Journal articles on the topic 'Cyber-bystander'

Background: Cyberbullying is a phenomenon that occurs by means of digital devices in virtual environments. Although research reveals the relevant role played by bystanders in stopping cyberbullying, the patterns of cyberbullying bystanders among Chinese college students is not clear. Data: Participants were 1025 Chinese college students (62.0% girls, 38.0% boys). The present analyses empirically explored the roles of cyberbystanders (passive outsider online, defender of the cybervictim online, reinforcer of the cyberbully online, passive face-to-face outsider, face-to-face defender of the cybervictim, and face-to-face reinforcer of the cyberbully) using latent class analysis. Results: (1) Five latent classes were identified: defensive bystander (17.9%), indifferent bystander (10.1%), low-involved bystander (10.2%), medium-involved bystander (45.7%), and high-involved bystander (16.0%). (2) The cyberbystander patterns varied significantly for all stages of bullying intervention, among which the defensive bystander had the lowest score in the notice stage but the highest scores in the other stages. (3) There was a graded relationship between the five latent classes and the level of social network site use and cyber-victimization experience. College students with high usage of social network sites and high cyber-victimization experience were more likely to engage in diverse bystander behaviors.

The present study explored bystanders’ behavior in cyberbullying (CB) episodes among children and youth, focusing on active and passive behavior patterns. The study examined prevalence and characteristics of bystanders’ behavior following CB episodes, and their active–passive intervention patterns in relation to personal (age, gender) and socio-emotional (self-efficacy, social support, sense of loneliness) factors. Of the 1,094 participants (ages 9-18), 497 (46.4%) reported they were bystanders to CB episodes. Of the bystanders, 55.4% were identified as having a passive pattern of behavior—they did not provide any help to cyber-victims, whereas 44.6% were identified as having an active pattern—helping the cyber-victim. In line with the “bystanders’ effect,” only 35.6% of the bystanders offered direct help to cyber-victims after witnessing CB. When studying the personal–socio-emotional differences between active and passive bystanders, it was found that the “active bystanders” are more often girls, older, have more social support from significant others, and have lower levels of emotional loneliness than bystanders in the passive group. Differences within the passive and active patterns were studied as well. A logistic regression revealed the unique contribution of each predictor to the probability of being an active bystander. It was found that gender and age predicted the probability of being an active bystander: Girls are more likely than boys, and older bystanders are more likely than younger ones, to choose an active pattern and provide help to cyber-victims. In addition, implications for CB prevention and intervention involvement programs to encourage bystanders to help cyber-victims are discussed.

Cyberbullying has increased worryingly in the last decade, becoming a mental health problem in adolescence. Research usually focuses on cyber-bullies or cyber-victims, overlooking that these roles may overlap (e.g., cyber-victim-bystander). Aim: To identify possible common predictors to cyber-victimisation and bystanding. Sample: The study sample consisted in 560 students, 12–15 years old, 47.5% female. Method: Canonical correlation, examining linear relationship between a group of X variables, and a group of Y variables. Main results and conclusions: Two canonical varieties were built (Cor (U1,V1) = 0.442; Cor (U2,V2) = 0.270). Minors with high scores in cyber-victimisation (r = −0.888) and bystanding (r = −0.902) would have more favourable attitude towards violence, greater number of contacts on social networks/messaging and greater attention to emotions. The second variety discriminates minors with high cyber-victimisation score, but low observation and would relate to low attitudes towards violence and contacts on social networks/messaging, together with high scores in parental monitoring. Results suggest the possible overlapping of roles and how cyber-victimisation and bystanding share predictive factors.

Bullying is not a new topic to be researched but the consequences of bullying for university students is an area yet to be studied. Thus, in this study our aim was to develop a bullying scale for use with university students. In order to do this we categorized their bullying behaviors as physical, verbal, emotional, and cyber; and their bullying status as bully, victim, bully-victim, and bystander. The survey we developed to validate our scale was completed by volunteer participants individually. Exploratory factor analysis was done to determine construct validity of the scale. The internal consistency values were calculated for reliability. The resultant values showed that the developed scale can be accepted as a valid and reliable scale to be used for measuring both bully and victim behaviors among young adults studying at tertiary level.

To date, little has been known about teachers’ success in bullying interventions. Thus, the present study analyzes how successfully teachers intervene in real bullying situations, based on an analysis of 1,996 reports by German students aged between 12 and 15 (49.2% female) from 24 schools. Predictors of success included intervention strategy (authoritarian-punitive, supportive-individual, supportive-cooperative intervention), bullying form (physical, verbal, relational, cyber), and the student’s bullying role (bully, victim, bystander) in the particular situation. Multilevel analyses showed that supportive-cooperative intervention strategies were the most successful in dealing with bullying in both the short and long term. In the long term, students evaluated teachers as being more successful in dealing with cyberbullying compared with physical bullying. Compared with students who observed bullying, students who perpetrated it were less likely to report that teachers’ interventions were successful in the short term. Implications for bullying intervention, preservice teacher-training, and future research are discussed.

Moral observer-licensing happens when observers condone actors’ morally questionable conduct due to the actors’ history of moral behaviors. In four studies (N = 808), we investigated this phenomenon in the context of cyberspace and its contributing factors and boundary conditions. The pilot study determined what participants perceived as typically moral and immoral behaviors in cyberspace. Then, in Study 1, participants condemned a story character’s online immoral behavior less often when they were informed of the character’s prior online moral behavior than when they were not, which indicates moral observer-licensing in cyberspace. Study 2 confirmed the presence of moral observer-licensing in cyberspace and further demonstrated that a character’s prior moral or immoral behavior online respectively reduces or intensifies the perceived negativity of the character’s subsequent immoral behavior. Finally, Study 3 showed that participants who identified with the victim in a hypothetical scenario showed less forgiveness and more condemnation of a character’s immoral behavior than those who identified with the perpetrator or the bystander. These findings are of theoretical and practical significance for our understanding of cyber ethics.

