ArticlePDF Available

Opening the news gates? Humanitarian and human rights NGOs in the US news media, 1990-2010

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This study examines whether changes in the media, political, and civic landscapes give leading non-governmental organizations (NGOs) increased news access. Using longitudinal content analysis (1990–2010) of a purposive sample of US news outlets, it compares the prevalence, prominence, and story location of news articles citing leading human rights NGOs to human rights coverage more generally. In all outlets, NGO prevalence rises over time; media-savvy NGOs drive much of the growth. By contrast, prominence decreases, as do the number of NGO-driven stories. In all outlets, NGOs typically appear in stories already in the media spotlight; as sources, they appear after the statements of government officials. Finally, the news outlets most receptive to NGOs are those that commit the fewest resources to international news coverage. Overall, findings suggest that while NGO news access has indeed increased over time, such access continues to be shaped by established patterns of news construction.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Media, Culture & Society
1 –17
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0163443715594868
mcs.sagepub.com
Opening the news gates?
Humanitarian and human
rights NGOs in the US news
media, 1990–2010
Matthew Powers
University of Washington, USA
Abstract
This study examines whether changes in the media, political, and civic landscapes
give leading non-governmental organizations (NGOs) increased news access. Using
longitudinal content analysis (1990–2010) of a purposive sample of US news outlets,
it compares the prevalence, prominence, and story location of news articles citing
leading human rights NGOs to human rights coverage more generally. In all outlets,
NGO prevalence rises over time; media-savvy NGOs drive much of the growth. By
contrast, prominence decreases, as do the number of NGO-driven stories. In all
outlets, NGOs typically appear in stories already in the media spotlight; as sources,
they appear after the statements of government officials. Finally, the news outlets
most receptive to NGOs are those that commit the fewest resources to international
news coverage. Overall, findings suggest that while NGO news access has indeed
increased over time, such access continues to be shaped by established patterns of
news construction.
Keywords
civil society, content analysis, international news, human rights, news access, non-
governmental organizations
Past research shows that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) rarely make the news
(Lang, 2013; Thrall, 2006; Trenz, 2004). Do changes in today’s media, political, and
civic landscapes provide these groups with increased opportunities for news access? To
Corresponding author:
Matthew Powers, University of Washington, 102 Communications Box 353740, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Email: mjpowers@uw.edu
594868MCS0010.1177/0163443715594868Media, Culture & SocietyPowers
research-article2015
Article
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Media, Culture & Society
some, diminished newsroom resources – particularly in the United States – make jour-
nalists increasingly likely to accept third party materials: leading NGOs, many of which
have ramped up and professionalized their publicity efforts, are thus seemingly well-
positioned to find increased news access (Cooper, 2011; Fenton, 2010). To others, cur-
rent shifts do not alter key barriers of NGO access to the news media. Specifically, the
news media’s bias toward government sources minimizes both the amount and types of
coverage such groups receive: accordingly, NGOs are said to receive news coverage only
when speaking on topics legitimated by government officials (Lang, 2013). This study, a
longitudinal examination of the amount and types of news access received by humanitar-
ian and human rights NGOs in the US media, puts these perspectives to the test.
Questions of news access represent a longstanding concern in communication research
(Bennett, 1990; Hall et al., 1978). Scholars have examined the factors shaping patterns
of source distribution (i.e. the relative mixture of sources in news articles) and editorial
selection (i.e. the types of issues that receive coverage). The study of humanitarian and
human rights NGOs provides opportunities for methodological and theoretical renewal
of this important research tradition. Methodologically, NGOs raise interesting questions
about to how adequately measure and operationalize news access. These are groups that
do not merely wish to appear in the news; many also want to get the media spotlight to
shine in new places and on new issues.
Theoretically, humanitarian and human rights NGOs provide an opportunity to
examine whether changes in international relations are reflected in international news
coverage. For decades, scholars of international relations have chronicled the incorpo-
ration – for better or worse – of NGOs into processes of international governance
(Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Lang, 2013; Moyn, 2010). During this same period, the
established wisdom in political communication has been that government officials
dominate news coverage about those international relations (Bennett, 2004). While an
important body of scholarship has investigated changes in how humanitarian and
human rights groups pursue publicity (Chouliaraki, 2013; Cottle and Nolan, 2007;
Dogra, 2012; Orgad and Seu, 2014; Powers, 2014), less attention has been paid to
tracking whether these changes – in conjunction with shifting landscapes of news and
politics – alter basic norms of news construction (e.g. resulting in fewer government
voices, a broader range of topics or issues).
The aims of this study are fourfold. First, it overviews the established wisdom on
news access and suggests that developments in the worlds of media, politics, and civil
society invite new research that re-examines this wisdom. Second, it conceptualizes and
operationalizes news access in order to capture the multiple dimensions on which NGOs
seek coverage. Third, it documents how and in what ways NGO news access has changed
over time. Fourth, it asks what effects, if any, changes in news access have on the con-
struction of international human rights news. To achieve these aims, this study presents
the results of a 20-year content analysis of human rights coverage in a strategic sample
of leading US news outlets. In each outlet, it examines the prevalence, prominence, and
geographic location of stories in which leading NGOs are cited to stories in which such
groups are absent. By doing so, it presents concrete evidence showing how and in what
ways NGO news access has changed over time – and asks what the implications of these
developments are for the study of news access.
