How Do Interactions of Journalism and Activism Shape Social Movements?

Understanding the important (but overlooked) role of these interactions in contemporary social movements

Cover art by the author

Social movements, mass protests, and political violence are on the rise. Although international conflicts have trended downwards, domestic conflicts, civil unrest, and mass protests have trended upwards globally. No economies or political regimes are immune to mass protests and social movements.

When studying these developments over the last few decades, scholars began to reach a consensus. Researchers generally agreed that journalism and activism had a stable relationship promoting democratization and generating social impact. Intuitively, this made sense. After all, activists, for or against a particular social movement, tended to pursue media attention for exposure and visibility. Conversely, journalists tended to pursue headlines in social issues of all shapes and sizes. Intuitively, journalism seemed to support activism, enable social change, and empower social movement.

And so, a basic idea took shape: the idea that a simplistic, mutually-supportive relationship existed between journalism and activism in social movements. This idea took hold. From scholarly researchers to professional analysts and from seasoned journalists to everyday activists, people began to make this assumption.

“Journalism” refers to any concrete action leading to or hoping to lead to published reporting on current events. For example, posting on-the-ground Twitter updates, conducting interviews, recording video footage, etc.

“Activism” refers to any concrete action leading to or hoping to lead to social change. For example, protests, advocacy-driven legal work, social media campaigning, etc.

However, independent changes within journalism and activism have recently complicated this assumption. Within the last few years, journalism has undergone digitization, and the ‘objectivity’ of journalism has come increasingly into question. Simultaneously, activism has also undergone digitization and, relatedly yet distinctly, globalization. These changes have rendered preexisting ideas incomplete, at best, and inaccurate, at worst.

So how do journalism and activism interact amidst social movements in the contemporary digital information landscape?

That’s the question my research asked — and answered — in order to better understand social change. Through comparative case studies, I found that interactions between journalism and activism were a significant but often overlooked mechanism for shaping social movements.

My research culminated in two valuable components: 1) an analytically valuable approach to understanding the types and roles of journalism-activism interactions in social movements; 2) practical insights for those in the journalism industry, those advocating for a cause, and those who find themselves generally involved in social change.

Let me break it down.

A Typology of Journalism and Activism in Social Movements

So how do you begin to understand the interactions of journalism and activism in contemporary social movements? I started by reviewing research from media studies and social movement studies. However, I found that existing theories of social change lack an essential ‘last mile’ component. No theories currently offer specific mechanisms for how activists and journalists function amidst social change; all theories simply assume that they do function together to further social change.

To fill this gap, I developed a typology that provided a structure for understanding the specific types and roles of interactions between journalism and activism in contemporary digital social movements. My typology had two dimensions, both treated as continuums:

The Dimension of Distinguishability revolves around the question: How distinguishable is journalism from activism and vice versa in the event under consideration? Distinguishability formed the horizontal axis of my typology. At the left end of the continuum, journalism and activism are delineable and have no overlap. At the right end of the continuum, journalism and activism have complete overlap. The phenomena are indistinguishable from each other. The midpoint of the continuum is the most difficult to conceptualize. At the midpoint, the phenomena of journalism and activism are blended together but relatively distinguishable.

The Dimension of Social Movement Impact is characterized by this question: What is the impact of the interaction under consideration on the social movement? Impact formed the vertical axis of my typology. At the top of the continuum, the event under consideration strongly or fully supports the primary social movement. At the midpoint of the continuum, the interaction under consideration exerts some influence on the social movement, but the influence does not definitively support the movement nor definitively oppose the movement. At the bottom of the continuum, the interaction under consideration strongly or fully opposes the social movement, working against its goals.

Together, these dimensions form a typology with four quadrants. To distill this analytical approach, consider an example interaction from each quadrant:

1. Quadrant I is for interactions between journalism and activism that are Moderately Distinguishable to Indistinguishable and Ambiguously Impactful to Supportive. For example, someone tweeting the details of a protest on the ground is both an activist, by advocating for the social movement, and a journalist, by reporting information.
2. Quadrant II is for interactions between journalism and activism that are Distinguishable to Moderately Distinguishable and still Ambiguously Impactful to Supportive. For example, an interview between a freelance reporter and a protestor involves two discrete agents, a journalist and an activist, interacting.
3. Quadrant III is for interactions between journalism and activism that are Distinguishable to Moderately Distinguishable and Ambiguously Impactful to Oppositional. For example, military personnel violently dispersing protestors are actively countering a social movement without any journalistic component.
4. Quadrant IV is for interactions between journalism and activism that are Moderately Distinguishable to Indistinguishable and Ambiguously Impactful to Oppositional. For example, governmental efforts to censor information about a social movement may involve censoring social media posts from traditional news outlets and from formal activist organizations. In this way, censorship can intentionally or unintentionally treat journalism and activism the same.

This Typology of Journalism and Activism in Social Movements offers a framework for identifying and understanding specific interactions that shape social change. After proposing a generic version of this typology, I conducted two comparative case studies to apply, challenge, and refine this analytical tool. Through these case studies, I validated that my typology offered an analytically valuable approach to understanding the types and roles of journalism-activism interactions in social movements. The final typology is shown here.

