Cited by 100Memory, Trauma, and CommemorationTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceMemory, History, Trauma, Identity

Terrorism in the new memory ecology: Mediating and remembering the 2005 London Bombings

Brown, Steven D., Hoskins, Andrew·2010·Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression

Abstract

In an era marked by the apparent saturation of terror and the ubiquitous mediation of all‐things‐past, the value of and the prospects for the remembering of terrorist attacks appear caught up in the velocity of the immediate circulation of media data and in the cyclical iterations of news images. Rather than these processes affecting a reduction or obliteration of memory, we discern how an interplay of individual and cultural frameworks is used for making sense of violent events in this environment through preliminary analysis of empirical work exploring the mediation and the commemoration of the 2005 London Bombings. We achieve this through cross‐fertilizing psychological and media and cultural studies approaches via the concept of ‘schema’ to show how remembering is dynamically configured through socio‐cultural practices and shifting media logics. In this way, we advocate a holistic approach to a ‘new memory ecology’, drawing upon the emergent field of ‘memory studies’.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/19434471003597399

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a body of work in media and communication studies that considers how media are used to 'premediate' what is to come, to help make the future plausible and thus more manageable and controllable.

    “There is a body of work in media and communication studies that considers how media (images, templates, narratives) are used to ' premediate ' (Brown and Hoskins 2010; Erll 2008; Grusin 2004, 2010; Hoskins and O ' Loughlin 2009) what is to come, to help make the future plausible and thus more manageable and controllable.”

    From AI and memory (2024) · cites this paper as Brown and Hoskins 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, S. D., & Hoskins, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Brown, Steven D.
Venue
Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression
Published
2010-05
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
87-107
ISSN
  • 1943-4472 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-4480
OpenAlex
W1985426249
Cited by
100
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Humanistic Studies OAI Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/E002579/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Memory, Trauma, and Commemoration
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Memory, History, Trauma, Identity
Keywords
2005 London bombings, terrorism, collective memory, commemoration, media mediation, news images, schema theory, violent incidents, media logic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review