Background Between 15% and 70% of adolescents report experiencing cybervictimization. Cybervictimization is associated with multiple negative consequences, including depressed mood. Few validated, easily disseminated interventions exist to prevent cybervictimization and its consequences. With over 97% of adolescents using social media (such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat), recruiting and delivering a prevention intervention through social media and apps may improve accessibility of prevention tools for at-risk youth. Objective This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of and obtain preliminary outcome data on IMPACT (Intervention Media to Prevent Adolescent Cyber-Conflict Through Technology), a brief, remote app-based intervention to prevent and reduce the effect of cyberbullying. Methods From January 30, 2020, to May 3, 2020, a national sample of 80 adolescents with a history of past-year cybervictimization was recruited through Instagram for a randomized control trial of IMPACT, a brief, remote research assistant–led intervention and a fully automated app-based program, versus enhanced web-based resources (control). Feasibility and acceptability were measured by consent, daily use, and validated surveys. Although not powered for efficacy, outcomes (victimization, bystander self-efficacy, and well-being) were measured using validated measures at 8 and 16 weeks and evaluated using a series of longitudinal mixed models. Results Regarding feasibility, 24.5% (121/494) of eligible participants provided contact information; of these, 69.4% (84/121) completed full enrollment procedures. Of the participants enrolled, 45% (36/80) were randomized into the IMPACT intervention and 55% (44/80) into the enhanced web-based resources groups. All participants randomized to the intervention condition completed the remote intervention session, and 89% (77/80) of the daily prompts were answered. The retention rate was 99% (79/80) at 8 weeks and 96% (77/80) at 16 weeks for all participants. Regarding acceptability, 100% (36/36) of the intervention participants were at least moderately satisfied with IMPACT overall, and 92% (33/36) of the participants were at least moderately satisfied with the app. At both 8 and 16 weeks, well-being was significantly higher (β=1.17, SE 0.87, P=.02 at 8 weeks and β=3.24, SE 0.95, P<.001 at 16 weeks) and psychological stress was lower (β=−.66, SE 0.08, P=.04 at 8 weeks and β=−.89, SE 0.09, P<.001 at 16 weeks) among IMPACT users than among control group users. Participants in the intervention group attempted significantly more bystander interventions than those in the control group at 8 weeks (β=.82, SE 0.42; P=.02). Conclusions This remote app-based intervention for victims of cyberbullying was feasible and acceptable, increased overall well-being and bystander interventions, and decreased psychological stress. Our findings are especially noteworthy given that the trial took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of Instagram to recruit adolescents can be a successful strategy for identifying and intervening with those at the highest risk of cybervictimization. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04259216; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04259216.

New media creates opportunities to directly measure how adolescents respond to aggressive situations. In this study, we report on sima, a simulator of digital chats, created to mimic online aggressive interactions within a conflict situation. Adolescents were invited to be part of a digital chat where all interactions were pre-programmed, except for the participants’ interventions, to discuss controversial topics (e.g., animal maltreatment). Two chat members engaged in a conflict programmed to escalate quickly through aggressive insults. Sixth and seventh-grade students (mostly aged 12 to 14; n = 287) from one public school (low ses) and one private school (high ses) participated in the study. Responses to open questions after finishing the chat suggest that the great majority considered that they were taking part in a real online interaction. Aggressive offenses towards other members of the chat were very common. sima opens many options for further research about bystander behavior in aggressive online interactions.

Cyberbullying has become a serious concern among Internet users worldwide. However, relatively little is known about individuals who witness cyberbullying and how they behave. A bystander is someone who sees bullying or other forms of aggressive or violent behavior that targets someone else and who may choose to respond by either being part of the problem (a hurtful bystander), or part of the solution (a helpful bystander). Few studies examined the phenomena of cyber-bystanders in Chinese populations. Guided by the five-step bystander theoretical model and the theory of planned behavior, this study, addressed this gap to understand how the characteristics of cyber-bystanders explained their intervention in cyberbullying in a Chinese population. This study tested two preregistered hypotheses: (1) controlling for age and gender, awareness of cyberbullying, attitudes, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control to intervene; plus past experience with cyberbullying (measured as past experience in cyberbullying perpetration and victimization), felt responsibility, and self-efficacy to intervene with regard to cyberbullying would explain the intention of cyber-bystanders to intervene in cyberbullying, and (2) the intention of cyber-bystanders to intervene cyberbullying would positively explain their intervening behavior. A total of 581 college students with experience of witnessing cyberbullying were included in the analysis. Applying structural equation modeling with observed variables, a path analysis model was built to test the hypotheses; this study also conducted exploratory analyses by including direct paths from the characteristics of cyber-bystanders to explain intervening behavior. Results found that only awareness of cyberbullying, a subjective norm, and self-efficacy to intervene positively explained intention to intervene cyberbullying; therefore, hypothesis 1 was partly supported. Also, intention to intervene cyberbullying positively explained intervening behavior; therefore, hypothesis 2 was supported. For the exploratory analysis, intention to intervene partially mediated the relation between a subjective norm to intervene and intervening behavior; and intention to intervene also partially mediated the relation between self-efficacy to intervene and intervening behavior. In addition, past experience in cyberbullying victimization also positively and directly predicted intervening behavior. Findings provided a foundation for designing future intervention programs to mobilize cyber-bystanders to become “upstanders.”

While previous research has examined mainly self-reported bystander behavior during cyber-bullying, the current study explored if and how bystanders responded when presented with a cyber-bullying simulation. We hypothesized that individuals high in empathy would supportively intervene (defend the victim) most frequently. College age participants (M = 20.34, SD = 1.26, range 18-27; N = 149), viewed a simulated Facebook conversation in which negative comments were directed towards another student and were provided open-ended opportunities to be involved in the Facebook conversation (i.e., “comment” to the other fictitious characters) and explain their reasoning for their behavior (“motivators”) at two time points in the conversation (Time 1 and Time 2). Using a deductive-inductive process, we categorized participants’ comments and motivators, the frequency of these responses, and their reasons for them. While the majority of participants (91%) asserted that cyber-bullying occurred in the conversation, most participants did not comment (Time 1: 69%, Time 2: 52%). Among those who commented, the most frequently cited motivators were either to defend the victim or mediate the situation. Consistent with our hypothesis, individuals who identified with the victim had higher empathy scores than those who identified with the bullies, although this was true only for the second part of the conversation (Time 2). Empathy scores did not differ by type of response at either time period. Future studies could utilize the categories and motivators established in this study as a framework for more extensive quantitative research to more comprehensively understand the underlying reasons for low intervention rates in cyber-bullying.

