The Morality of Online Issue Publics: Exploratory Research into the Online Network of Vaccine Choice (“Anti-Vaccine”) Advocates.

(1)

The Morality of

Online Issue Publics:

Exploratory Research into the

Online Network of Vaccine Choice

(“Anti-Vaccine”) Advocates.

Sage Stargrove, Author

Marc Tutors, Thesis Advisor

Esther Weltevrede, Second Reader

Master’s Thesis

New Media and Digital Culture

Graduate School of Humanities

University of Amsterdam

Address: Grote Bickerstraat 68B

Amsterdam, 1013KS

Phone: 31685818071

Student ID: 10849807

(2)

2.1) Lippmann and Dewey’s Perspective on Democracy and The Public 4 2.2) Publics and Issue Publics within the Public 7 2.3) The Process of Using New Media 8 2.4) Issue Publics and Issue Networks 10 2.5) Dewey’s Warning of the Potential of Meaningless Content 10 2.6) The Issue public of Kim Kardashian: #breaktheinternet 12

3) The Vaccine Choice (“Anti-Vaccine”) Online Issue Public 14

3.1) Case Study One 15

3.2) Research Question 16

3.3) Methodology 16

3.4) Findings 18

3.5) Discussion 21

3.6) Case Study Two 23

3.7) Research Question 24

3.8) Methodology 24

3.8.1: Prerequisite Preparatory Steps 24 3.8.2: Use of Digital Method Tools for Case Study One 25

3.9) Findings 28

3.10) Discussion 31

3.11) Libertarian and Utilitarian Perspectives within Case Study One and Two 33

4) Modes of Existence and Online Issue Publics 37

(3)

5) The Need for Criteria to Legitimizing Online Issue Publics 42 5.1) An Introduction into Pragmatic Ethics 43 5.2) Further Criteria for Latour’s Mode of Morality 45 5.3) Qualifying for the Mode of Morality 48 5.4) Categorizing the Online Issue Public of Vaccine Choice (“Anti-Vaccine”) 49 Advocates

6) Conclusion 51

References 53

Appendix A- Case Study One: Comment Analysis 58 Appendix B- Case Study Two: Issue Crawler 65 Appendix C- Chapter Six Interviews 69

Permission to Archive Thesis 73

(4)

INDEX OF IMAGES

Image 1: Word Cloud for Comments from the Article Posted on The Guardian 17 Image 2: Word Cloud for Comments from the Article Posted Facebook 18

Image 3: Vaccine Choice Network 29

Image 4: Tag Cloud 29

Image 5: Cumulative results of terms used 30 Image 6: Latour’s 15 Modes of Existence 38

(5)

ABSTRACT

Based on literature from Walter Lippmann, John Dewey, Bruno Latour and Noortje Marres this study aims to investigate how issue publics within a democracy are able to legitimize themselves. To legitimize the morality of a public it is first necessary to address the topic of what is considered a “good” public and what is considered a “bad” public. This overview allows one to recognize issue publics and also determine their moral legitimacy. Using digital method tools allows for a deeper look into the issue public of vaccine choice (“anti-vaccine”) advocates and the discourse regarding this movement. In the process of this, the question of “How can morality

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to my friends and family who have not only supported my adventure of pursuing a Masters in Amsterdam, but also offered endless support during my moments of panic and self-skepticism. My brother for inspiring me not only to move to Amsterdam, but also to explore the world. My gratitude is especially directed towards my parents who have offered me nothing but love and guidance during my entire academic career. In particular to my father who has always been willing to offer last minute help and editing expertise. This thesis would not have been possible without my advisor, Marc Tuters, who dealt with endless e-mails as I

navigated my way through the writing process. And lastly, I would like to offer a special thanks to my social media followers. These individuals dealt with endless posts regarding my lack of sanity during this thesis writing process. Many followers were lost, but the ones who stayed are the true heroes.

(7)

1) INTRODUCTION

On April 24, 2013 Sophie Heawood – a columnist for The Guardian – wrote a piece regarding why she wishes she had chosen to vaccinate her daughter. Her decision not to immunize led to her daughter contracting pertussis, spending months in pain and “needlessly suffering,” as Heawood explained in the piece. The columnist said she did not have a “decent” reason as to why she chose to not vaccinate but she recognizes that “some of us are still coasting on herd immunity provided by other children, which is no longer enough, because of the growing number of people like [her]” (Heawood, 2013). The choice to not vaccinate her daughter led to Heawood questioning her decision. Sophie opted to tell her story, just as I use this thesis to analyze my own perspective on not being vaccinated.

The purpose of this thesis is to offer an overview of online issue publics – online groups focusing on a specific topic – and establish the criterion for the legitimacy and morality of said publics. This thesis includes two case studies that both use digital method tools to allow for a deeper look into the issue public of vaccine choice (“anti-vaccine”) advocates and the discourse regarding anti-vaccine and vaccine-related health freedom material published online. In the process of this, the question of “how can morality be used to legitimize online issue publics?” is analyzed and most importantly, answered.

A key concept that I focus on within this thesis is an introduction of Walter Lippmann and John Dewey’s theories on democracy and journalism, which thereby leads directly into the creation of publics. In the process of explaining the concept of publics I also present a further explanation of democracy and publics from the point of view of Noortje Marres. As I discuss, Marres’ work focuses heavily on the theories of Lippmann and Dewey. The fundamental aspects of these theories allow for the thesis to expand, including Bruno Latour’s theory on different modes within existence, specifically his perspective on network and morality. The overview of the modes of existence, include not only Latour’s perspective, but also a summarization of Graham Harman’s explanation and understanding of Latour’s theory.

Before closely examining aspects of Latour’s theory, I will present two case studies. The purpose of the studies is to analyze the online vaccine choice (“anti-vaccine”) issue public, while also focusing on the discourse surrounding this group. In doing so, the results share insight into a community-centered versus individual-oriented point of view, which I analyze when focusing on

(8)

Latour’s modes of existence. The concept of networks is highlighted within the creation of the online issue public, whereas, Latour’s criteria for morality is used to analyze the issue public.