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Powers 3
News access revisited
Scholars have long stressed that news access is shaped by a combination of professional
and economic factors (Gandy, 1982; Hall et al., 1978). Professionally, journalists see
themselves as keepers of a public record detailing the actions of public officials.
Economically, news organizations often lack the time and resources to produce news
without the help of sources. Together, these factors lead reporters to favor government
officials, who provide the ‘information subsidies’ (Gandy, 1982) necessary to fulfill both
professional and economic considerations. While the resulting news coverage is not
homogeneous, scholarship suggests that it is typically ‘indexed’ to the concentration and
balance of power in government circles (Bennett, 1990).
For NGOs, this official bias has long made for an uphill battle in the struggle for
media visibility. Studies have repeatedly found that such groups are included in news
coverage only rarely (Thrall, 2006; Trenz, 2004). To improve their chances at garnering
publicity, NGOs adapt their messages to acceptable formats and newsworthy topics
(Cottle and Nolan, 2007; Fenton, 2010; Waisbord, 2011). Yet, even when adapting to
news media demands, achieving news coverage remains difficult. Lang (2013), for
example, notes that NGOs are likely to receive coverage ‘only if there is valorized input
from government representatives’ (p. 127). Because NGOs infrequently align with media
demands and government opinions, they have been historically unlikely to receive news
coverage.
Today, there are signs that things may be changing, particularly in the realm of inter-
national human rights news. There, the constituent elements of a perfect storm are taking
shape, which may result in increased news access for humanitarian and human rights
NGOs. First, changing economic conditions – specifically, diminished revenues coupled
with intensified profitability expectations at US news organizations (McChesney and
Nichols, 2010) – have reduced the resources news organizations commit to international
newsgathering. Since the end of the Cold War, US news outlets have cut back on the
number of foreign news bureaus and full-time correspondents (Kumar, 2011). In their
place, freelance reporters and parachute journalists have become increasingly common
(Hannerz, 2004). As a result, news organizations find it increasingly difficult to ade-
quately monitor international news based on their own network of correspondents
(Sambrook, 2010; Wright, 2015).
Second, NGOs in general – and humanitarian and human rights NGOs in particular –
enjoy relatively high levels of both public and official acceptance. In a climate of public
skepticism toward governments, many view NGOs as both trusted sources of informa-
tion and potential organizers for political action (Castells, 2008; Lang, 2013).
Humanitarian and human rights NGOs benefit from a political climate in which their
shared discourse – human rights1 – enjoys widespread public acceptance (if uneven
application): historical scholarship shows that government use of human rights dis-
courses exploded in the early 1990s (amidst the collapse of the Cold War and the emer-
gence of so-called ‘humanitarian wars’), peaked in the mid-2000s (with pro- and anti-Iraq
war sides using human rights language), and has decreased slightly in the United States
under the Obama administration (Keys, 2014). This has led both humanitarian and
human rights groups to interact more regularly with government officials, whether in the
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Media, Culture & Society
provision of services or reporting of human rights violations. Taken together, these
developments appear to simultaneously give official legitimation to NGOs (i.e. include
them within the range of official viewpoints), while perhaps also decentering govern-
ment officials as the primary authority on certain news topics.
Third, NGOs have professionalized their information offerings in order to improve
their chances of making the news. Leading organizations nowadays dedicate substantial
resources to producing reports about topics of importance (Dogra, 2012; McPherson,
2014; Orgad and Seu, 2014; Powers, 2015). Large NGOs also sustain substantial com-
munication staffs – many with journalism backgrounds (Cooper, 2011) – that communi-
cate issues to broader publics (by issuing press releases, staging media events, producing
multimedia content, enlisting celebrities as spokespeople, etc.). Taken together, profes-
sionalization processes at NGOs mean that these organizations have more – and more
types – of information that they can use in their quest for news coverage.
These three elements – economic constraints for news outlets, acceptance of NGOs
in official circles, and professionalized publicity efforts by leading NGOs – each point
to seemingly favorable conditions for increased NGO news access. It is less clear what
sorts of news access they might provide. Will increased news access allow NGOs to
drive news coverage across a wider range of countries? Or will it result primarily in
NGOs being subordinated to the demands and preferences of media and government
actors? To date, scholars have answered these questions primarily through the lens of
case studies (see, for example, Cooper, 2011; Fenton, 2010; Russell, 2013; Waisbord,
2011) or qualitative visual and discourse analysis (Chouliaraki, 2006, 2013; Orgad,
2013). While rich in empirical detail, such studies lack the systematic analysis required
to answer specific questions concerning news access. Moreover, the different cases to
which they speak produce a range of conflicting claims. Some find that NGOs today
enjoy increased opportunities for news access (Russell, 2013), while others suggest
that norms of news construction continue to minimize the amount and types of access
NGOs receive (Waisbord, 2011). The issue, then, is not merely one of discrepant cases
but also under-conceptualization. In order to clarify scholarly knowledge of NGO
news access, it is thus necessary to conceptualize the multiple dimensions of news
access, which can in turn be used as the basis for a content analysis examining patterns
of NGO news access over time. This more parsimonious conceptualization of news
access can help ascertain both the nature and some of the effects of NGO news access
over time.