Cyber-aggression is global epidemic affecting citizens of cyberspace, without regards to physical, geographical and time constraints. Recent research has identified the significant role of cyber-bystanders in exacerbating and de-escalating incidents on cyber-aggression they come across. Additionally, frequent exposure to cyber-aggression is found to have been associated with negative effects on participants of cyber-aggression, ranging from self-esteem problems to mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety, and in the worst cases even suicidal behaviors and ideation. Moreover, past research had also identified that negative bystanders could potentially become aggressors themselves. Therefore, the current review is aimed at uncovering the common themes and factors that drive individuals to resort to negative bystander behavior. Hence, a systematic literature review using the PRISMA framework was carried out, involving articles published between January 2012 to March 2022, on online databases such as SCOPUS, Science Direct, SAGE Journals, Web of Science, and Springer Link. Results obtained through the synthesis of 27 selected articles, were grouped into three categories, namely situational factors, personal factors and social influence. Upon further synthesis of the results, it was noted that many of the factors had interacted with each other. Thus, practical suggestion for prevention and future research would include addressing these interactions in preventative methodologies and research interests.

The purpose of the current study was to extensively investigate not only bystander roles but also individual bystanders’ moral emotional responses in the context of cyberbullying based on the perpetrator's perceived popularity and the message type. Data from 566 adolescents in grade 7 attending six middle schools in South Korea were used to identify their bystander behavior and moral emotions in response to vignettes about cyber scenarios. Using latent profile analysis, the current study identified five types of bystanders: limited bystanders, pro-bullies, outsiders, defenders, and inconsistent bystanders. Moreover, multinomial logistic regressions were performed to determine the predictive power of the moral emotions of each bystander type. The findings indicated the importance of understanding bystanders’ roles for designing effective intervention strategies regarding moral emotions, leading to adolescents’ improved moral sensitivity.

The Bystander Intervention Model by Latané and Darley (1970) describes the stages necessary for a bystander to intervene in an emergency and can be used to explain bystander behavior in the case of bullying. Social-cognitive and affective reactions to bullying such as empathy with the victim, moral disengagement, feelings of responsibility, defender self-efficacy and outcome expectancy are supposed to determine whether a bystander passes through all stages of the intervention model and are thereby crucial for the behavioral response. These mental reactions were compared between school bullying and cyberbullying in a sample of 486 German students (56% girls, age: M = 12.95) from 28 classes with a newly developed questionnaire covering the five Social-Cognitive and Affective Reactions to Bullying (SCARB) for school context and cyber context separately. Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable fit and internal consistency coefficients were acceptable to good. In line with our hypotheses, for cyberbullying as compared to school bullying students reported higher moral disengagement and lower feelings of responsibility and self-efficacy. However, no significant difference was found for empathy. The level of negative outcome expectations was lower for cyberbullying than for school bullying. Results confirm that the context of bullying matters for the social-cognitive and affective reactions of bystanders.

The current study examines how social determinants influence the way youth from Canadian and Iranian contexts evaluate and morally disengage as bystanders of cyberbullying. While Iranian culture differs from other individualistic and collectivist cultures, Iranian youth have become just as technologically acculturated as their global peers. Despite this, less is understood about how Iranian youth respond to cyberbullying in comparison to youth from individualistic societies. Participants from Canada (N = 60) and Iran (N = 59) who were between the ages of 8-to-15 years old (N = 119, M = 11.33 years, SD = 1.63 years) read 6 cyberbullying scenarios that varied according to Bystander Relationship to Perpetrator (Acquaintance or Friend) and Bystander Response (Assists Cyberbully, Does Nothing, Defends Victim). After reading each scenario, participants were asked to evaluate the bystander's behavior. They were also asked how they would feel if they were the bystander. Similar to past research, these responses were coded on a continuous scale ranging from morally disengaged to morally responsible. Overall, Canadians were more critical of passive bystander behaviors and more supportive toward defending behaviors compared to Iranians. Iranians were more supportive of the behaviors of bystanders who were friends of perpetrators than Canadians were, and Iranians were more critical toward acquaintances of perpetrators. Significant interactions were also found between participants' country of origin, the bystander's relationship with the perpetrator and the bystander's behavior. Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of differentiating between negative judgments and moral attributions of bystander responses.

While research has examined bystander responses in a traditional sense, there is a dearth of research regarding responses of cyberbystanders in a real-time situation, such as observing a cyberbullying scenario. This article describes a novel protocol designed to develop a series of images to be used to undertake research that aims to examine cyberbystander responses. A total of 24 scenarios (12 negative (cyberbullying) and 12 neutral) were created by the researchers and designed to mimic the way such scenarios would appear on a social networking site. The negative (cyberbullying) stimuli were rated in terms of level of severity, and the scenarios were compared to a selection of images from the International Affective Picture System using the Self-Assessment Manikin. These stimuli were compiled to form the Cyberbullying Picture Series (CyPicS). Through the development of the CyPicS, this protocol will aid future researchers in examining responses to real-life scenarios, as it is the first of its kind to develop these scenarios and test and evaluate them. CyPicS will provide researchers with the means to systematically evaluate responses to validated, real-life cyberbullying scenarios. More specifically, future researchers can utilize CyPicS to investigate how cyberbystanders respond when observing cyberbullying stimuli compared to neutral stimuli, as well as to measure and understand reactions or perceptions of cyberbullying. CyPicS can be used in any form of cyberbullying research (including electroencephalography and eye-tracking studies, psychological research, and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies) that may utilize bystander reactions and behaviors. Findings from research that utilizes CyPicS will greatly increase our understanding of bystander responses, and with variations in study design, researchers can further examine past or future associations with cyber-victim/bully status and mental health outcomes.