To legitimize the morality of a public I will address the topic of what is considered a “good” public and what is considered a “bad” public. I will then use pragmatic ethics and morality to analyze the online anti-vaccine issue public, offering insight into whether or not those within this movement are able to use morality to legitimize their argument. The mode of morality — and more importantly the criteria for this mode — is not only applicable for the purpose of categorizing the vaccine choice (“anti-vaccine”) movement, but also all online issue publics. As I explain within this thesis, I believe that because individuals have access to the Internet, online publics are becoming more common; therefore, the ability to properly categorize online issue publics is a necessity.

By the end of this thesis, the reader will not only be able to identify an online issue public, but also use the mode of morality to question an issue public’s legitimacy. Through the establishment of morality within an issue public, individuals will be able to answer the question of “what is the difference between issue publics with moral backing and those that can be categorized otherwise?” And lastly, individuals will be able to recognize which mode of existence the vaccine choice (“anti-vaccine”) issue public fits into.

(9)

2) JOURNALISM AND DEMOCRACY

Journalism and democracy are the foundations for the creation of publics. In order to address new media and my story within new media, it is necessary to first highlight the field of democratic theory. This process is one that new media theorists, such as Noortje Marres, undertake in order to fully address the field of publics. Groups formed around a specific topic can be recognized as publics; these publics vary from the public. As I explain, when addressing the creation of publics the democratic theories of Walter Lippmann and John Dewey focus on both the press and the government. Before discussing publics, the following section will introduce the public. It is through the evolution of the public that the creation of other forms of publics occurred, allowing for the formation of online issue publics.

According to the Pew Research Center, modern democracy is dependent on the public having accurate and factual information that is placed within a meaningful context (Principles of Journalism, 2013). This explanation of democracy focuses on the public being offered not only facts, but also contextualization. Unfortunately, this process is not as simple as one may hope. “[D]emocracy may be inevitable—but [famous authors] take care to warn that the arrival of democracy by no means necessitates the arrival of truth, goodness, beauty, or universal

happiness” (Crick, 2009: 481). With the first principle of journalism being an obligation to the truth (Principles of Journalism, 2013), one might assume that offering authentic information would be the main role of press in a democratic society.

A democracy can be understood as a government controlled by the people where absolute power is vested in the people. This power is either executed by the people or through the help of elected officials (Merriam-Webster, 2015). The purpose and relationship of journalism for the democracy has been addressed in countless theories over several decades, including those of Lippmann and Dewey. Within the United States, literacy has been associated with health freedom and medical self-care since the emergence of the frontier culture in the early 1800s (Flannery, 2002: 446). The population of the American frontier had relatively high rates of literacy due in large part to their subscribing to and reading self-help journals of Samuel Thomson, hygienists and other nature cure traditions (Flannery, 2002: 449).

(10)

Walter Lippmann and John Dewey are famously known for debating what they believed was the role of the press within the United States’ democratic system. Though the two men had differing views, both understood new media – which during their time would be considered journalism and the press – to have an overall influence on democracy within society. As is explained in greater depth within this chapter, according to both Lippmann and Dewey a public participates in politics when institutions are not capable of fixing the issue.

In her PhD thesis No issue, no public: democratic deficits after the displacement of

politics, Noortje Marres – the Director of the Centre for the Study of Invention and Social

Process, along with Senior Lecturer in Sociology, at Goldsmiths – argues that “the great merit of the exchange between [Lippmann and Dewey] is that they came to recognise issue formation as an important vector of public involvement in politics” (87). The public is able to create dialogue and be involved in the happenings within society through this vector. Thus, issue formation is fundamental to the involvement of the public. Here one sees the value of Lippmann and Dewey’s perspective in understanding both democracy and the public creating democracy. The overview to come offers a deeper understanding as the foundation for the creation of individuals voicing their opinions and concerns.

2.1) Lippmann and Dewey’s Perspective on Democracy and the Public

Lippmann – an American writer, reporter, and political commentator – produced multiple books focusing on, as well as critiquing the role of the public in modern democratic societies. In his 1922 piece of work, Public Opinion, Lippmann was distressed by the democracy’s poor understanding of complex ideas. In his later work Lippmann regained faith in society. Moreover, it is still necessary to note that early on, Lippmann expressed pessimism towards society and its understanding of complex and in-depth issues.

In Public Opinion, journalists — who Lippmann perceived as communicators — were described as those who provide information from elected officials to the public. Due to the complicated interworking of the government and current affairs, Lippmann believed those making the decisions needed to be authorities on the matter. He specifically highlighted how he believed “news and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished” (Lippmann, 1922: 194). According to Lippmann, news had the purpose of focusing on an event, whereas, the

(11)

The theories of Lippmann’s time — circa 1925 when The Phantom Public was published — assumed that the public was “omnicompetent” or becoming competent enough to direct the course of affairs. Overtime, Lippmann came to the conclusion that the public needed assistance in understanding information. He did not see individuals as omnicompetent, instead he believed there were no citizenships that were omnicompetent and this concept was unachievable

(Lippmann, 1925: xxvi).

The individual man does not have opinions on all public affairs. He does not know how to direct public affairs. He does not know what is happening, why it is happening, what ought to happen. I cannot imagine how he could know, and there is not the least reason for thinking, as mystical democrats have thought, that the compounding of individual ignorances in masses of people can produce a continuous directing force in public affairs (Lippmann, 1925: 29).

Lippmann can be considered an elitist because he believed the public was not intelligent enough to interpret large amounts of information. Noam Chomsky – an author and philosopher – explained that Lippmann’s theory “asserts that only a small elite, the intellectual community that the Deweyites were talking about, can understand the common interests, what all of us care about, and that these things ‘elude the general public’” (Chomsky, 1991: 15). With the general public lacking the ability to understand necessary information, Lippmann believed it was the duty of journalists not to be just communicators, but also informants. Since the individual citizen was too ignorant to understand the extensive amounts of information, it was the task of the press to create understanding. Ideally, journalists took massive amounts of information, sorted through it and highlighted the imperative facts so only the essentials and overview would be offered to the readers.

