c) ICT fosters consensus among social movements that fight to change the socio-
economic order supported by the media. For instance, women demanding greater
gender equality to governments (Giddens, 2000), technological communication
movements requiring more freedom of speech (Wolton, 2002), etc. Sometimes the
texts highlight the questioning of the global order (Muñoz, 2005; Martín Serrano,
1994). For example, movements about de-legitimization of the neoliberal system,
the globalization paradigm (Amat et al., 2002; Fuch, 2008; López, Roig and Sádaba,
2003) or the modernization paradigm (Miller, 2011).
Social dynamic 2: “Enlightenment // Obscurantism”
This is the second dynamic that includes a larger number of sentences. It refers to
communicational transformations that lead to autonomy of thought, of actions, critical
awareness, capacity to convene political and/or citizen mobilizations. It is also related
exclusively to social consensus or to social consensus and, at the same time, to conflict.
Concerning the texts that refer exclusively to social consensus, the mentioned
issue is changes of women representations in the media that strengthen feminist
movements (Curran, 2005). Laube (2010: 15) notes that traditional social movements
approaches also analysed the mobilisation of these marginalized groups and the political
opportunities than enable them “to gain access to mainstream institutions”. In the
sample, the creation of popular media that allows non-elite groups to gain greater
attention, which benefits movements for democracy is also pointed out. With regard to
this, Teun A. van Dijk suggests: “An Internet-based social network of oppressed people
who are engaged in cognitive discourse in their exchange of ideas, beliefs, values,
judgements and values” (van Dijk, 1995:244).
Concerning the texts that refer to consensus and, eventually, to conflict, the
recurrent issue is the following: The critical capacity of globalisation generates social
resistance against the globalised system. The analysed literature indicates the social
agreement of “antiglobalisation” groups, “protesters”, “resistance” or “emancipatory”
groups. They promote a global awareness to change the current social order (Cheney,
Ganesh and Zoller, 2005, Petrillli and Ponzio, 2000, Cavallo, 2005, etc.). In addition, this
change triggers the conflict with the interests of power. The interests in detecting
manipulating mechanisms by North American governments and international
corporations led scholars to analyse the progressive empowerment of these movements
at the beginning of the globalisation. Subsequently, digital technologies made the
agreement among the members of the “global resistance movement” (Amat et al., 2002)
easier, such as the Anti-Globalisation Movement, which has been analysed by different
authors (Ramonet, 2000; Chomsky, 1992; Žižek, 2002 and many others). Castells
(2002a:86) points out that the main merit of this movement is to have brought to the
top of the political-social debate what was presented as the only and indisputable path
towards the progress of humanity.
Social dynamic 3: “Information // Misinformation”
This is the third dynamic of the study embracing a greater number of sentences. They
are related to concepts such as the increase of information flows and the rise in virtual
interactions between members of organizations and their followers. In these texts, only