Conceptualizing NGO news access
News access examines who gets to be a news source and what sort of news source they
get to be. Undoubtedly, this is a vast topic spanning a wide range of actors and influ-
ences. Previous research suggests that access varies depending on news outlet, political
context, topical focus, and a variety of other factors (Bennett, 2004). Thus, to avoid the
risk of overgeneralizing, this study draws on the existing literature examining NGO-
media relations in order to develop a parsimonious conceptualization of news access for
NGOs. From this literature, it identifies three dimensions of access: prevalence, promi-
nence, and story location, each of which captures different facets of how NGOs appear
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Powers 5
in the news. While not exhaustive of access in all forms, each of these – detailed below
– documents aspects of news access that can adjudicate specific claims about the effects
of NGO news access on norms of news construction.
A first dimension is prevalence. This refers to how often NGOs appear in the news.
Several studies suggest that NGOs receive more overall coverage today than in the
past, though supporting historical evidence is scant (Beckett, 2008; Sambrook, 2010).
Moreover, discussions of prevalence remain underspecified in two ways. First, it
remains unclear whether claims of growing access reflect an uptake in the usage of
NGO materials by news organizations or simply an expansion in the population of
NGOs and news outlets, respectively. Second, it is unclear whether growing preva-
lence is a broad phenomenon or whether it is unevenly distributed across NGOs.
Previous research shows that leading NGOs accrue a far greater amount of news cover-
age than smaller ones (Thrall et al., 2014). Others also suggest that a few media-savvy
NGOs drive the majority of the growth in NGO prevalence. In particular, scholars have
argued that both Human Rights Watch and Médecins Sans Frontières are especially
well adapted to the current media environment. Unlike their competitors, these groups
are posited to invest more resources in maintaining a nimble media profile that can
respond to the needs and demands of journalists (Hopgood, 2006; Van Leuven and
Joye, 2014).
A second dimension is prominence. It refers to the position and placement of NGOs
within news articles (in relation to other news sources). According to some, NGOs may
in some ways be changing the construction of news not only by appearing in more news
articles than in the past but also by being cited more prominently within them. Fenton
(2010) suggests that time-strapped journalists frequently copy NGO press releases –
which feature the organizations themselves prominently – ‘verbatim’ (p. 116). Relatedly,
others argue that NGOs increasingly decenter the prominence of government sources
and perhaps increase the position of civic voices in news coverage (Castells, 2008). Van
Leuven and Joye (2014), for example, find that international aid coverage in Belgium is
more often based on NGO sources than government ones.
Others suggest that claims of ‘verbatim’ reportage and the displacement of govern-
ment sources are overstated. In keeping with theoretical premises of indexing, Waisbord
(2011) finds that the ‘organization of news work is lopsided against NGOs’ (p. 146) in
favor of government officials. Several studies of the European press find that NGOs are
used to ‘counterbalance’ (Van Leuven et al., 2013: 430) the messages put forward by
officials. Furthermore, some warn that rising prominence for NGOs over time may
crowd out smaller organizations with fewer material and symbolic resources (Bob, 2005;
Thrall et al., 2014). Together, these suggest that the number of NGO-driven press releases
will be quite low and that NGOs will typically appear later in stories after government
officials.
A third dimension of news access is story location. International news coverage in
general – and human rights coverage in particular – is known to be highly concentrated
and focused on a handful of countries (Ramos et al., 2007; Zuckerman, 2004). Some
research suggests that NGOs appear most often in news articles that focus on the small
number of countries in which the news media already have an interest. This leads some
scholars to express concern that NGO news access will reinforce, rather than challenge,
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
6 Media, Culture & Society
norms regarding the construction of international news (Cottle and Nolan, 2007; Fenton,
2010; Waisbord, 2011).
Conversely, other research suggests that NGO professionalization has given organiza-
tions both the skills and resources to bring news coverage to a wider range of countries
than in the past (Ramos et al., 2007; Zuckerman, 2004). On one level, this suggests that
the number of countries in which NGOs are cited will increase over time. On another, it
also posits that the overall pattern of NGO citations will become less concentrated, that
is, that the countries receiving the majority of news coverage will constitute a smaller
proportion of all NGO news citations over time. Zuckerman (2004) argues both in the
case of news coverage in Darfur. There, NGOs reported for years before journalists
turned their attention to the story. As such, NGOs both helped push attention to a country
otherwise outside the media spotlight and, in doing so, helped diversify – albeit modestly
– the overall concentration of international news coverage.
In conceptualizing news access along these different dimensions, this study provides a
methodological framework that may more adequately capture the empirical reality of
NGO news access while also adjudicating among extant debates. Because each dimension
captures different features of news access, each addresses both (a) how and in what ways
NGO news access has changed over time and (b) what effects, if any, these changes have
on the construction of international news. It is possible, for instance, that NGO prevalence
has increased, while prominence has decreased and that government sources remain dom-
inant in news articles. Such a finding would suggest that news construction norms have
changed little, as NGO access would be mediated by other, more established news sources.
Alternatively, it is possible that prevalence and prominence both increase and that the
countries in which NGOs are cited diversify over time. Such a finding would support
claims of both increased news access and the idea that NGOs may partially alter extant
norms of news construction. To be sure, the range of potential permutations is wide and
the influences are numerous. This study simply seeks to test common questions and claims
about regarding changes to NGO news access.