The theory within The Phantom Public was the basis for Lippmann’s argument. He believed that the theory of the public directing events was inaccurate, and in reality the concept of a public was a fictitious notion without basis in empirical reality: it was “the phantom public”. “The public is not, as I see it, a fixed body of individuals. It is merely those persons who are interested in an affair and can affect it only by supporting or opposing actors” (Lippmann, 1925, 67). The public was not a group that consisted of a “fixed” group, but rather was a body of

(12)

individuals that were interested in a certain topic. Similar to an online phenomenon — where individuals also form around a specific affair – a public’s existence, lifespan, and perishing depend on the topic.

Unlike Lippmann, who criticized the public’s inability to understand complex subjects, Dewey’s theories did not reflect an elitist viewpoint. John Dewey was an American philosopher and psychologist who focused on education and political reform. He was influential within the topic of pragmatic ethics, which will be addressed in Chapter Five. In Dewey’s 1927 written response to Lippmann, entitled The Public and its Problem, Dewey stated that he believed the public had the ability to understand the information offered by the policymakers. “A class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge” (Dewey, 1927: 207). To create common interest, Dewey thought that the public should make decisions in an open forum, and only after would

conversations occur. He believed it was necessary to create a participatory democracy where citizens had the opportunity to be involved (Dewey, 1927, 26). How the involvement occurred, however, was not through personal proclamation. “According to Dewey, the principal way in which a public can assure that an issue [was] dealt with [was] by acquiring the resources to do so. The task of a public is thus no less than to assemble an institutional arrangement that will allow the settlement of affairs” (Marres, 2005: 59). This assemblage enables dialogue and a settling of the affairs to occur. Assuming an “open market” and informed decision-making, the public has the ability to decide the ideas that thrive and those that do not.

Dewey’s theory can be compared to the theory of the marketplace of ideas. This concept references philosopher John Stuart Mill’s political metaphor, which implies that the best ideas are the ideas that are able to survive and thrive. “The marketplace of ideas theory stands for the notion that, with minimal government intervention—a laissez faire approach to the regulation of speech and expression—ideas, theories, propositions, and movements will succeed or fail on their own merits” (Pinaire, 2010). Similar to the marketplace theory, Dewey believed that through creating institutional arrangements the public would be able to decide which ideas were successful. As I discuss later, it is my belief that Dewey’s theory of the public being able to decide which ideas are successful thereby implies that all ideas have equal access to

(13)

Within Dewey’s marketplace, journalists were not simply messengers, but also in a sense, judges. Dewey believed it was their duty to offer the public information — especially the

information deemed important — and the effects of the information. “The man who wears the shoe knows best that it pinches and where it pinches, even if the expert shoemaker is the best judge of how the trouble is to be remedied” (Dewey, 1927: 207). It was Dewey’s beliefs that even if the policymakers knew how to antidote a situation, they did not understand the

circumstances in the same manner as the public; with the help of journalists, information could be disseminated to the masses.

2.2) Publics and Issue Publics within The Public

A common understanding of the public is an overall collective of individuals within society, but Lippmann understood this differently: he did not believe that there was a genuine mass, but only what he called a deep pluralism. “Despite Lippmann’s passing reference to ‘the random collection of bystanders who form a public,’ the public is no random or even universal collection of humans, but a specifically different group in the case of each issue that arises” (Harman, 2014: 175). Dewey, on the other hand, saw the public as a group of individuals who are connected due to a common interest or problem. The group did not have control over what was burdening them; therefore they created a public, specifically to respond to the issue. (Marres, 2005: 47).

Those indirectly and seriously affected for good or for evil form a group distinctive enough to require recognition and a name. The name selected is The Public. This public is organized and made effective by means of representatives who are guardians of custom, as legislators, as executives, judges, etc., care for its especial interested by methods intended to regulate the conjoint actions of individuals and groups. Then and in so far, association adds itself to political organization, and something which may be government comes into being: the public is a political state (Dewey, 1927: 35).

Dewey stated that a public is brought together not only because of a similarity, but because the members of the public are dedicated to preserving a common interest. Discourse is the main factor in the creation of publics. Dialogue occurs and from this, a public is created.

(14)

“Men group themselves also for scientific inquiry, for religious worship, for artistic production and enjoyment, for sport, for giving and receiving instruction, for industrial and commercial undertakings” (Dewey, 1927: 26). As Dewey explained, individuals group themselves together depending on their shared interests, animosities and concerns.

In order to be recognized, these publics are given a label — they are “occupy” protesters, “anti-vaxxers”, “do it yourself” (DIY) crafters, etc. It is necessary to understand that every issue public can be categorized as a public, however, not every public is considered an issue public. For instance, DIY crafters form due to a common interest, rather than an issue they are

attempting to find a solution for. Unless the group has an issue they hope to find a specific outcome for, it can be said that the group is merely a public.

Issue publics can be considered self-established because individuals join based on their personal interest around a certain topic. “According to Lippmann and Dewey, the specificity of the public thus resides in the fact that it may adopt problems that no one is taking care of” (Marres, 2005: 47). Dewey continued to highlight his belief that though there are various forms of issue publics, it is necessary for the political groups to be recognized differently than publics focused on community (Dewey, 1927: 26).

Within Lippmann and Dewey’s system of publics, Marres points out an interesting flaw: “Lippmann and Dewey have surprisingly little to say about the process by which a public gets organized. In their writings, the public has a tendency to appear (and disappear) instantaneously” (60–61). The public is created based on specific topics, however, as Marres addresses, neither of the authors offered information or guidance on organizing and sustaining said public. I will use new media, and more specifically the Actor-Network Theory, to explain how a public and network hold key similarities.

