395.
Participative problem solving skills.
MP25423.
Parts and accessories facilities.
MU9007.
Parts and accessories inventory management.
MU9006.
Part time pal.
R572724.
Pass.
MP24915.
Passage to Helena.
LP42990.
Pastorale.
R574863.
Patio museum.
R578362.
Patriotic music: its influence on United States history, 1775 - 1900.
MP24799.
Patrol procedures, 1 — violent crimes.
MP24933.
Patterson, Donald D.
MP25114.
Paul, Rodrick.
LP43261.
Paul Revere’s ride.
LP43366.
Pawn.
LP43340.
Peacemaker.
LP43238.
Peace pipe.
LP43163.
Peace time football.
R572099.
Peach Enterprises, Inc.
MP25484.
Pearlstone Film Company.
MP25478.
Pedestrian.
MP24750.
Peiser, Judy.
MP25277.
Pelican pranks.
R572016.
Penguins.
LP43530.
Penn - Pacific Corporation. Sidaris Company.
MP24847.
Pentagon.
LF127.
LF132.
LF135.
LF137.
Peregrinations Film Holding, Ltd.
MU8894.
Perfection of vices.
LP43584.
Personal safety.
MP25233.
Perspective Films, a division of Esquire, Inc. SEE Esquire, Inc.
Perspective Films.
Perugia, Luciano.
 LP42961.
Peters, Brock.
LP43138.
Peters, Norman C.
MP25488.
Petersen Company.
LP43138.
Pet peeves.
R579955.
Pfizer, Inc.
MP25125.
MP25154.
MP25169.
MP25324.
MP25385.
MP25386.
MP25417.
MP25427.
Phantom of Hollywood.
LP43210.
Pharmaceutical Division, Marion Laboratories, Inc. SEE Marion
Laboratories, Inc. Pharmaceutical Division.
Phillips, Robert J.
MP25062.
Phony express.
LP43131.
Phos: The Light.
MP24916.
Phototaxis in amoeba and euglena SP.
MP25301.
Physical and chemical properties of the elements.
MP25228 - MP25231.
Physical diagnosis.
 MP25254 - MP25268.
Physical properties.
MP25228.
MP25231.
Physiological and behavioral effects of noise.
MP24800.
Piece of God.
LP43147.
Pierce, Albert L.
MP25042.
Pierce, Charles B.
LP43576.
Pierce (Charles B.) Advertising and Productions, Inc.
LP43576.
Pilgrim lady.
R568604.
Pillar, David.
LP43228.
Pine marten getting food.
MP24769.
Pine squirrel: mother and young.
MP24788.
Pinewood Films, Ltd.
LF133.
LF134.
LF135.
LF143.
Pinter, Harold.
LP42934.
Pit.
LP43236.
Pitfall.
 LP43578.
Place of our own.
MP25415.
Plainsman and the lady.
R568606.
Plankton to fish: a food cycle.
MP25457.
Plantations of Louisiana.
MP24976.
Plastics.
MP25275.
MP25276.
Plaut, Walter.
MP25298.
MP25307.
Playboy Productions, Inc.
LP43622.
Playground in the zoo.
MU8995.
Plea.
LP42975.
Please don’t send flowers.
LP43463.
Pluto.
LP43536.
Poetry for fun - dares and dreams.
MP25064.
Poet’s pub.
LF136.
Point of proof 800 series cornhead.
MP25156.
Point of proof low profile combine.
 MP25157.
Point of proof rotary cultivators.
MP25159.
Point of proof 345 spring tooth harrow.
MP25158.
Political animal.
MP25138.
Pollution Control Education Center, Township of Union Public
Schools. SEE Union Township (NJ) Public Schools. Pollution
Control Education Center.
Polo.
R570079.
Polymorph Films, Inc.
MP24983 - MP24986.
Polynesia.
MP25219.
Ponicsan, Darryl.
LP43260.
Poolside hands.
MU9009.
Portafilms.
LP43126.
MP24862.
MP24938.
MP24939.
Possessed.
LP43234.
Potpourri.
MP25282.