Data and methods
This study asks whether changes in the political, media, and civic landscapes give NGOs
increased news access. To investigate, it examines human rights coverage in a strategic
sample of leading US news outlets from 1990 to 2010. In each, it compares the preva-
lence, prominence, and geographic location of articles in which leading NGOs are cited
to a random sample in which such groups are absent. Through this comparison, it cap-
tures changes in NGO news access both in absolute terms and as a proportion of human
rights coverage.
The news outlets included in the analysis are the New York Times, NBC Nightly News,
and USA Today. These outlets were selected both to provide a broad picture of NGO
access in the news media as well as test whether patterns of news access vary by outlet.
Elite newspapers like the New York Times retain ample foreign reporting staffs. As of
2013, The Times reported having 31 full-time bureaus in operation around the world
(Keller, 2013). General audience newspapers and broadcast network news have cut back
far more substantially. A 2011 survey found USA Today to have just 5 full-time bureaus
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Powers 7
in operation; NBC had 14 (Kumar, 2011). By selecting these outlets, the research design
can test specific claims about whether diminished editorial resources may or may not
offer increased access to NGOs. Furthermore, the focus on the US case supplements
extant scholarship that examines NGOs in Europe (Trenz, 2004; Van Leuven et al., 2013;
Van Leuven and Joye, 2014).
In order to create the sample, the author entered the search phrase ‘human rights’ into
the LexisNexis search database. For the New York Times and USA Today, searches begin
in 1990 and are repeated every 5 years up to and including 2010. This time period ena-
bles a lengthy longitudinal analysis: its selection coincides with decreased editorial
resources, increased NGO professionalization, and rising acceptance of human rights
discourses. Because full text archives of NBC Nightly News begin in 2000 (and
Vanderbilt archives provide only news summaries), analysis of that outlet begins in
2000. In all news outlets, the unit of analysis was the news article. This procedure
yielded 10,310 news articles, which are referenced below as the total sample. Each of
these articles is coded for year (i.e. 1990, 1995) and primary country of focus (e.g.
Afghanistan, Turkey).
Within the total sample, searches for the name of seven leading humanitarian and
human rights NGOs were entered. These are Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, International Crisis Group, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, Save the Children,
and World Vision. Scholars routinely identify these as some of the largest and well-
funded groups in the humanitarian and human rights sector (Barnett, 2011); previous
research also shows that leading NGOs account for the vast majority of NGOs mentioned
in the news (Thrall, 2006; Thrall et al., 2014). In selecting these organizations, the study
can be reasonably sure that any over time changes in NGO prevalence reflect actual
changes in news access rather than resulting from other confounding factors (e.g. the
introduction of new NGOs in the sample). Moreover, by including several NGOs –
namely, Human Rights Watch and Médecins Sans Frontières – that previous scholarship
identifies as especially media savvy (Barnett, 2011; Hopgood, 2006), this study is able to
test claims about whether the media strategies of leading NGOs allow some organiza-
tions more access than others. The total sample of articles in which NGOs are mentioned
is 2077.
In order to compare citation patterns of articles in which NGOs are mentioned to
those in which they are not, a random subset of news articles in which leading NGOs are
not mentioned was also drawn. This subset included 100 articles for each news outlet in
each time period (e.g. 1990, 1995). For any news outlet with fewer than 100 articles in a
given year, all items were coded. This sample included 1034 news articles. Together with
the sample of articles mentioning leading NGOs, these data are referenced below as the
core sample. It contains 3111 news articles.
All articles in the core sample were coded in relation to specific claims about how
NGO news access has changed and what effects, if any, such changes have on the con-
struction of international news. To capture the prevalence of NGOs in the news over
time, each article was coded for the specific organization mentioned. Those without any
organization mentioned were coded as ‘0’. This allows for a simple measure of total
NGO mentions over time and analysis of how many mentions each NGOs garner. These
are compared to the total population of human rights articles (i.e. the total sample) in
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8 Media, Culture & Society
order to examine the prevalence of articles in which leading NGOs are mentioned as a
percentage of all human rights news coverage.
To further contextualize prevalence data, this study utilizes an independent measure
of human rights discourse by government officials. Scholars working under the theo-
retical premises of indexing call for independent measures of political discourse in
order to more carefully trace the degree to which media coverage of an issue departs
from political debates (Zaller and Chiu, 1996). The search term ‘human rights’ was
entered into the online database of the Congressional Record in order to create a gen-
eral measure of human rights discussions in policy circles. Then, the name of each
leading NGO was entered alongside the search term (e.g. ‘Amnesty International AND
human rights’) in order to capture the prevalence of NGOs within Congressional
debates.
Several measures coded for prominence. To assess claims that NGOs decenter gov-
ernment officials within news articles, each article in the core sample was coded for its
first five sources. Any individual or group receiving direct attribution was deemed a
source. Sources were categorized as government officials, civil society groups, academ-
ics, businesspersons, legal or medical professionals, celebrities, UN officials, and unaf-
filiated individuals. Each source was coded for its position within the news article (e.g.
first source, second source). After coding, each source’s average order of mention was
calculated within news articles. A simple word count of each news article was done to
ascertain whether the NGO was mentioned in the first or second half of the news article.