2.3) The Process of Using New Media

Before introducing the Actor-Network Theory (ANT), I will first explain the field of new media – in which ANT is positioned. The concept of new media is an ever changing and growing concept. If one were to simplify the concept it could be argued that new media is the field of communications and media, which occurs through the use of digital technologies. “[T]exts distributed on a computer (Web sites and electronic books) are considered to be new media; texts

(15)

must be recognized that the field is fairly abstract simply because it defines itself in relation to a concept that is constantly being altered and revised. Due to this, it cannot be explained as easily as other fields. Within this field, online issue publics must be positioned: I will now do this through the use of ANT.

As stated, Marres notices that Lippmann and Dewey do not address the process by which a public becomes organized; I believe the Actor-Network Theory, created by Bruno Latour and Michel Callon, can be used to fill in the gaps. Latour, whose theory on morality is addressed shortly, is a philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist of science. Michel Callon is a Professor of Sociology at Mines ParisTech. Latour explains that ANT, which can be placed within the field of new media, is an “essential resource to render the social connections traceable” (Latour, 2005: 30). For the sake of the argument to follow, it is necessary to understand a public and a network as similar concepts.

Latour explains that, “any thing that does modify a state of affairs by making a difference is an actor—or, if it has no figuration yet, an actant” (Latour, 2005: 71). The new media theory is based on the concept that nothing acts alone; these actors (or actants) impact the life and

behavior of individuals. As is addressed in the Chapter Three case studies, actors can be seen as a way of analyzing the discourse of a specific subject (Latour, 2005: 71).

A public and a network can be understood as similar entities because a public is a network, thereby being affected by the various actors in the actor-network. The theory is essential because rather than focusing on why the network exists — like Lippmann and Dewey explain when focusing on the creation of a public— the idea highlights how the networks are formed, stay formed and can be destroyed (Latour, 2005: 24). ANT is also necessary for understanding the relevance of a network. It is my belief that the relations within a network define importance, because the more relations something has the more resilient and stable it is. A network with fewer connections can be considered less reliable and robust.

ANT is imperative for the understanding of journalism, since it offers an explanation of how a public — the same public that encompasses specific issues — is created. In regards to journalism, journalists frequently create issue publics. They find an issue and build a community around it. The various actors within the network alter the community, public, or network. Since, according to Latour, any thing that alters a state of affairs is an actor, actors within an issue public are essential for understanding why and how a public comes to exist. It is the job of a

(16)

journalist to understand the surrounding factors of an event; these surrounding factors are the actors within the network. When a journalist investigates an alleged murder suspect, the writer does not simply look at the line of events and make a conclusion. Rather, it is the duty of the journalist to look at all of the actors involved and their perspectives: the suspect’s previous experiences, family members, peers, and everyday life.

2.4) Issue Publics and Issue Networks

Now that issue publics have been explained, it is important to understand what issue

networks are. Hugh Heclo, a professor at George Mason University, invented this concept in the

1970s “in order to capture, problematise, and criticise a new style of policy-making that was on the rise in Washington D.C. under the Carter administration” (Marres, 2005: 72). Issue networks consist of a few committed and knowledgeable actors that determine what the issue is and how it takes shape. This is different than an issue public, which is organized by the public for the public (Marres, 2005: 73). An issue network is an optional form of organization, which Heclo claimed had a result of making the government become disconnected from elected representatives (or, as is often the case, privileged interests manufacturing a “public”).

Issue networks are still common within society, however, with the expansion of web usage, online issue publics are becoming more prevalent. Websites, blogs, social media and online news sources are able to create online issue publics, since “interest in issues often takes the form of special interests, and these interests cannot as a matter of course be equated with the public interest” (Marres, 2005: 87). It has been argued that the Internet is a “pull medium”, meaning that it draws users in, specifically through the channels or platforms that the users choose to be drawn in with (Uldam, 2014: 9). This type of medium allows like-minded users to connect (Cammaerts, 2007: 16); these users then interact and form online issue publics. While there are issue publics and online issue publics, this thesis and the case studies to follow focus on online issue publics since they reflect on new media and digital culture.

2.5) Dewey’s Warning of the Potential For Meaningless Content

Unlike Dewey, Lippmann originally did not have as much trust in the public. In Public

(17)

sound public opinions on the whole business of government (Lippmann, 1922: 197). His original belief did not see the public i.e., average citizens as fit to make judgments that would impact the government. The possibility of individuals suddenly making sound decisions relating to the government seemed unlikely to Lippmann.

In The Phantom Public, Lippmann has a change of heart towards his previous position regarding modern classic ideals of democracy (Marres, 2005: 45). Rather than continuing to believe that the layperson was unable to make sound decisions, he suggested a counteroffer: “Lippmann rejects the notion that for democracy to work, i.e. for the public to be productively involved in politics, it is necessary that citizens are competent judges on public affairs and have access to high quality information” (Marres, 2005: 45). In his work Lippmann took a new stance on the public’s involvement and understanding of politics. He no longer saw the layperson as unfit; he recognized that for sound decisions to be made then high quality, accurate and objective information must be offered.

As Marres explains, Dewey was less inconsistent with his belief towards public

involvement (46). In The Public and its Problem, he explained that the public being involved is essential: “it is not necessary that the many should have the knowledge and skill to carry on the needed investigation; what is required is that they have the ability to judge of the bearing of the knowledge supplied by others upon common concerns” (Marres, 2005: 46, Dewey, 1927: 208-209). Dewey was less concerned with the public’s knowledge of the investigation and more focused on their overall ability to judge. This ability, however, was something that Dewey believed might be impossible due to various distractions.

Even years before the Internet existed, Dewey was aware that technology had the ability to distract the public from politics. “Man is a consuming and sportive animals as well as political one. What is significant is that access to means of amusement has been rendered easy and cheap beyond anything known in the past” (Dewey, 1927: 139). Dewey went on to explain that the movie, radio, cheap reading material, car and so-on-and-so-forth were not created to deliberately divert the public’s attention, but they do have the ability (139). Unfortunately, the author does not offer recommendations on how to combat this issue; rather, he merely stated the theory that technology must be used to improve the public’s communication.