Figure 1: Typology of Journalism and Activism Dynamics in Social Movements
Each box is sized and placed according to the data collected and analyzed in the case study research. Boxes are shown as overlapping when the case studies involved examples of the interactions happening simultaneously.

Interviews: This interaction refers to any instances of two (or more) agents conducting an interview that relates to the social movement under consideration. In these interactions, one individual functions as the journalist, reporting information, and one functions as the activist, advocating for a specific outcome.

• Supportive Interviews advocate for the social movement (for example, interviews from sit-in participants).
• Oppositional Interviews advocate against the social movement (for example, interviews from politicians).

Opinion-Driven Publications: This interaction refers to published pieces that report information with an explicit opinion on the social movement. These sorts of publications ranged from self-published pieces (e.g., blogs) to professionally published pieces (i.e., academic journals and mainstream news outlets). However, the impact of these publication endeavors remained limited and difficult to discern.

• Supportive Opinion-Driven Publications advocated for the social movement.
• Oppositional Opinion-Driven Publications advocated against the social movement.

Unrelated News: This interaction refers to news cycle publications that do not relate to a social movement taking place. This emerged as one of the only instances of journalism without an activism component. Consequently, unrelated news does not directly support a movement but can potentially counter it. Various audiences may not see the social movement in news feeds or reports and, consequently, do nothing directly for or directly against the movement. This inaction allows the status quo to perpetuate itself, typically to the benefit of those opposed to the social movement.

Hashtags: This type of interaction refers to the usage of hashtags in any form. Hashtags alone may or may not convey an opinion on a social movement and, depending on the context of a specific post, may or may not include activism and journalism components.

Governmental Statements: This type of interaction refers to public statements made by the government that supported the social movement. These statements involved a social change component and, simultaneously, involved an interrelated publishing and reporting component.

Investigative Reports: This interaction refers to the conclusion of any investigative work. Because investigations aim to research and report their findings, these groups naturally have a journalistic component. In a social movement context, investigations typically advocate for specific changes, giving them an activism component.

Legal Work: This type of interaction refers to any attempts to leverage the legal system for a specific social movement-related outcome. Legal work took various forms, including providing legal aid for individuals arrested or detained, filing legal complaints, publishing legal arguments, etc. Regardless of the specific type, legal work always involved pushing for a specific outcome, a strong advocacy component. Simultaneously, legal work also involved similar mechanisms of researching, marshaling evidence, and publishing that form the core of journalistic reporting. In this way, legal work blended activism-driven legal outcomes with journalism-driven legal argumentation.

• Supportive Legal Work refers to any efforts to leverage the legal system to further the social movement (for example, the repeal of a piece of legislation).
• Oppositional Legal Work refers to any efforts to leverage the legal system to counter the social movement (for example, the defense of a piece of legislation).

Digital Information-Sharing: This type of interaction refers to the wide variety of digital activity that aims to share information about a social movement. This includes sharing photos and videos, posting infographics, spreading updates on protest or counterprotest events, etc. Although highly context-dependent, these interactions involved providing or exchanging information about the ongoing social movement, giving them a journalistic function. Simultaneously, these interactions predominantly took a stance on the social movement.

• Supportive Digital Information-Sharing refers to any efforts to share information that furthers the social movement (for example, sharing a guide on how to safely protest).
• Oppositional Digital Information-Sharing refers to any efforts to share information that counters the social movement (for example, posting videos of a protest turning violent).

Correcting Misinformation: This type of interaction refers to efforts to counter misinformation. Whether or not various agents intended to spread misinformation, many did. Sometimes this misinformation undermined the social movement. Sometimes this misinformation enabled the social movement. Within this misinformation landscape, parallel efforts have emerged that attempt to correct inaccuracies. These efforts predominantly took place online and involved articles from established newsrooms, self-published blogs, social media posts, real-time fact-checking groups on WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc. In this way, these fact-checking materials simultaneously serve reporting and advocating functions.

• Supportive Misinformation Correction refers to correction efforts that address misinformation that undermines the social movement.
• Oppositional Misinformation Correction refers to correction efforts that address misinformation that legitimizes the social movement.

Censorship: This type of interaction refers to any effort to restrict information pertaining to a social movement. Censorship can involve internet shutdowns, content removals, banning or blocking sites, account suspension, arresting people for their online activity, etc. Large-scale censorship efforts usually involve government entities, but smaller-scale censorship could involve a variety of agents. Efforts to censor information about a social movement involve agents that do not distinguish between journalism and activism but respond to both with blunt removal tools.

Media Attacks: This interaction, a specific type of censorship, refers to physical or non-physical attacks on media professionals. Examples include fines, targeted arrests, and targeted attacks by various agents. Just like censorship, media attacks involve external agents who view the work of media professionals as supporting an ongoing social movement and who respond by attempting to prevent the work of journalists.