Finally, each article was coded for whether or not the NGO was the clear initiator. An
article was coded as ‘NGO driven’ when it clearly signaled that an NGO was the source
for the article (see Livingston and Bennett, 2003, for a similar measure). Such articles
report statements made by an NGO in the first paragraph (e.g. ‘According to Human
Rights Watch, 17 people were killed in bombings today’). This is a conservative esti-
mate, as NGOs may ‘drive’ news articles in less visible ways; however, the indicator
allows for testing of claims about whether NGOs find their work increasingly used
‘verbatim’.
To assess claims about how changes in news access impact the location of articles
in which NGOs are mentioned, all articles – that is, the total sample – were coded for
country focus. Following Ramos et al. (2007), each article was coded for the first
country mentioned. This likely undercounts the total number of countries, as some
articles include multiple countries. However, this measure allows for longitudinal
analysis of whether the number of countries in which NGOs are mentioned expands
over time, while retaining high levels of coder reliability. To test claims that NGO
mentions cluster around a small number of countries, the study reports what percent-
age of all NGO mentions is located in the five most frequently mentioned countries
for each collection period.
The author provided two graduate student coders with the core sample drawn from
LexisNexis. A pretest among coders was performed to ensure reliability; in-person meet-
ings among coders resolved coding disagreements. Using Krippendorf’s alpha, overall
reliability (determined by sample tests constituting 10% of the overall data) between
coders was high. For prevalence measures, average reliability was .815; for prominence,
.802; and for country focus, .735.
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Powers 9
Findings
Prevalence
NGO prevalence in the news rises sharply over time, both in absolute terms and as a
percentage of all human rights coverage. The growing prevalence of leading humanitar-
ian and human rights NGOs in the news far outpaces their presence in Congressional
debates, which remain largely constant. Media-savvy groups drive much of the growth
and account for a growing share of all mentions. Across all time periods, the news outlets
that dedicate the fewest resources to international news coverage are also the most likely
to mention NGOs in their reporting. See Tables 1 and 2.
In 1990, humanitarian and human rights NGOs were mentioned in 8.5% of all human
rights news articles in the total sample. By 2005, that number jumps to 27.4%. In 2010,
prevalence drops slightly in absolute terms (from 638 to 604) but grows as a proportion of
all articles (to 35.9%) on account of the news media’s diminished attention to human rights
issues. Growing prevalence in the news far outpaces NGO presence in Congressional
debates. There, human rights issues – as a percentage of all human rights discussions – peak
Table 1. NGO prevalence as a % of human rights coverage by media and Congress.
Institutional
actor
1990,
% (Total N)
1995,
% (Total N)
2000,
% (Total N)
2005,
% (Total N)
2010,
% (Total N)
NYT 7.9 (1704) 11.7 (1601) 18.6 (1990) 26.4 (2005) 34.7 (1466)
USA Today 11.7 (358) 14.6 (335) 13.9 (266) 32.3 (261) 41.6 (190)
NBC Nightly n/a n/a 35.6 (45) 40.3 (62) 59.3 (27)
Total Media 8.5 (2062) 12.2 (1936) 18.4 (2301) 27.4 (2328) 35.9 (1683)
Congressional 13.5 (1152) 18.3 (882) 14.3 (1157) 15.7 (1083) 13.4 (681)
NGO: non-governmental organization.
Congressional mentions taken from Congressional Record online database. Total media sample, N = 10,310
articles. See methods section for details.
Table 2. NGO prevalence in the news by individual organization, 1990–2010.
NGO 1990, % (N) 1995, % (N) 2000, % (N) 2005, % (N) 2010, % (N)
Amnesty 59.7 (105) 39.4 (93) 31.0 (131) 20.4 (130) 19.0 (115)
HRW 10.8 (19) 40.3 (95) 39.0 (165) 33.9 (216) 30.3 (183)
ICG n/a n/a 2.6 (11) 7.5 (48) 10.9 (66)
MSF 5.7 (10) 9.7 (23) 16.1 (68) 15.5 (99) 20.5 (124)
Oxfam 3.4 (6) 3.0 (7) 4.0 (17) 13.6 (87) 7.6 (46)
SCF 15.9 (28) 5.5 (13) 5.2 (22) 6.9 (44) 6.1 (37)
WV 4.5 (8) 2.1 (5) 2.1 (9) 2.2 (14) 5.5 (33)
Total 176 236 423 638 604
HRW: Human Rights Watch; ICG: International Crisis Group; MSF: Médecins Sans Frontières; SCF: Save
the Children; WV: World Vision.
Total sample of articles in which NGOs are mentioned, N = 2077. Due to rounding, not all % add up to 100.
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
10 Media, Culture & Society
in 1995 and decline steadily over time. Overall, NGOs are found on average in about 15.0%
of all Congressional discussions of human rights: this number varies minimally over time.
Claims that media-savvy organizations drive much of the growth in NGO news preva-
lence find support. In 1990, the two media-savvy organizations in the sample – Human
Rights Watch and Médecins Sans Frontières – account for just 16.5% of all NGO men-
tions in the core sample. By 2010, these groups garner half (50.8%) of all mentions. For
other groups, prevalence either undulates moderately across time periods or rises in
absolute terms while constituting a small portion of total mentions. Amnesty International
and Save the Children both see their number of mentions rise modestly in absolute terms
even as their share of total mentions diminishes considerably, from 75.6% in 1990 to just
25.1% in 2010. Oxfam and World Vision see their prevalence grow over time in absolute
terms (from 6 and 8 in 1990, respectively, to 46 and 33 in 2010), but this remains a small
proportion of all NGO mentions.