Whether bystanders in cyberbullying help a victim or remain passive is based on multilayered cognitive processes. In particular, perceiving and interpreting an incident as an emergency situation, realizing one’s own responsibility to intervene, and forming the intention to help are crucial preconditions for bystander interventions. The characteristics of information and communication technologies (ICTs) change and hamper these cognitive processes. Information and cues that guide individuals’ reactions to offline victimization are missing in many online environments (e.g., seeing a victim’s suffering). By applying a scenario-based experiment (n = 240; 62% female; Mage = 21.3), we investigate how cyberbullying incidents with differing degrees of severity (insults only vs. insults and threats) affect bystanders’ perception of the incident, their tendency to blame the victim, and finally their reactions to cyber victimization (i.e., willingness to help). Our results showed that participants evaluated an incident that included threats and insults (as compared to insults only) as more severe; this in turn was related to a higher willingness to help the victim. In contrast, a seemingly less severe incident (containing insults only) fostered participants’ tendency to ascribe (at least partial) blame for the incident to the victim. This victim blaming correlated with a lower tendency to support the victim. In conclusion, victims of seemingly less serious incidents in particular are at risk of experiencing prolonged suffering because bystanders fail to identify the emergency character of the situation and refuse to help.

The purpose of the present study was to define the term “cyberbullying” from the perspective of middle- and high-school students in Vietnam, detailing its characteristics. The study used qualitative focus groups with Vietnamese students, teachers, parents, school psychologists, and psycho-educational experts in Hanoi, Vietnam. From the perspective of these informants, cyberbullying involves seven characteristics: (a) The indirect transmission of negative, untrue, hateful, and/ or secret, personal information through electronic devices and applications, (b) with the intention to hurt the victim, (c) which may or may not be part of a series of repetitive actions that nonetheless may have ongoing effects, (d) with the perpetrator an individual or a group, (e) in the context of a power imbalance relationship, (f) with the perpetrator(s) able to hide his or her identity, (g) and the bullying able to occur at all times in any place the victim has internet access. Keywords: Definition, characteristics, cyberbullying, students, Vietnam. References [1] Álvarez García, D., Núñez Pérez, J. C., Álvarez Pérez, L., Dobarro González, A., Rodríguez Pérez, C., & González Castro, M. P. (2011). Violencia a través de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación en estudiantes de secundaria. Anales de psicología.[2] Aricak, T., Siyahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Saribeyoglu, S., Ciplak, S., Yilmaz, N., & Memmedov, C. (2008). Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 11(3), 253-261.[3] Bauman, S. (2007), Cyberbullying: a Virtual Menace, Paper to be presented at the National Coalition Against Bullying National Conference, Melbourne, Australia.[4] Belsey, B. (2005), Cyberbullying. From: www.cyberbullying.ca.[5] Beran, T., Li, Q. (2007), The Relationship between Cyberbullying and School Bullying, Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1, 2, 15-33.[6] Berne, S., Frisén, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., ... & Zukauskiene, R. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggression and violent behavior, 18(2), 320-334.[7] Bottino, S. M. B., Bottino, C., Regina, C. G., Correia, A. V. L., & Ribeiro, W. S. (2015). Cyberbullying and adolescent mental health: systematic review. Cadernos de saude publica, 31, 463-475.[8] Buelga, S., Cava, M. J., & Musitu, G. (2010). Cyberbullying: victimización entre adolescentes a través del teléfono móvil y de Internet. Psicothema, 22(4), 784-789.[9] Cantone, E., Piras, A. P., Vellante, M., Preti, A., Daníelsdóttir, S., D’Aloja, E., ... & Bhugra, D. (2015). Interventions on bullying and cyberbullying in schools: A systematic review. Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health: CP & EMH, 11(Suppl 1 M4), 58.[10] Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44.[11] Connell, N. M., Schell-Busey, N. M., Pearce, A. N., & Negro, P. (2014). Badgrlz? Exploring sex differences in cyberbullying behaviors. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12(3), 209-228.[12] Trần Văn Công, Nguyễn Phương Hồng Ngọc, Ngô Thùy Dương, Nguyễn Thị Thắm (2015), Xây dựng thang đo bắt nạt trực tuyến cho học sinh Việt Nam, Kỷ yếu hội thảo khoa học cán bộ trẻ các trường Đại học sư phạm toàn quốc lần thứ V, NXB Giáo dục.[13] Trần Văn Công, Nguyễn Phương Hồng Ngọc, Ngô Thùy Dương, Nguyễn Thị Thắm (2015), Chiến lược ứng phó của học sinh với bắt nạt trực tuyến. Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Giáo dục, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, tập 31, số 3, tr. 11-24. [14] Gámez-Guadix, M., Orue, I., Smith, P. K., & Calvete, E. (2013). Longitudinal and reciprocal relations of cyberbullying with depression, substance use, and problematic internet use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(4), 446-452.[15] Garaigordobil, M. (2011). Prevalencia y consecuencias del cyberbullying: una revisión. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 11(2).[16] Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of suicide research, 14(3), 206-221.[17] Lê Thị Hải Hà, Nguyễn Thanh Hương, Trương Quang Tiến, Marilyn Campell, Michelle Gatton, Michael Dunne (2016), Giá trị và độ tin cậy của thang đo bị bắt nạt học đường và bắt nạt qua mạng: Kết quả nghiên cứu với học sinh đô thị Hà Nội và Hải Dương, Tạp chí Y tế Công cộng, số 40, tr. 199 - 204.[18] Nguyễn Thị Bích Hạnh, Trần Văn Công, (2017), Thực trạng bắt nạt trực tuyến ở học sinh trung học phổ thông trên địa bàn thành phố Đà Nẵng, Kỷ yếu Hội thảo quốc tế Tâm lý học Khu vực Đông Nam Á lần thứ nhất “Hạnh phúc con người và phát triển bền vững”, RCP 2017, Quyển 2, tr. 355-363. [19] Huang, Y., Chou, C. (2010), An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior high school students in Taiwan, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1581–1590. From: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh.[20] Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School health, 78(9), 496-505.[21] Li, Q. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents' experience related to cyberbullying. Educational Research, 50(3), 223-234.[22] Lucas-Molina, B., Pérez-Albéniz, A., & Giménez-Dasí, M. (2016). The assessment of cyberbullying: The present situation and future challenge. Papeles Del Psicólogo, 37(1), 27-35.[23] Mark, L., & Ratliffe, K. T. (2011). Cyber worlds: New playgrounds for bullying. Computers in the Schools, 28(2), 92-116.[24] Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz, R., ... & Naruskov, K. (2012). Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six European countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(9), 455-463.[25] Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J. (2012), Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully–victims, Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 63–70. From: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth.[26] Naruskov, K., Luik, P., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2012). Estonian students'perception and definition of cyberbullying. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, 16(4).[27] Nguyễn Phương Hồng Ngọc, Trần Văn Công (2016), Hậu quả của bắt nạt trực tuyến ở học sinh trung học phổ thông, Kỷ yếu hội thảo quốc tế: Sang chấn tâm lý và các hoạt động trợ giúp, NXB Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, tr.51-63.[28] Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: some critical issues (pp. 9-33). In. S. Jimerson; S. Swearer & D. Espelage (Eds.). Handbook of bullying in schools: an international perspective.[29] Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual review of clinical psychology, 9, 751-780.[30] Padgett, S., & Notar, C. E. (2013). Bystanders Are the Key to Stopping Bullying. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 33-41.[31] Patchin J., Hinduja, S. (2014), Words Wound: Delete Cyberbullying and Make Kindness Go Viral, Free Spirit Publishing.[32] Peterson, J.M. (2013), How to Beat Cyberbullying, First Edition, The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.[33] Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 49(2), 147-154.[34] Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & FriséN, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in human behavior, 29(1), 26-32.[35] Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying and cyber aggression. In Handbook of school violence and school safety (pp. 111-121). Routledge.[36] Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385.[37] Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Tippett, N. (2006), An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying, A Report to the Anti-Bullying Alliance, Goldsmiths College, University of London. [38] Stewart, R. W., Drescher, C. F., Maack, D. J., Ebesutani, C., & Young, J. (2014). The development and psychometric investigation of the Cyberbullying Scale. Journal of interpersonal violence, 29(12), 2218-2238.[39] Rogers, V. (2010), Cyberbullying: Activities to Help Children and Teens to Stay Safe in a texting, twittering, social networking world, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. [40] Thornberg, R., Tenenbaum, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., & Vanegas, G. (2012). Bystander motivation in bullying incidents: To intervene or not to intervene?. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13(3), 247.[41] Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in human behavior, 26(3), 277-287.[42] Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in human behavior, 26(3), 277-287.[43] Vismara, M. F. M., Toaff, J., Pulvirenti, G., Settanni, C., Colao, E., Lavano, S. M., ... & Montera, R. (2017). Internet use and access, behavior, cyberbullying, and grooming: results of an investigative whole city survey of adolescents. Interactive journal of medical research, 6(2).[44] Wade, A., Beran, T. (2011), Cyberbullying: The new era of bullying, Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26, 1, 44 - 61. [45] Willard, N, E. (2007), The authority and responsibility of school officials in responding to cyberbullying, Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S64-S65.