(18)

Symbols control sentiment and thought and the new age has no symbols consonant with its activities. The ties which hold men together in action are numerous, though, and subtle. But they are invisible and intangible. We have the physical tools as never before. The thoughts and aspirations congruous with them are not communicated, and hence are not common. Without such communication the public will remain shadowy and formless, seeking spasmodically for itself, but seizing and holding its shadow rather than its substance (Dewey, 1927: 142).

Dewey’s prediction for a future of distractions was more than he had ever considered. Technology has been used to unify society in some regards, publics such as the vaccination choice (“anti-vaccine”) advocates — as I address in the case studies to follow — are able to use technology to form a network; the Internet has also taken Dewey’s warning of the potential distraction of technology and highlighted the repercussions of it. Meaningless content is frequently winning the online popularity contest and consuming the attention of many.

2.6) The Issue Public of Kim Kardashian: #breaktheinternet

If one were to use Dewey’s theory of the publics then it would imply that the best ideas would be the ideas that thrive. In the case of the public participating, the first-rate ideas are therefore, the ones approved by the public. If the best ideas thrive, then this would suggest that content that gains attention is also important.

In November 2014, Kim Kardashian – a socialite and reality television star – posed nude for the cover of Paper magazine: an act that was done with the intention of starting a worldly phenomenon; the magazine even coupled the photos with the hashtag #breaktheinternet. The photos were created with the intention of sparking online discourse and had no immediate impact on public policy. Within a matter of minutes after the release of the photos, the Internet had not broken; instead it was quickly filled with chatter. Online issue publics were created as debates over Kardashian’s bare buttock — which has been rumored for years to be artificially enhanced — filled every online media platform. The release of the magazine cover — which showed her bare butt — along with full frontal nude photos led to dialogue not only about the pictures, but relating topics, such as how as a mother Kardashian should not be posing for photos like this,

(19)

The release of these photos, which news organizations listed as a top news story for numerous days, resulted in a large amount of online dialogue, all of which originally stemmed from a topic that was seemingly unimportant in comparison to world news. In the grand scheme of issues within the world, Kim Kardashian’s buttocks does not rank any higher than any other

inconsequential topic, yet the topic gained international attention by online users and resulted in the creation of various online issue publics.

As seen with the Kim Kardashian photos, likeminded individuals are able to use the Internet to connect, collaborate and cultivate web-based issue publics. Not all content is

meaningless, however. To further research on online issue publics, Chapter Three moves from a theoretical basis to a scientific one. This transition occurs due to the operationalization of new media theories through the use of digital methods tools. This allows for the analysis of online issue publics, specifically the pro-choice (“anti-vaccine”) network.

(20)

3) THE VACCINE CHOICE (“ANTI-VACCINE”) ONLINE ISSUE

PUBLIC

The theories of Lippmann and Dewey focus on journalism and public discourse, therefore I produced a piece of journalism focused on the vaccine choice (“anti-vaccine”) issue public. Lippmann and Dewey’s understanding of what is journalism is being retooled by the existence of blogs and personal webpages. Online platforms allow for any layperson to produce material. These sources are also changing what content users receive. Many blogs can be considered op-ed (opposite the editorial) pieces, while news organizations frequently highlight pieces on

celebrities, pop culture and lifestyle. Due to this, issue publics are continuously being created around specific issues and topics, such as with the case of the online vaccine choice (“anti-vaccine”) issue public.

The use of the phrase vaccine choice, rather than “anti-vaccine” – as is commonly used to describe those opting to not vaccinate themselves or their children – should be noted. This is purposefully used since the term “anti-vaccine” is inherently emphasizing the noncompliance with authority and I believe voices the position of the dominant culture, its institutions and elites. This is topic is not the issue at hand, but rather whether one feels compelled to vaccinate by conventional medicine with imposition by the State. Thus, the defining factor is one of choice, in regards to those questioning compulsory vaccines – whether from a point of view focused on health freedom or the overall health of the individual and of the group.

Similar to the specific word choice, specific procedures were followed to create complete and accurate information. It is necessary to explain the setup of my experimental apparatus, which I use for the primary research of the case studies. The methodology section of each case study includes in-depth technical details, which allow for effective research and analysis. Due to this, this chapter encompasses a scientific approach, rather than the analytical writing style that has been used in the previous chapters.

In the following cases, the use of digital methods can be seen as an operationalization of the theories presented in the earlier chapters. The Digital Methods Initiative (DMI) provided the tools used in the case studies. The initiative is a collaboration of The University of Amsterdam, New Media TEMLab, and the Govcom.org Foundation in Amsterdam (Borra, 2014). A large

(21)

purpose of the initiative is a dedication to further research into the digital world, as evident within these case studies.

3.1) Case Study One

Feminist writers of science and technology studies, such as Donna Haraway, have made it an intellectual tradition of positioning themselves within a scientific experiment. This tactic is one that I participate in when using my own writing for Case Study One. In her work Situated

Knowledges: The Science Question In Feminism And The Privilege Of Partial Perspective,

Donna Haraway – a feminist theory professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz – focuses on the concept of situated knowledge. This form of knowledge is considered objective since it incorporates both the object of study and the creator of the information (Haraway, 1988: 589).

I am arguing for politics and epistemologies of location, positioning, and situating, where partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard to make rational knowledge claims. These are claims on people's lives. I am arguing for the view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, structuring, and structured body, versus the view from above, from nowhere, from simplicity. Only the god trick is forbidden (Haraway, 1988: 589).

Haraway uses her work to show that including the manufacturer of the knowledge and the information itself allows for a different form of perspective. As stated, this type of personal integration has become an intellectual tradition. When using my own work for the first case study, situated knowledge enables me to become a part of the experiment: offering a perspective that is otherwise unattainable.

