www.le.ac.uk
Every Little Helps? Youtube,Every Little Helps? Youtube,
sousveillance and the 2011sousveillance and the 2011 ‘‘anti-anti-
tescotesco’’ riot in Bristolriot in Bristol
Dr Paul ReillyDr Paul Reilly
University of LeicesterUniversity of Leicester
Minority Voices, Media and PoliticsMinority Voices, Media and Politics
PSA Media and Politics Annual ConferencePSA Media and Politics Annual Conference
Bournemouth UniversityBournemouth 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.

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.