Alfred Hermida recently posited ‘ambient journalism’ as a new framework for para- and professional journalists, who use social networks like Twitter for story sources, and as a news delivery platform. Beginning with this framework, this article explores the following questions: How does Hermida define ‘ambient journalism’ and what is its significance? Are there alternative definitions? What lessons do current platforms provide for the design of future, real-time platforms that ‘ambient journalists’ might use? What lessons does the work of Brian Eno provide–the musician and producer who coined the term ‘ambient music’ over three decades ago? My aim here is to formulate an alternative definition of ambient journalism that emphasises craft, skills acquisition, and the mental models of professional journalists, which are the foundations more generally for journalism practices. Rather than Hermida’s participatory media context I emphasise ‘institutional adaptiveness’: how journalists and newsrooms in media institutions rely on craft and skills, and how emerging platforms can augment these foundations, rather than replace them. Hermida’s Ambient Journalism and the Role of Journalists Hermida describes ambient journalism as: “broad, asynchronous, lightweight and always-on communication systems [that] are creating new kinds of interactions around the news, and are enabling citizens to maintain a mental model of news and events around them” (Hermida 2). His ideas appear to have two related aspects. He conceives ambient journalism as an “awareness system” between individuals that functions as a collective intelligence or kind of ‘distributed cognition’ at a group level (Hermida 2, 4-6). Facebook, Twitter and other online social networks are examples. Hermida also suggests that such networks enable non-professionals to engage in ‘communication’ and ‘conversation’ about news and media events (Hermida 2, 7). In a helpful clarification, Hermida observes that ‘para-journalists’ are like the paralegals or non-lawyers who provide administrative support in the legal profession and, in academic debates about journalism, are more commonly known as ‘citizen journalists’. Thus, Hermida’s ambient journalism appears to be: (1) an information systems model of new platforms and networks, and (2) a normative argument that these tools empower ‘para-journalists’ to engage in journalism and real-time commentary. Hermida’s thesis is intriguing and worthy of further discussion and debate. As currently formulated however it risks sharing the blind-spots and contradictions of the academic literature that Hermida cites, which suffers from poor theory-building (Burns). A major reason is that the participatory media context on which Hermida often builds his work has different mental models and normative theories than the journalists or media institutions that are the target of critique. Ambient journalism would be a stronger and more convincing framework if these incorrect assumptions were jettisoned. Others may also potentially misunderstand what Hermida proposes, because the academic debate is often polarised between para-journalists and professional journalists, due to different views about institutions, the politics of knowledge, decision heuristics, journalist training, and normative theoretical traditions (Christians et al. 126; Cole and Harcup 166-176). In the academic debate, para-journalists or ‘citizen journalists’ may be said to have a communitarian ethic and desire more autonomous solutions to journalists who are framed as uncritical and reliant on official sources, and to media institutions who are portrayed as surveillance-like ‘monitors’ of society (Christians et al. 124-127). This is however only one of a range of possible relationships. Sole reliance on para-journalists could be a premature solution to a more complex media ecology. Journalism craft, which does not rely just on official sources, also has a range of practices that already provides the “more complex ways of understanding and reporting on the subtleties of public communication” sought (Hermida 2). Citizen- and para-journalist accounts may overlook micro-studies in how newsrooms adopt technological innovations and integrate them into newsgathering routines (Hemmingway 196). Thus, an examination of the realities of professional journalism will help to cast a better light on how ambient journalism can shape the mental models of para-journalists, and provide more rigorous analysis of news and similar events. Professional journalism has several core dimensions that para-journalists may overlook. Journalism’s foundation as an experiential craft includes guidance and norms that orient the journalist to information, and that includes practitioner ethics. This craft is experiential; the basis for journalism’s claim to “social expertise” as a discipline; and more like the original Linux and Open Source movements which evolved through creative conflict (Sennett 9, 25-27, 125-127, 249-251). There are learnable, transmissible skills to contextually evaluate, filter, select and distil the essential insights. This craft-based foundation and skills informs and structures the journalist’s cognitive witnessing of an event, either directly or via reconstructed, cultivated sources. The journalist publishes through a recognised media institution or online platform, which provides communal validation and verification. There is far more here than the academic portrayal of journalists as ‘gate-watchers’ for a ‘corporatist’ media elite. Craft and skills distinguish the professional journalist from Hermida’s para-journalist. Increasingly, media institutions hire journalists who are trained in other craft-based research methods (Burns and Saunders). Bethany McLean who ‘broke’ the Enron scandal was an investment banker; documentary filmmaker Errol Morris first interviewed serial killers for an early project; and Neil Chenoweth used ‘forensic accounting’ techniques to investigate Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer. Such expertise allows the journalist to filter information, and to mediate any influences in the external environment, in order to develop an individualised, ‘embodied’ perspective (Hofstadter 234; Thompson; Garfinkel and Rawls). Para-journalists and social network platforms cannot replace this expertise, which is often unique to individual journalists and their research teams. Ambient Journalism and Twitter Current academic debates about how citizen- and para-journalists may augment or even replace professional journalists can often turn into legitimation battles whether the ‘de