This case study focuses on readers’ responses towards my op-ed piece — see appendix A for the complete article. The Guardian published my op-ed online on February 28, 2015. The piece chronicles my personal struggles of growing up unvaccinated. It explains how, “I was made to feel like a danger to society and a threat to the welfare of others” (Stargrove, 2015). As a whole the piece offers a glimpse into my perspective not only of being raised unvaccinated, but also the disclosure that this occurred due to my parents’ decision never to vaccinate me, my personal fear of being ostracized by individuals in society due to this, the discomfort of catching

(22)

diseases that are preventable by the vaccines I never received, and my informed decision to become vaccinated once entering adulthood.

After less than a week — the first comment was on February 28, 2015 at 10:17 a.m. (ECT) and the last was on March 3, 2015 at 8:22 a.m. (ECT) — the ability to comment on the article was stopped. During the open comment period, the article received 541 comments (not including the posts that were removed due to content).

The article was also posted on The Guardian’s Facebook page —

www.facebook.com/theguardian/posts/10153124773316323 — on March 1, 2015 (the exact time of the posting is not listed). As of April 20, 2015, the date used as reference for the comment analysis, the post had received 853 likes, 186 shares and 770 comments and replies. It should be noted that the 186 shares of the article also contained separate likes, comments and replies; these were not used in the results listed below.

The comments from both sources were analyzed for content and also extracted to create Word Clouds. The purpose of the Word Clouds is to allow a visual representation of the most commonly used words. The analysis of content allows for greater insight into the readers’ responses to the content of the article.

3.2) Research Question

What similarities and differences do the comments and Word Clouds — created from the comment forum of The Guardian article and The Guardian Facebook post — have?

3.3) Methodology

For the article posted on The Guardian website, the comments were manually expanded (to show all comments and replies) and copied. This text was later used to create a Word Cloud on WordItOut.com. The content of the comments was entered and under the text section

unnecessary words were removed (see appendix A).

Along with this, “~_” were replaced with a non-breaking space. After all unnecessary words were extracted, the physical text was customized (size, color, font, etc.) and the Word Cloud was created.

(23)

In order to make the Facebook comment Word Cloud, the comments and replies were manually compiled and downloaded. To do this the comments and replies had to be expanded. “See more” was clicked for every comment or reply that was above the “viewable word limit” and if replies were to a specific comment (rather than the post as a whole) then they also had to be expanded so that the responses could be seen.

The same process of creating the Word Cloud was done for the comments on the Facebook post. The extracted words, however, varied —due to different dates, pronouns and users (see appendix A).

The numbers, symbols and punctuation removed were the same as listed above, along with the characters that were replaced with non-breaking spaces. Along with creating the Word Cloud, every comment (for both The Guardian website and Facebook) was read and critically analyzed. Once again, after all unnecessary words were extracted, the physical text was customized (size, color, font, etc.) and the Word Cloud was created.

Created on April 15, 2015 from a manual compilation of comments from The

Guardian website, which were put on WordItOut.com to create the Word Cloud,

(24)

3.4) Findings

The two clouds had some apparent overlap of words that were heavily used —

vaccinated, vaccine, vaccine, people, measles, and parents. The following percentages represent the usage of the key words scraped. Of the main words from Facebook, “parents” was used 74 times (8.5%) in Facebook comments, whereas, the word had 163 uses (30%) in the comments on

The Guardian website. Another interesting result was the usage of the word “autism”, which was

only represented twice (.37%) on The Guardian website, yet appeared 26 times (3%) in the Facebook comments. “Science” was written 62 times (7.3%) on Facebook and 32 times (5.9%) on The Guardian’s comment forum. The Word Clouds, though varying some, offered similar results.

Noticeably, the content of the comments on both Facebook and the newspaper website had some variations. The comment forum of The Guardian is monitored and due to this, comments can be removed “by a moderator because it [does not] abide by our community

standards.” In total, 19 comments are listed as being removed. Of these 19 comments, 10 of them

Created on April 15, 2015 from a manual compilation of Facebook comments, which were put on WordItOut.com to create the Word Cloud.

(25)

were replies to other users’ comments. No Facebook comments were listed as being removed (comments may have been removed but no notification was given to other users).

The comment forum on the newspaper’s website did include some offensive language, but the Facebook comments included far more vulgarity. The word “fuck” (or some version of this word) was used 22 times (2.6%) in the Facebook posts and only three times (.55%) on the article’s comment forum. It should be noted that it was used more times on Facebook but in alternative forms, such as f*ck and STFU (shut the fuck up).

Many of the Facebook comments were abrasive and demeaning. Such as the user Stephen Bench, who on March 1 at 5:02 p.m. (ECT) directed his comment at me and said, “fuck you and your thoughts on it... how about the rest of society that you put at risk you selfish cunt. that is all, literally nothing else, like your thoughts, come into it” (See appendix A, Image 2).

What is notable about Bench’s comment is not as much the vulgarity but rather the user’s community oriented view, which is discussed in-depth at the end of this chapter. Similar to Bench’s statement, various other users’ responses to the article were also aligned with a self-appointed “greater good for all” outlook. This point of view is also addressed further in a later section of this chapter.

On March 1 at 4:18 p.m. (ECT) Zoë-Dawn Briggs, another Facebook user, offered a similar view to that of the “greater good for all” outlook (See appendix A, Image 3):

Vaccination isn't about YOU, it's about the welfare of society, and I'm afraid it's something we have to be utilitarian about. There may be a few people have adverse reactions, but maintaining herd immunity is far more important, to protect from the serious risks posed by something like measles for kids, or by rubella for unborn babies. It's totally selfish and if you are unvaccinated people will rightly judge you to be a risk to health and safety of the general public.

Briggs’ comment received 83 replies and 496 likes — almost twice as many likes as any other comment on the Facebook posting. While there were a fair amount of opposing views to Briggs’ comment, there were more responses that were in agreement.

Tony Jones posted on March 1 at 4:12 p.m. (ETC): “That's because we don't really care how it's affected you or what you think of it. We care how you could harm others who don't have

(26)

the choice.” This comment was second most liked comment, with 255 likes, and appeared to have had a similar mentality as that of Briggs.