Claims that understaffed news outlets are more likely to mention NGOs also enjoy
empirical support. NBC Nightly News is most likely to mention NGOs in its coverage
(core sample). On average, 42.5% of its human rights coverage references a leading
NGO, and this percentage grows over time. By 2010, nearly 60.0% of its human rights
articles reference a leading NGO. USA Todays coverage of human rights issues declines
each year from 1990 on, but the shrinking coverage coincides with increased mentions
for NGOs. By 2010, 41.6% of all human rights stories include a leading humanitarian or
human rights organization (up from just 11.7% in 1990). Prevalence as a percentage of
human rights coverage is lowest in the New York Times (19.7% on average), in part
because the Times produces a much larger number of human rights articles in absolute
terms than either of the other two news outlets.
Prominence
NGO prominence declines over time. NGOs are mentioned later in news articles and
after other news sources. Expectations that increased access will decenter official sources
are unsupported: across all time periods in the core sample, government officials are
most prominent. To the extent that growing NGO access displaces any source, it tends to
be other civil society groups or United Nations officials. Finally, suggestions that NGOs
are increasingly able to drive news coverage (as evidenced by the number of NGO-
driven articles) receive little support: the total number of such mentions is small and
declines as a proportion of all mentions over time. See Tables 3 and 4.
Government officials are a prominent source in all human rights news articles. They
are slightly more prevalent in articles where leading NGOs are not mentioned (32.4% vs
28.0% of all mentions, respectively, in the core sample). Nowhere, though, are govern-
ment officials decentered from the news coverage. In addition to constituting roughly a
third of all sources, government officials are also most likely to be the first source men-
tioned in any article (34.2% of all first mentions, figure not shown in tables). If leading
NGOs displace any sources, it tends to be other civil society groups and United Nations
officials, both of whom are more commonly mentioned in human rights articles where
NGOs are not included as sources: civil society groups (i.e. any civic group that is not
one of the seven NGOs) garner 23.9% of mentions in human rights articles but only 9.5%
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Powers 11
in those in which leading NGOs are mentioned; United Nations officials are twice as
likely to appear in articles without leading NGOs in it.
While the prevalence of NGOs increases over time, their prominence within articles
decreases. In 1990, 51.1% of NGO mentions occur in the first half of articles in the core
sample. By 2010, only 39.4% do. In addition to being mentioned later in news articles,
they are also increasingly mentioned after other news sources. In 1990, NGO order of
mention averaged 2.12. This figure drops gradually over each time period; by 2010,
average order is 3.19. In their place, government officials and unaffiliated individuals
receive the most prominence. In 1990, individuals constituted 15.3% of first and second
source mentions in news articles that mention leading NGOs. By 2010, they account for
31.8% of all mentions. Government officials remain prominent across all time periods.
Together, unaffiliated individuals and government officials thus count for nearly two-
thirds of first sources in the 2010 sample.
Despite claims that NGOs find their publicity attempts increasingly used verbatim by
the news media, NGO-driven articles constitute a small portion of all mentions. Such
articles rise in absolute terms (30 in 1990, 82 in 2010), but decline as a proportion of all
mentions (17.0% in 1990, 13.6% in 2010). Media-savvy NGOs’ accounts are most suc-
cessful in placing such articles: Human Rights Watch and Médecins Sans Frontières
Table 3. Average distribution of news sources in human rights articles.
Source Human rights news Articles w/NGO citation Difference
Government 32.4 (1261) 28.0 (2128) – 4.4
Media 6.1 (238) 4.8 (367) −1.3
Leading NGO 31.3 (2377)
Civil Society 23.9 (931) 9.5 (722) −14.4
Business 2.3 (89) 2.5 (193) +0.2
Arts/Education 7.4 (288) 4.8 (366) −2.6
United Nations 12.6 (489) 6.5 (496) −6.1
Individual 10.6 (414) 9.6 (730) −1.0
Other 4.6 (180) 2.8 (214) −1.8
NGO: non-governmental organization.
Core sample, N = 3111 articles. For human rights news, total N = 3890 sources. For articles citing NGOs,
total N = 7593 sources.
Table 4. Indicators of NGO prominence, 1990–2010.
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
NGO-driven article 17.0 (30) 12.7 (30) 13.5 (57) 15.2 (97) 13.6 (82)
Citations in 1st half of news article 51.1 (90) 49.2 (116) 39.2 (166) 39.8 (254) 39.4 (238)
Avg. citation order 2.12 2.71 3.26 3.09 3.19
NGO: non-governmental organization.
All figures based on average of the three news outlets. Total sample of articles in which NGOs are men-
tioned, N = 2077.
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
12 Media, Culture & Society
generate 58.0% of all NGO-driven articles. Amnesty International accounts for another
quarter (25.6%) of all such articles. The remaining mentions are split fairly even amongst
the remaining groups. In general, the findings suggest that NGO-driven news articles are
an infrequent occurrence for all groups.
Story location of news coverage
While media coverage of human rights issues declines over time, the geographic reach
of that coverage – as well as its concentration – remains largely constant. Leading NGOs
are mentioned in a wider number of countries, but the distribution of their mentions
remains heavily concentrated within a few select countries. Across all periods and news
outlets, NGOs tend to be mentioned primarily in countries where the media spotlight is
already shining. Interestingly, though, NGO-driven articles appear most likely in coun-
tries outside the media’s primary zone of interest. See Table 5.