facto’ solution is a social media network rather than a media institution. For example, Hermida discusses Twitter, a micro-blogging platform that allows users to post 140-character messages that are small, discrete information chunks, for short-term and episodic memory. Twitter enables users to monitor other users, to group other messages, and to search for terms specified by a hashtag. Twitter thus illustrates how social media platforms can make data more transparent and explicit to non-specialists like para-journalists. In fact, Twitter is suitable for five different categories of real-time information: news, pre-news, rumours, the formation of social media and subject-based networks, and “molecular search” using granular data-mining tools (Leinweber 204-205). In this model, the para-journalist acts as a navigator and “way-finder” to new information (Morville, Findability). Jaron Lanier, an early designer of ‘virtual reality’ systems, is perhaps the most vocal critic of relying on groups of non-experts and tools like Twitter, instead of individuals who have professional expertise. For Lanier, what underlies debates about citizen- and para-journalists is a philosophy of “cybernetic totalism” and “digital Maoism” which exalts the Internet collective at the expense of truly individual views. He is deeply critical of Hermida’s chosen platform, Twitter: “A design that shares Twitter’s feature of providing ambient continuous contact between people could perhaps drop Twitter’s adoration of fragments. We don’t really know, because it is an unexplored design space” [emphasis added] (Lanier 24). In part, Lanier’s objection is traceable back to an unresolved debate on human factors and design in information science. Influenced by the post-war research into cybernetics, J.C.R. Licklider proposed a cyborg-like model of “man-machine symbiosis” between computers and humans (Licklider). In turn, Licklider’s framework influenced Douglas Engelbart, who shaped the growth of human-computer interaction, and the design of computer interfaces, the mouse, and other tools (Engelbart). In taking a system-level view of platforms Hermida builds on the strength of Licklider and Engelbart’s work. Yet because he focuses on para-journalists, and does not appear to include the craft and skills-based expertise of professional journalists, it is unclear how he would answer Lanier’s fears about how reliance on groups for news and other information is superior to individual expertise and judgment. Hermida’s two case studies point to this unresolved problem. Both cases appear to show how Twitter provides quicker and better forms of news and information, thereby increasing the effectiveness of para-journalists to engage in journalism and real-time commentary. However, alternative explanations may exist that raise questions about Twitter as a new platform, and thus these cases might actually reveal circumstances in which ambient journalism may fail. Hermida alludes to how para-journalists now fulfil the earlier role of ‘first responders’ and stringers, in providing the “immediate dissemination” of non-official information about disasters and emergencies (Hermida 1-2; Haddow and Haddow 117-118). Whilst important, this is really a specific role. In fact, disaster and emergency reporting occurs within well-established practices, professional ethics, and institutional routines that may involve journalists, government officials, and professional communication experts (Moeller). Officials and emergency management planners are concerned that citizen- or para-journalism is equated with the craft and skills of professional journalism. The experience of these officials and planners in 2005’s Hurricane Katrina in the United States, and in 2009’s Black Saturday bushfires in Australia, suggests that whilst para-journalists might be ‘first responders’ in a decentralised, complex crisis, they are perceived to spread rumours and potential social unrest when people need reliable information (Haddow and Haddow 39). These terms of engagement between officials, planners and para-journalists are still to be resolved. Hermida readily acknowledges that Twitter and other social network platforms are vulnerable to rumours (Hermida 3-4; Sunstein). However, his other case study, Iran’s 2009 election crisis, further complicates the vision of ambient journalism, and always-on communication systems in particular. Hermida discusses several events during the crisis: the US State Department request to halt a server upgrade, how the Basij’s shooting of bystander Neda Soltan was captured on a mobile phone camera, the spread across social network platforms, and the high-velocity number of ‘tweets’ or messages during the first two weeks of Iran’s electoral uncertainty (Hermida 1). The US State Department was interested in how Twitter could be used for non-official sources, and to inform people who were monitoring the election events. Twitter’s perceived ‘success’ during Iran’s 2009 election now looks rather different when other factors are considered such as: the dynamics and patterns of Tehran street protests; Iran’s clerics who used Soltan’s death as propaganda; claims that Iran’s intelligence services used Twitter to track down and to kill protestors; the ‘black box’ case of what the US State Department and others actually did during the crisis; the history of neo-conservative interest in a Twitter-like platform for strategic information operations; and the Iranian diaspora’s incitement of Tehran student protests via satellite broadcasts. Iran’s 2009 election crisis has important lessons for ambient journalism: always-on communication systems may create noise and spread rumours; ‘mirror-imaging’ of mental models may occur, when other participants have very different worldviews and ‘contexts of use’ for social network platforms; and the new kinds of interaction may not lead to effective intervention in crisis events. Hermida’s combination of news and non-news fragments is the perfect environment for psychological operations and strategic information warfare (Burns and Eltham). Lessons of Current Platforms for Ambient Journalism We have discussed some unresolved problems for ambient journalism as a framework for journalists, and as mental models for news and similar events. Hermida’s goal of an “awareness system” faces a further challenge: the phenomenological limitations of human consciousness to deal with information complexity and ambiguous situations, whether by becoming ‘entangled’ in abstract information or by developing new, unexpected uses for emergent technologies (Thackara; Thompson; Hofstadter 