This typology offers an analytically valuable approach to understanding the interactions of journalism and activism in social movements. Although I have attempted to provide as many insights as possible, this typology does not claim to be comprehensive. Additional types of interactions will inevitably emerge.

The Comparative Case Studies

To develop this typology, I conducted two case studies: India’s Anti-CAA movement and Nigeria’s #ENDSARS movement. I chose these case studies because they have three convergent factors: relative significance domestically, relative significance internationally, and contemporariness. Simultaneously, I chose these case studies because they have three divergent factors: geography, duration, and mediatization. The geographical variation and non-Western focus are especially crucial because current literature in journalism studies and social movement studies have strong Eurocentrism, which my case studies challenge.

For each case study, I found and analyzed both primary sources (such as social media posts, photos, videos, and some types of local news articles) and secondary sources (such as existing academic works and some international news articles).

India’s Anti-CAA movement took place between December 2019 and March 2020. The Anti-CAA movement emerged as a response to the Indian government passing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). This law fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim communities from specific countries. Critics of the CAA viewed this law, and several related pieces of legislation, as discriminatory to Muslims and as problematically furthering Hindu nationalist ideas. The Anti-CAA movement wanted the CAA and related legislation repealed. This movement faded in prominence after India imposed strict COVID-19 lockdowns.

Nigeria’s #ENDSARS movement took place primarily within October 2020. This movement — which built upon many long-standing frustrations of Nigerian youth — erupted after a video emerged supposedly showing Nigerian police from the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) attacking and shooting a young man then driving off in his luxury jeep. The #ENDSARS movement called for the government to disband SARS and reform police systems to end police brutality, among other demands. The #ENDSARS movement faded in prominence after the October 20 Lekki Toll Gate violence, where Nigerian security forces open-fired on peaceful protestors at Lekki Toll Gate in Lagos. Days afterward, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari spoke in veiled threats against protestors, leading numerous protest organizations to discourage further mass protests and promote people’s safety.

These case studies proved highly insightful for understanding the complexity and nuance in dynamics of journalism and activism and their relationship to social movements. Together, the case studies provided a level of nuance and complexity missing from the existing scholarship. In both movements, neither activism nor journalism inherently contributed to social change efforts. Rather, interactions of journalism and activism formed balancing and reinforcing feedback loops with other journalism events and activism events, shaping the development of the social movement.

Additionally, these case studies provided an answer to the question of how journalism and activism dynamics function in online and offline spaces. In both movements, distinguishable journalism events and activism events tended to predominantly take place offline. Conversely, indistinguishable interactions of journalism and activism tended to predominantly take place online or to have significant online components. In digital spaces, the same agent could serve multiple functions with relative ease, both reporting information in a published form and advocating for a social change outcome.

The Implications for Activists, Journalists, and Other Stakeholders

So what does this research mean in practice?

First, anyone can use this Typology of Journalism and Activism in Social Movements to understand a social movement, past or present. The typology offers an analytically valuable approach to understanding an often overlooked component of social change.

Second, those in the journalism industry, those advocating for a cause, and those who generally find themselves involved in social change can use this typology as a guide for identifying specific actions they may want to take and for assessing the potential outcome of these actions.

For those in the journalism industry:

• Consider the priority given to covering social movements and other social issues, both domestically and internationally: What would it look like for you to make these topics a higher priority? What would it look like for you to make these topics a lower priority?
• Consider the implication of contributing to misinformation correction efforts: What misinformation needs to be addressed? How could you correct it?
• Consider the possibility of investigative reporting: What topics, issues, or events might benefit from investigative work? What would it look like for you to work on this?
• Consider the hashtags used in sharing content online: What hashtags could make your work more accessible? What hashtags is your audience using? What hashtags may undermine the credibility of your work?

For those advocating for a cause:

• Consider the priority given to legal work: What would it look like for you to make this a higher priority? What would it look like for you to make this a lower priority?
• Consider the available digital resources for the issue at hand: Are people missing important information about the topic? Are people missing important information about how they can get involved with this issue?
• Consider whether or not there are investigation projects underway: Could you initiate an investigation? Could you contribute to an ongoing investigation? Could you make a longer investigative report easier to understand?
• Consider the time and effort devoted to giving interviews to media professionals: What would it look like for you to devote more time and energy to this? What would it look like for you to devote less time and energy to this?
• Consider the news headlines unrelated to the cause at hand: How can you connect these headlines to your cause? How can you connect seemingly unrelated developments to your cause?

For those generally involved in social change:

• Consider the possibility of opinion-driven publications: Do you have an opinion on a specific issue? Can you support this opinion with evidence and argumentation? Could this argument be valuable for other individuals?
• Consider the implications of contributing more explicitly to a social change effort: What could this look like for you? What are the upsides of doing so? What are the downsides of doing so?
• Consider the landscape of misinformation: Are you spreading misinformation? Are you correcting misinformation? Do you fact-check information that you encounter online?

The online and offline interactions of journalism and activism shape contemporary social movements. Many individuals are involved in these interactions in different contexts, whether or not they recognize it. For this reason, understanding the types and roles of journalism-activism interactions in contemporary social movements is essential.