News coverage of human rights issues typically occurs in roughly 100 countries (total
sample). This figure remains largely constant, even as media coverage of human rights
issues declines in absolute terms. In all time periods, the New York Times far exceeds all
other news outlets in the number of countries it reports (143 vs 73 in USA Today and 32
in NBC Nightly News). It is also more diverse in its coverage of human rights issues. On
average, the percentage of mentions garnered by the top five countries ranges between
47.1% and 61.1%, as compared to 59.2% and 89.2% in USA Today and 80% and 100%
in NBC Nightly News (figures not shown in table). Thus, while the degree of concentra-
tion varies, all outlets generally concentrate on a few countries. Excluding the five most
frequently cited countries, the average number of citations per country across all outlets
is 10.12 annually.
Growing NGO prevalence does little to change this equation. While NGOs are men-
tioned in a growing number of countries (40 in 1990, 74 in 2010), the bulk of their men-
tions come in the countries from which the news media already report. Like news media
coverage of human rights issues more generally, NGOs tend to be mentioned in just a
few countries. In any given year, between 46.6% and 63.8% of all NGO mentions occur
in the five countries that garner the most media coverage for human rights issues. Over
time patterns – either toward greater or less concentration of NGO citations – are unclear.
The percentage of NGO mentions occurring in the top five countries drops 10% points
Table 5. Patterns of human rights coverage in the US news, 1990–2010.
Outlet 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Articles citing
an NGO
(a) Total countries 40 52 56 72 74
(b) % mentions in
top 5 countries
57.4 46.6 57.2 63.8 53.6
Total human
rights coverage
(a) Total countries 100 87 109 100 110
(b) % mentions in
top 5 countries
56.0 57.3 52.1 57.6 56.7
Total sample, N = 10,310 articles.
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Powers 13
from 1990 to 1995, only to rise in both 2000 and 2005, and drop slightly (to 53.6%) in
2010. Unobserved factors, like real world human rights issues, may be responsible for
variation. Further research is required on this issue.
Interestingly, while the number of NGO-driven stories is small, NGOs do appear
more likely to drive news coverage when reporting on issues in a country not already in
the media spotlight. Of the 237 NGO-driven articles in the core sample, 61.2% are found
in countries outside the media spotlight (as indicated by a country’s exclusion from the
top five countries in any given year). Typically, these mentions are one-off citations of a
country that otherwise receives very little coverage. Occasionally, a single organization
appears able to bring sustained media attention to a country otherwise unlikely to receive
news coverage. In 2005, for example, Human Rights Watch was cited 12 times in
Uzbekistan, a country with otherwise very low prevalence across the sample (across all
outlets and time periods, it gathers only 20 total mentions). This suggests that while
NGOs are generally mentioned in news articles within the media spotlight, they may be
most likely to succeed in driving news coverage when focusing on countries outside the
media spotlight.
Discussion
This study has examined whether changes in media, politics, and civil society give NGOs
increased access in mainstream news. It finds that leading humanitarian and human
rights NGOs do indeed receive greater prevalence today than in the past. The rising
inclusion of such groups in the news far outstrips their mentions in official political
debates. Moreover, the news outlets that dedicated the fewest resources to international
newsgathering are most likely to mention NGOs. According to the literature, the most
likely explanation for this finding is that they utilize the ‘information subsidies’ (Gandy,
1982) that leading NGOs provide. The result is that while there is less human rights news
coverage today than in the past, NGOs appear more often in it.
At the same time, the findings suggest that greater inclusion of NGOs has done little
to change the basic norms of news construction. Leading humanitarian and human rights
groups are cited later in news articles and after other news sources, especially govern-
ment officials and – to a lesser degree – unaffiliated individuals. Claims that NGOs are
decentering government officials appear overblown, at least in news coverage. Articles
driven directly by NGO efforts are rare across all time periods. Furthermore, leading
NGOs are mentioned primarily in countries where the media spotlight already shines.
Thus, the findings accord with previous research suggesting that while the news gates
may open for leading NGOs, they do so in ways that largely reinforce long established
norms of news construction (see, for example, Thrall, 2006; Thrall et al., 2014; Van
Leuven and Joye, 2014).
Extant theories of news access correctly predict the types of coverage that NGOs
receive. However, they do not predict the amount of coverage they receive. For example,
indexing theories (Bennett, 1990) suggest that non-official sources tend to receive cover-
age only when they ‘express opinions already emerging in official circles’ (p. 106).
Logically, this suggests that NGO prevalence ought to rise and fall alongside the inclu-
sion of leading NGOs within official circles (as measured via the Congressional record).
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
14 Media, Culture & Society
Yet, the findings indicate that NGO prevalence in the Congressional Record is largely
constant over time. It may be that additional measures of government valorization of
NGOs are needed. Nonetheless, something more than government indexing appears
responsible for the growing prevalence of leading NGOs in the news.