101-102, 186; Morville, Findability, 55, 57, 158). The recursive and reflective capacities of human consciousness imposes its own epistemological frames. It’s still unclear how Licklider’s human-computer interaction will shape consciousness, but Douglas Hofstadter’s experiments with art and video-based group experiments may be suggestive. Hofstadter observes: “the interpenetration of our worlds becomes so great that our worldviews start to fuse” (266). Current research into user experience and information design provides some validation of Hofstadter’s experience, such as how Google is now the ‘default’ search engine, and how its interface design shapes the user’s subjective experience of online search (Morville, Findability; Morville, Search Patterns). Several models of Hermida’s awareness system already exist that build on Hofstadter’s insight. Within the information systems field, on-going research into artificial intelligence–‘expert systems’ that can model expertise as algorithms and decision rules, genetic algorithms, and evolutionary computation–has attempted to achieve Hermida’s goal. What these systems share are mental models of cognition, learning and adaptiveness to new information, often with forecasting and prediction capabilities. Such systems work in journalism areas such as finance and sports that involve analytics, data-mining and statistics, and in related fields such as health informatics where there are clear, explicit guidelines on information and international standards. After a mid-1980s investment bubble (Leinweber 183-184) these systems now underpin the technology platforms of global finance and news intermediaries. Bloomberg LP’s ubiquitous dual-screen computers, proprietary network and data analytics (www.bloomberg.com), and its competitors such as Thomson Reuters (www.thomsonreuters.com and www.reuters.com), illustrate how financial analysts and traders rely on an “awareness system” to navigate global stock-markets (Clifford and Creswell). For example, a Bloomberg subscriber can access real-time analytics from exchanges, markets, and from data vendors such as Dow Jones, NYSE Euronext and Thomson Reuters. They can use portfolio management tools to evaluate market information, to make allocation and trading decisions, to monitor ‘breaking’ news, and to integrate this information. Twitter is perhaps the para-journalist equivalent to how professional journalists and finance analysts rely on Bloomberg’s platform for real-time market and business information. Already, hedge funds like PhaseCapital are data-mining Twitter’s ‘tweets’ or messages for rumours, shifts in stock-market sentiment, and to analyse potential trading patterns (Pritchett and Palmer). The US-based Securities and Exchange Commission, and researchers like David Gelernter and Paul Tetlock, have also shown the benefits of applied data-mining for regulatory market supervision, in particular to uncover analysts who provide ‘whisper numbers’ to online message boards, and who have access to material, non-public information (Leinweber 60, 136, 144-145, 208, 219, 241-246). Hermida’s framework might be developed further for such regulatory supervision. Hermida’s awareness system may also benefit from the algorithms found in high-frequency trading (HFT) systems that Citadel Group, Goldman Sachs, Renaissance Technologies, and other quantitative financial institutions use. Rather than human traders, HFT uses co-located servers and complex algorithms, to make high-volume trades on stock-markets that take advantage of microsecond changes in prices (Duhigg). HFT capabilities are shrouded in secrecy, and became the focus of regulatory attention after several high-profile investigations of traders alleged to have stolen the software code (Bray and Bunge). One public example is Streambase (www.streambase.com), a ‘complex event processing’ (CEP) platform that can be used in HFT, and commercialised from the Project Aurora research collaboration between Brandeis University, Brown University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. CEP and HFT may be the ‘killer apps’ of Hermida’s awareness system. Alternatively, they may confirm Jaron Lanier’s worst fears: your data-stream and user-generated content can be harvested by others–for their gain, and your loss! Conclusion: Brian Eno and Redefining ‘Ambient Journalism’ On the basis of the above discussion, I suggest a modified definition of Hermida’s thesis: ‘Ambient journalism’ is an emerging analytical framework for journalists, informed by cognitive, cybernetic, and information systems research. It ‘sensitises’ the individual journalist, whether professional or ‘para-professional’, to observe and to evaluate their immediate context. In doing so, ‘ambient journalism’, like journalism generally, emphasises ‘novel’ information. It can also inform the design of real-time platforms for journalistic sources and news delivery. Individual ‘ambient journalists’ can learn much from the career of musician and producer Brian Eno. His personal definition of ‘ambient’ is “an atmosphere, or a surrounding influence: a tint,” that relies on the co-evolution of the musician, creative horizons, and studio technology as a tool, just as para-journalists use Twitter as a platform (Sheppard 278; Eno 293-297). Like para-journalists, Eno claims to be a “self-educated but largely untrained” musician and yet also a craft-based producer (McFadzean; Tamm 177; 44-50). Perhaps Eno would frame the distinction between para-journalist and professional journalist as “axis thinking” (Eno 298, 302) which is needlessly polarised due to different normative theories, stances, and practices. Furthermore, I would argue that Eno’s worldview was shaped by similar influences to Licklider and Engelbart, who appear to have informed Hermida’s assumptions. These influences include the mathematician and game theorist John von Neumann and biologist Richard Dawkins (Eno 162); musicians Eric Satie, John Cage and his book Silence (Eno 19-22, 162; Sheppard 22, 36, 378-379); and the field of self-organising systems, in particular cyberneticist Stafford Beer (Eno 245; Tamm 86; Sheppard 224). Eno summed up the central lesson of this theoretical corpus during his collaborations with New York’s ‘No Wave’ scene in 1978, of “people experimenting with their lives” (Eno 253; Reynolds 146-147; Sheppard 290-295). Importantly, he developed a personal view of normative theories through practice-based research, on a range of projects, and with different creative and collaborative teams. Rather than a technological solution, Eno settled on a way to encode