Black Lives Matter Is Killing It on Twitter

New study shows how activist communities control the nation’s policing debate.

A Black Lives Matter protest.Derek Stiltner

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Tweet early and often. That’s one takeaway from a new study showing that hashtag activism online can have real-world consequences. The study, from the Center for Media and Social Impact at American University, found that Black Lives Matter activists and their supporters have managed to drive the national debate on policing, in part because they tweet about it more often, and with wider reach, than mainstream news outlets or the conservative Twitter users who push a counter-narrative. The activists’ social media efforts, the researchers found, were essential in turning local incidents—such the shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri—into national stories.

The researchers examined more than 40 million tweets that used one of 45 keywords and phrases, such as “black lives matter,” “Ferguson,” or the names of 20 African Americans killed by police in 2014 and 2015. The tweets were divided into nine time periods starting in June 2014—a month and a half before NYPD officers choked Eric Garner—and extending through May 2015, one month after the Freddie Gray-related unrest in Baltimore.

Accounts associated with the Black Lives Matter movement outnumbered those of mainstream media outlets and anti-BLM conservatives in the three months after the Ferguson unrest. They also had a wider collective reach. The thickness of the lines depicts the frequency of Twitter communication between communities.

The study, titled “Beyond the Hashtags,” identified dozens of Twitter communities that used the 45 keywords frequently. Users within a community looked to the same subset of Twitter figures for information on police brutality and discussed the topic in similar ways. Among them were Black Lives Matter (whose hubs were activists like DeRay McKesson and Johnetta Elzie, and the writer Shaun King); the “multi-racial left,” hacktivist group Anonymous, the mainstream media, conservatives, black entertainers, and young black twitter users.

The communities associated with Black Lives Matter were consistently larger than those associated with mainstream outlets, and their most popular members were retweeted more often and reached a wider audience. This enabled the BLM activists to control the narrative on specific police cases, protests, and the movement as a whole, independent of mainstream news outlets, the authors determined. The BLM communities were also larger than their conservative opponents. Three quarters of the dataset consisted of retweets; only about 8 percent included direct mentions of other users.

 

“The movement was able to circulate [its perspectives] largely on their own,” says study co-author Deen Freelon, a professor of communications at American University. That’s a break from the past, when social movements relied on mainstream news outlets to reach the masses. BLM activists often criticize news outlets for seeming to demonize victims of police brutality, or for shaping coverage around early police claims that have sometimes been proven false. Social media, Freelon says, has “to a great extent removed the middleman—the mainstream media—and allowed activists to talk directly to the publics that they are interested in communicating with.”

The protest voices dominated the larger web conversation, too. Because the most widely circulated tweets turn up in Google searches, so the results of a search involving the latest police shooting case are “influenced by the volume of activity of black voices,” says Charlton McIlwain, a professor of media, culture, and communication at New York University. “I think that’s where you get your impact—both in terms of the visibility, but also of the framing of events.”

This juxtaposition of a 1960s civil rights protest with an August 2014 protest in Ferguson was the most widely circulated image in the dataset, with more than 46,000 references.

Activists and news outlets have distinct audiences, McIlwain adds. The activists are reaching protesters and supporters who are plugged into the movement, whereas news outlets are communicating “with people who probably are paying a lot less attention to the movement. Their voices are going to be heard a lot more by casual news consumers and people who are less informed.”

Mainstream news outlets accounted for a larger share of retweets and references during periods of street protests, but the reports often linked to activists’ or protesters’ social media posts showing pictures and video from the scene. “So those perspectives get imbedded in that way as well,” Freelon says. Some of the most widely shared posts were simply photos of the victims of police brutality. And the posts shared within the Black Lives Matter community often linked specific cases of police brutality to systemic racism.

“What social media and new media have allowed us to do is to control our own narrative instead of relinquish that power to other people—other people who don’t live in our communities, who weren’t on the ground in Ferguson, who have not faced these challenged,” Brittany Packnett, an organizer with Campaign Zero and a member of President Obama’s police reform task force, told me. That “is significant not only in the actual resulting narrative but in what it says about what this movement stands for: self determination—not just controlling our own narrative but controlling our own destiny.”

Tweets containing BLM-associated keywords spiked during related protests. In between the dust-ups, the online activity subsided, although the killings of unarmed black people did not. It’s unclear why some cases received more social media attention than others.
 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate