www.le.ac.uk

Every Little Helps? Youtube, Every Little Helps? Youtube, sousveillance and the 2011 ‘anti-sousveillance and the 2011 ‘anti-

tesco’ riot in Bristoltesco’ riot in BristolDr Paul ReillyDr Paul Reilly

University of LeicesterUniversity of LeicesterMinority Voices, Media and Politics Minority Voices, Media and Politics

PSA Media and Politics Annual ConferencePSA Media and Politics Annual ConferenceBournemouth University Bournemouth University

13-14 November 201313-14 November 2013@PaulJReilly@PaulJReilly

1

Overview:

• Sousveillance and social media• Background: the anti-tesco riot(s) in Bristol• Youtubers respond to sousveillance riot

footage

Sousveillance and social media:• From French word sous (below) and veiller (to watch) –

‘inverse surveillance’• Concept developed by Mann to explore potential use of

wearable computing to empower users (1997, 2001)• Two forms: personal (first person perspectives on life) and

hierarchical (recording authority figures and actions)• Web 2.0 social practices (e.g. use of smart phones to access

social media) generate “intensification of sousveillance’ (Bakir, 2010)

Background: Stokes Croft, Bristol

• Survey in March 2010 shows that 93% of local people oppose opening of Tesco store

• Tesco receives planning permission to open store on Cheltenham road on 8 December 2010

• April 21 2011 – violence breaks out after police operation to evict squat opposite Tesco store- police claim they are acting on reports of petrol bomb threat from squat, local residents accuse police of ‘heavy-handed’ tactics

4

Disagreement over police actions on 21st April:

” Yesterday there was a very real threat to the local community from the petrol bombs that were being made and we needed to take positive action [….] The fact that we seized petrol bombs illustrates the seriousness of this situation and the reason why we took this positive action”

Assistant Chief Constable Rod Hansen, Avon and Somerset Constabulary, 22nd April 2011.

The police tactics were unfathomable. They seemed to consist of running from one end of Stokes Croft to the other (and up several side streets), randomly charging about the place, getting more and more people involved and moving the violence into new areas that had previously been quiet.”

Battle of Stokes Croft: eye witness/local resident report, Bristol Indymedia, 22nd April 2011

5

Videos of events posted on Youtube:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpPM2NXLK-c

6

Two Research Questions:• To what extent were the comments congruent with

the assumed expectations of those who posted the videos?

• To what extent did commenters appear to perceive this footage as a form of hierarchical sousveillance?

N=1018 comments left under four most commented-upon videos showing eyewitness perspectives on policing of disturbances

Mixed response to sousveillance footage?

• Only a very small number of users perceived this footage as hierarchical sousveillance

• Many forceful comments about the rioters rather than the much maligned police operation

• Police tactics had polarized opinion amongst commenters, with some calling the police operation heavy-handed and others claiming that it was not robust enough.

• Little rational debate about the broader issues e.g. legitimacy of No Tesco campaign and media narratives often reproduced by commenters

Conclusion• Use of social media for sousveillance purposes may raise

more questions about behaviour of members of the public than the police

• Youtube provided a public space in which alternative perspectives were both seen and heard, but little rational debate about the meaning of events

• Limitations of using Youtube comments to analyse audience responses to sousveillance - need to analyse the influences of traditional media,peer networks upon those who commented on this footage, views of those who didn’t comment.