Facebook users also responded to other users who proclaimed themselves as participants in the “anti-vaccine” movement (See appendix A for screenshots). On March 1 at 8:52 p.m. (ECT) Jo Evans said “I’m anti VAX I was never vaccinated & neither was my kids I had measle & mumps as a child & fought them off, my immunities will have been onto my kids, my kids are healthy & never get sick.” Other users immediately responded by calling Evans “selfish” (see appendix A for screenshot of comment and replies). At 9:28 p.m. Stacey Ki responded to Evans and stated:

So as long as YOU'RE ok Jo forget everyone else? Your kids will be carriers of those diseases and are a real threat to those most vulnerable to those diseases, for example, those who have compromised immune systems and unborn babies. You're absolutely selfish and everyone has a right to judge you. Unless you and your kids isolate yourselves from society you're a threat and unbelievably ignorant. I cannot get over how stupid people can be despite an internet connection and a means of accessing a wealth of information on the subject. Shame on you!

As stated above, users responded to Evans by calling her “selfish”. One user did applaud Evans for opting to use genuine immunity, rather than artificial vaccines.

As I focus on later, the community-oriented view also became apparent when users were unnecessarily offensive towards me. On March 1 at 5:01 p.m. Facebook user Lucas Griego said: “Oh boo-hoo... someone judged me. I think I'm going to melt or crumble... or who knows what. Ahahahaha just top yourself and save the world all your blathering nonsense.” In response to Griego’s comment nine different users responded (see appendix A for screenshot of comment and replies) with disapproval of the crass remark. Now that the Facebook comment findings have been offered, I will highlight findings from The Guardian comment forum.

On February 28 at 4:57 p.m. (ECT) the user Sulcus responded to the article (see appendix A for screenshot of comment) in comments section of The Guardian article:

(27)

Without ascribing blame (and hence moral responsibility) for a moment, that's exactly what you were. A danger to the welfare of others. It's a hard truth but it's the truth. a vaccine is a risk you take or take for your child that indirectly removes a much larger risk. But only if we all do it. I'm very sorry you had a rough time, you're very young, but I'm also glad of the reaction you received in public safety and cultural terms. I'm reassured by that.

The user PolydentateBrigand had a similar view. On February 28 at 6:29 p.m.

PolydentateBrigand stated: “No one cares about your feelings. All I want is for you not to infect others with preventable diseases. That's where my interest ends” (See appendix B for image of comment). The interest of PolydentateBrigand was on the wellbeing of his/herself, along with others. Beyond that, the user was uninterested in the topic or the meaning behind the story.

The wellbeing of others was apparent in some of the comments, but a majority of the comments focused elsewhere when nitpicking at facts and information. On February 28, 2015 at 10:17 a.m. (ECT) the user Cuniculus responded to the article: “Of course you were [made to feel like a threat], and rightly so. In Italy it is not just illegal but impossible to attend school (as in, primary school) without your full component of jabs for dangerous and infectious diseases. Confusing these with "yearly flu shots" in unacceptable.” User Wolfbone then responded to Cuniculus at 11:09 a.m. (ECT) and said, “The author wasn't attending primary school and unless they lied on an application form or something I don't see any justification for the moralising (or the insult).” These comments offered insight into the online issue public, which I will now discuss.

3.5) Discussion

As stated in the findings, the words vaccinated, vaccine, vaccine, people, measles, and parents are heavily used in both Word Clouds. The variation of the word “vaccine” is frequently used due to the content of the article. The word “people” is used in various contexts, such people deciding either to vaccinate or not. The words “measles” and “parents” are heavily used due to the content of my article, specifically how the article focuses on me not receiving vaccinations at the discretion of my parents, which later led to me contracting German Measles while studying abroad in Italy. The high level of mentions for the word “measles” is also due to users

(28)

commenting on the repercussions of contracting measles. Notably, the word “science” appears in the Facebook Word Cloud but not in The Guardian Word Cloud. As mentioned in the findings, the word is used 62 times. An analysis of the comments concluded that a majority of the

references focus on science as a foundation, even whether for or against vaccines.

The two Word Clouds do not offer drastic differences, rather what is noticeable – as mentioned above – is the presumed utilitarian view – focusing on the greater good for the

greatest number of people – offered by a majority of the Facebook users. As seen in the findings, Facebook users’ comments concentrate on the alleged benefits and risk to the community as a whole. Users, such as Bench and Briggs, both state that choosing to not vaccinate is selfish. Due to this, the word selfish can be seen in the Word Cloud. Along with the concept of anti-vaxxers being selfish, Briggs addressed the importance of maintaining herd immunity, meaning

immunity throughout society that is created by vaccines – or by genuine immunity.

As I state in the findings, Briggs’ comment received the most number of likes, thereby implying that the 496 users who liked this comment were in agreement with its argument. The same can be said with the 255 users who liked Jones’ comment, focusing on how the

unvaccinated could harm those who are able to be impacted by disease carriers (such as those who are pregnant, have immunodeficiency, etc.) These arguments were not only directed at me, as the author of the article, but also other users who choose to not vaccinate.

Notably, the community mentality stayed strong when the Facebook user Lucas Griego directed his comment at me and said: “top yourself and save the world all your blathering nonsense”. Various Facebook users responded Griego by calling him a “jerk”, “ass”, “idiot”, “troll”, etc. This is interesting because the community-orientated mentality is seen when the users respond to Griego.

Unlike the Facebook comments, the comments on The Guardian did not appear to as strongly hold the same viewpoint. Rather than focusing on the importance of the community and well being of society, many users opted to contest facts. Comments focused on the credibility of alternative medicine, the title of the article contradicting the context, my decision to wait until age 23 to become selectively vaccinated (rather than doing so at 18 when I legally became an adult) and so-on-and-so-forth.

(29)

looks in more detail at the vaccine choice (“anti-vaccine”) group that I previously was affiliated with due to not being vaccinated. This case study specifically focuses on how this public justifies themselves. During the analysis process of Case Study Two, I will ask questions, such as “how does this public legitimize itself?”