Power steering problems and diagnosis.
MP25146.
Prairie badmen.
 R569730.
Prairie raiders.
R578899.
P. R. C. Pictures, Inc.
R569727 - R569733.
R569735 - R569745.
Predators and prey of the forest.
MP24779.
Pressure point.
LP43494.
Preventing laboratory accidents.
MP25294.
Price of a life.
LP43052.
Primal man.
MP25445.
Primary Medical Communications, Inc.
MP24796.
Principles of virtual storage.
MP25133.
Priority one: environment — water pollution, distillation of water.
MP25494.
Problem.
LP43159.
Problem drinkers.
MP25405.
Problem with Charlie.
LP43421.
Processing controls.
MP25238.
Produ Film Company.
LU3669.
Produzioni DeLaurentiis Intermaco, S. P. A.
LP43351.
Professional.
LP43288.
Professor.
LP43171.
Program design and task management.
MP24941.
Programmed for panic.
LP43432.
Programming concepts.
MP24954.
Programming efficiency.
MP25433.
Project Concern, Inc.
MP24917.
Project 7, Inc.
MP24893.
Project Washoe.
MP25170.
Prophet.
LP43253.
Proprioceptive and sensory systems, normal and abnormal signs.
MP25259.
Prostaglandins: tomorrow’s physiology.
LP43123.
Protein translation.
MP25314.
Psychiatry learning system.
MP25378.
Psychological Skills Development Corporation.
MP25425.
Psynfac Corporation.
MP25488.
Public Communication Foundation for North Texas, Dallas.
MP25413.
Public image.
LP43303.
Publicity hound.
LP43183.
Public Media, Inc.
MP24868 - MP24877.
MP25473.
MP25475.
Pupil centered classroom — elementary.
MP25364.
Purge of madness.
LP43114.
Pursued.
LP43242.
R576618.
 Q
Q - ED Productions, Inc.
LP43127.
QM Productions.
LP42987 - LP43046.
LP43234 - LP43257.
Quality of fear.
LP43112.
Queen of burlesque.
R569727.
Queens College, Flushing, NY.
MP25165.
Queen’s gambit.
LP42964.
Quest.
MP24902.
Question of guilt.
LP43471.
Quiet campus.
MU8993.
 R
Raack, R. C.
MP25181.
Rabbit transit.
R567286.
Raccoon family.
MP24775.
Raccoon getting food.
MP24787.
Raccoon survival techniques.
MP24785.
MP24786.
Radioactive fission.
MP25177.
Radioactivity.
MP25176.
Radnitz, Robert B.
LP43371.
Rainbow over the Rockies.
R579842.
Ramsey (Hec) Productions.
LP43383.
LP43384.
LP43388.
LP43389.
Ramsgate Films.
MP24906.
Rank Film Distributors, Ltd.
R568515.
R574816 - R574819.
 R578285 - R578288.
R578604 - R578605.
Rasch, Arthur Robert.
MU8975.
Razor’s edge.
R568008.
Reaching out.
MP25342.
Read.
LP43073.
Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.
LP43233.
Reader’s theater — secondary.
MP25372.
Reading activities.
MP25375.
Reading skills series, no. 3.
MP25269.
MP25270.
Ready.
LP43074.
Ready, set, read.
LP43073.
LP43074.
LP43075.
Really important person.
R567066.
Rebel in white.
LP43292.
Record party.
R578384.
Record ride for the pony express.
 LP43367.
Red bicycle.
LP43054.
Red fury.
R574038.
Red hot rangers.
R577229.
Redinger, Donald M.
MU8950.
Reducers and gearmotors.
MP24920.
Reese, John.
LP43604.
Reischauer on Asia.
MP25106.
Reluctant dragon.
LP43543.
Reluctant widow.
LF131.
Rembrandt.
MP25154.
Render safe.
LP43406.
Repairs to air conditioning condensers.
MP25067.
Repix, Inc.
R568600 - R568606.
Reptiles.
MP25216.
Republic Productions, Inc.
R5686OO - R568606.
Requiem for young lovers.