his craft and skills into a quasi-experimental, transmittable method—an aim of practitioner development in professional journalism. Even if only a “founding myth,” the story of Eno’s 1975 street accident with a taxi, and how he conceived ‘ambient music’ during his hospital stay, illustrates how ambient journalists might perceive something new in specific circumstances (Tamm 131; Sheppard 186-188). More tellingly, this background informed his collaboration with the late painter Peter Schmidt, to co-create the Oblique Strategies deck of aphorisms: aleatory, oracular messages that appeared dependent on chance, luck, and randomness, but that in fact were based on Eno and Schmidt’s creative philosophy and work guidelines (Tamm 77-78; Sheppard 178-179; Reynolds 170). In short, Eno was engaging with the kind of reflective practices that underpin exemplary professional journalism. He was able to encode this craft and skills into a quasi-experimental method, rather than a technological solution. Journalists and practitioners who adopt Hermida’s framework could learn much from the published accounts of Eno’s practice-based research, in the context of creative projects and collaborative teams. In particular, these detail the contexts and choices of Eno’s early ambient music recordings (Sheppard 199-200); Eno’s duels with David Bowie during ‘Sense of Doubt’ for the Heroes album (Tamm 158; Sheppard 254-255); troubled collaborations with Talking Heads and David Byrne (Reynolds 165-170; Sheppard; 338-347, 353); a curatorial, mentor role on U2’s The Unforgettable Fire (Sheppard 368-369); the ‘grand, stadium scale’ experiments of U2’s 1991-93 ZooTV tour (Sheppard 404); the Zorn-like games of Bowie’s Outside album (Eno 382-389); and the ‘generative’ artwork 77 Million Paintings (Eno 330-332; Tamm 133-135; Sheppard 278-279; Eno 435). Eno is clearly a highly flexible maker and producer. Developing such flexibility would ensure ambient journalism remains open to novelty as an analytical framework that may enhance the practitioner development and work of professional journalists and para-journalists alike.Acknowledgments The author thanks editor Luke Jaaniste, Alfred Hermida, and the two blind peer reviewers for their constructive feedback and reflective insights. References Bray, Chad, and Jacob Bunge. “Ex-Goldman Programmer Indicted for Trade Secrets Theft.” The Wall Street Journal 12 Feb. 2010. 17 March 2010 ‹http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059660427173510.html›. Burns, Alex. “Select Issues with New Media Theories of Citizen Journalism.” M/C Journal 11.1 (2008). 17 March 2010 ‹http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/30›.———, and Barry Saunders. “Journalists as Investigators and ‘Quality Media’ Reputation.” Record of the Communications Policy and Research Forum 2009. Eds. Franco Papandrea and Mark Armstrong. Sydney: Network Insight Institute, 281-297. 17 March 2010 ‹http://eprints.vu.edu.au/15229/1/CPRF09BurnsSaunders.pdf›.———, and Ben Eltham. “Twitter Free Iran: An Evaluation of Twitter’s Role in Public Diplomacy and Information Operations in Iran’s 2009 Election Crisis.” Record of the Communications Policy and Research Forum 2009. Eds. Franco Papandrea and Mark Armstrong. Sydney: Network Insight Institute, 298-310. 17 March 2010 ‹http://eprints.vu.edu.au/15230/1/CPRF09BurnsEltham.pdf›. Christians, Clifford G., Theodore Glasser, Denis McQuail, Kaarle Nordenstreng, and Robert A. White. Normative Theories of the Media: Journalism in Democratic Societies. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009. Clifford, Stephanie, and Julie Creswell. “At Bloomberg, Modest Strategy to Rule the World.” The New York Times 14 Nov. 2009. 17 March 2010 ‹http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/business/media/15bloom.html?ref=businessandpagewanted=all›.Cole, Peter, and Tony Harcup. Newspaper Journalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010. Duhigg, Charles. “Stock Traders Find Speed Pays, in Milliseconds.” The New York Times 23 July 2009. 17 March 2010 ‹http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html?_r=2andref=business›. Engelbart, Douglas. “Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework, 1962.” Ed. Neil Spiller. Cyber Reader: Critical Writings for the Digital Era. London: Phaidon Press, 2002. 60-67. Eno, Brian. A Year with Swollen Appendices. London: Faber and Faber, 1996. Garfinkel, Harold, and Anne Warfield Rawls. Toward a Sociological Theory of Information. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2008. Hadlow, George D., and Kim S. Haddow. Disaster Communications in a Changing Media World, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington MA, 2009. Hemmingway, Emma. Into the Newsroom: Exploring the Digital Production of Regional Television News. Milton Park: Routledge, 2008. Hermida, Alfred. “Twittering the News: The Emergence of Ambient Journalism.” Journalism Practice 4.3 (2010): 1-12. Hofstadter, Douglas. I Am a Strange Loop. New York: Perseus Books, 2007. Lanier, Jaron. You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. London: Allen Lane, 2010. Leinweber, David. Nerds on Wall Street: Math, Machines and Wired Markets. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Licklider, J.C.R. “Man-Machine Symbiosis, 1960.” Ed. Neil Spiller. Cyber Reader: Critical Writings for the Digital Era, London: Phaidon Press, 2002. 52-59. McFadzean, Elspeth. “What Can We Learn from Creative People? The Story of Brian Eno.” Management Decision 38.1 (2000): 51-56. Moeller, Susan. Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War and Death. New York: Routledge, 1998. Morville, Peter. Ambient Findability. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Press, 2005. ———. Search Patterns. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Press, 2010.Pritchett, Eric, and Mark Palmer. ‘Following the Tweet Trail.’ CNBC 11 July 2009. 17 March 2010 ‹http://www.casttv.com/ext/ug0p08›. Reynolds, Simon. Rip It Up and Start Again: Postpunk 1978-1984. London: Penguin Books, 2006. Sennett, Richard. The Craftsman. London: Penguin Books, 2008. Sheppard, David. On Some Faraway Beach: The Life and Times of Brian Eno. London: Orion Books, 2008. Sunstein, Cass. On Rumours: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. Tamm, Eric. Brian Eno: His Music and the Vertical Colour of Sound. New York: Da Capo Press, 1995. Thackara, John. In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World. Boston, MA: The MIT Press, 1995. Thompson, Evan. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Science of Mind. Boston, MA: Belknap Press, 2007.