3.6) Case Study Two

Within this research, I will focus on different actors creating online dialogue relating to anti-vaccinations beliefs. As explained previously, the creation of an issue public is centered on a specific topic. The goal of this case study is to identify the online issue public surrounding immunization choice, specifically by focusing on the position and discourse of actors involved in the dialogue of this topic. The purpose of this is to offer clarity into how this online issue public legitimizes itself. The problem with the actor-network is that it can map an issue but it cannot legitimize it. Therefore, I analyze the information compiled and propose an answer to this question. In doing so, I am able to further my argument within Chapter Five, where I address categorizing issue publics as “good” or “bad”.

An introduction to new media was offered, however, it is essential to also contextualize digital methods, specifically as a method. Rather than digitalizing offline methods for the purpose of social research – commonly known as virtual methods – digital methods include the social research of digital data (Rogers, 2009: 1). This is commonly known as small data. According to Richard Rogers – a Web epistemologist and the director of the Digital Methods Initiative – the primary focus of digital methods is the native digital data, which is data that would not exist without digital communication technologies (Rogers, 2009: 1-2). Through the process of analyzing data, digital methods allows for data to communicate or “speak”. Questions such as, “what does the data of a particular research object say about the social construction it is created in?” are asked and answered. Digital methods is an emerging field of social research and key innovators in the field are Richard Rogers and Lev Manovich, both of who are referenced within this thesis. Now that digital methods has been contextualized, it is important to explain more about the case study and the digital methods used within the case study.

Search engines have become a key source for finding information due to their ability to categorize and organization data. The information that is found through the use of search engines, however, is not neutral since search engines are inherently subjective and purposefully

(30)

biased due to their business mission and priorities. “After all, search engines prioritize results, placing links to some websites at the top of the page, while relegating others to the bottom, or even several pages back” (Zelnick R., Zelnick E., 2013: 149). According to Rogers it is due to this non-net neutrality that search engines have the ability to create source standing for a specific subject matter (Rogers, 2013: 97).

The web is a universe where users are able to jump from one site to another at a great speed without regard to physical proximity (Rogers, 2013: 41), therefore the Issue Crawler is used to track this movement and offer a visual representation of the migration and dialogue. The issue topic chosen for the search is specifically chosen for of its ability to provide a visual representation of the issue public’s network. After the Issue Crawler created a complete list of key actors within this dialogue, the Lippmannian Device — also known as the Googlescraper — was used to highlight specific keywords within the actors’ dialogue. As is explained further in the methodology, using specified keywords the tool queries Google for results. It should be noted that this case study includes a larger amount of technical details than the first case study. Due to this, I believe it is necessary to first contextualize the case and digital methods, as a method in itself.

3.7) Research Question

What actors, and connections, in regards to vaccination choice (“anti-vaccination”) are represented and what sources do they use in their dialogue to legitimize their claims?

3.8) Methodology

3.8.1: Prerequisite Preparatory Steps

Configuring and customizing the browser:

Before research could begin, it was necessary to install a non-custom browser, which guaranteed that no browsing history or personal settings would contaminate the research process. The DMI website states that, “the DMI toolbar is a Firefox extension that provides extra

functionality to the DMI tools . . . This means that the requests do not happen through the DMI server but from the computer using the Firefox extension” (Borra, 2012). It was mandatory to follow the step-by-step process of creating a clean, depersonalized browser — DMI provides a

(31)

browser the preferences had to be altered. Within Firefox, the DMI Firefox extension needed to be selected and installed. The preferences were then opened and the option in the privacy settings was set to: “tell sites that I do not want to be tracked”, location bar set to “nothing” and history settings as “never remember the history”. This prevents the location bar from suggesting search options and therefore, will stop any potential results from being altered. This also inhibits any future bias that the browser could create. After doing this, Firefox was restarted and the browser rebooted with all the saved settings (The Research Browser, 2014).

Search Engine:

After completing the process to have a clean, depersonalized browser, choosing a search engine before completing the following steps was fundamental. Richard Rogers focuses on the

concept of Googlization, which primarily highlights search rather than directory as the

recommended method of retrieving information (Rogers, 2013: 83). Google processes — on average — over 40,000 queries every second, and has the most worldwide market shares, no other search engine has even half this amount (Google Search Statistics, 2014). The statistical evidence stating that Google has the most worldwide market shares made Google the decided choice for the search engine. As with the browser, the search engine’s settings had to be altered. Within the settings section, the instant prediction was turned off, which allowed for a unique “results per page”. Disabling any custom settings that would occur due to search activity is essential to preventing the search engine’s algorithm from interfering with any future research. After explaining these necessary steps and precautions, I can now focus on the specific case study, rather than the generic instructions.

3.8.2: Use of Digital Method Tools for Case Study One

Issue Crawler:

For this case study a list of vaccine choice (“anti-vaccine”) related webpages (websites, blogs and articles) was compiled through the use of the search engine work techniques and snowball process – when actors are used to identify potential actors due to their existing association – and customized editorially by searching for terms on Google. This search was performed using an empty research browser – see section on configuring and customizing the browser. It should be noted that a VPN was used during this search process. This was done as a

(32)

precaution to guarantee that the searches commenced within the United States. The United States proxy (107.170.206.221) originated from New York State. Since the arguments are primarily surrounding vaccinations within the United States, it was necessary that the searches also focused on the United States.

The URLs were put into the DMI Issue Crawler, where the default settings were used, along with the co-link crawling method. The Issue Crawler’s purpose is to locate issue networks within the web (see appendix B for list).

The Issue Crawler returned a network of 99 URLs that were connected to 7,596 total URLs and hosts. The tool offers various formats for which the data can be seen and/or analyzed. The cluster option was chosen to show the data due to the aesthetics of the format, which allows for easy navigation of the results. These actors were then used to establish keywords, with the use of the Tag Cloud Generator.