In this vein, scholars have suggested that NGOs boost their chances of breaking into
the news by professionalizing their publicity strategies (Bob, 2005; Hopgood, 2006). The
findings here offer support for such claims. In particular, media-savvy NGOs, especially
Human Rights Watch and Médecins Sans Frontières, are responsible for much of the
growth in NGO prevalence over time. This finding connects with scholars who note that
the chances for news access are distributed unevenly across NGOs. While others have
noted that resource-poor organizations face much higher barriers to news access (Thrall
et al., 2014), this study shows that even among well-resourced NGOs, one’s chances of
making the news is moderated by media skills that are themselves unevenly distributed
across organizations. More research examining the processes by which different types of
NGOs pursue news coverage is needed to deepen our understanding of these issues.
Diminished editorial resources do seem to make some outlets more likely to feature
NGOs in their news coverage. Both NBC Nightly News and USA Today have less human
rights news overall but include leading NGOs in a greater proportion of it. At the same
time, in no outlet does increased NGO prevalence appear to alter or modify the general
patterns of human rights news coverage. The one counter-tendency to this finding is that
NGO-driven articles tend to relate to countries not already in the media spotlight. This
could result from a number of factors. On stories already in the news media’s zone of
interest, NGOs may be more likely to be used as an accompanying, rather than driving,
voice in news coverage. In contrast, when publicizing issues outside the media spotlight,
leading organizations may compete with fewer voices for attention. More attention – into
the roles played in this by both NGOs and newsrooms – is required.
A number of factors may have influenced the findings. By sampling at 5-year incre-
ments, the data is subject to world events that may drive leading NGOs – and human
rights topics more generally – into and out of the news cycle. It may be, for example, that
the moderate drop in human rights coverage from 2005 to 2010 reflects heavy focus on
Iraq in the former and on the financial crisis in the latter. By calculating NGO prevalence
as a percentage of all human rights articles, the findings can claim with some confidence
that prevalence has increased. Whether the overall prevalence of human rights discourses
is on the decline – as some have suggested (Keys, 2014) – requires further research.
Prominence data find that NGOs tend to be mentioned later in news articles over time.
In their place, unaffiliated individuals increasingly occupy prominent positions.
Theoretically, this finding is in keeping with scholarship that notes the rise of narrative
forms of journalism which emphasizes unique individual experiences as a way to tell
complex stories. This seems especially likely in human rights coverage, which centers to
a large degree of the suffering of individuals – and, increasingly, on the individuals in the
global north that donate to these causes (Chouliaraki, 2013; Dogra, 2012; Orgad and Seu,
2014). Some scholarship suggests, however, that NGOs play a key role in connecting
reporters with individuals on the ground that can dramatize events (Cottle and Nolan,
2007; Powers, 2013; Reese, 2015). If this is the case, data on the growing prominence of
unaffiliated individuals might partially obscure the role NGOs have in their being there.
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Powers 15
This research raises a number of questions that can be addressed moving forward.
Civil society voices are typically theorized as providing an alternative perspective to
media and government viewpoints (Habermas, 1996). The growing incorporation of
NGOs in news coverage of human rights issues raises important questions about whether
or not they are being used to present alternative perspectives. Frame analysis could be
fruitfully employed to track the different ways in which NGOs frame human rights issues
vis-a-vis government officials. This could supplement some of the ongoing research that
assesses the implications of increasingly media- and branding-driven forms of human
rights and humanitarian publicity (Chouliaraki, 2013; Cottle and Nolan, 2007; Dogra,
2012; Kyriakidou, 2014). Moving beyond the case of human rights, future research could
also examine whether NGOs operating in other thematic areas (e.g. environmental
groups) see an increase in prevalence. Finally, cross-national comparisons could help
tease out the degree to which different media systems are more or less open to the mes-
sages of advocacy groups in general and NGOs in particular.
Increasingly, scholars frame question of news access in terms of resources. On this
view, the reduction of cost (for sources to produce information and for journalists to
produce it) creates conditions for greater access. In several ways, this study supports this
argument. However, the findings also suggest that extant norms of news construction
still matter in terms of who and what gets circulated in the public sphere. NGOs may thus
enjoy greater news access today than in the past, but the power to shape, or challenge,
these rules continue to exceed their grasp.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
Note
1. Historically, human rights and humanitarianism were separate discourses, with the former
focused on protecting citizens against state violence and the latter driven primarily to reduce
suffering. Since the end of the Cold War, the two have become increasingly intertwined, with
both relying on human rights discourses to justify their work. As Moyn (2010) puts it, ‘[T]
oday, human rights and humanitarianism are fused enterprises, with the former incorporating
the latter and the latter justified in terms of the former’ (p. 221). As such, one can group them
together for content analytic purposes, without denying the actual differences in work both
sets of actors do on the ground.
References
Barnett M (2011) Empire of Humanity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Beckett, C (2008) Supermedia. Malden, MA: Wiley.
Bennett WL (1990) Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of
Communication 40(2): 103–125.
Bennett WL (2004) Gatekeeping and press-government relations: a multi-gated model of news
construction. In: Kaid L (ed.) Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum, pp. 283–314.
Bob C (2005) The Marketing of Rebellion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
16 Media, Culture & Society
Castells M (2008) The new public sphere. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 616: 78–93.
Chouliaraki L (2006) The Spectatorship of Suffering. London: Sage.
Chouliaraki L (2013) The Ironic Spectator. London: Polity Press.
Cooper G (2011) From Their Own Correspondents? News Media and the Changes in Disaster
Coverage. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Cottle S and Nolan D (2007) Global humanitarianism and the changing aid-media field. Journalism
Studies 8(6): 862–878.
Dogra N (2012) Representations of Global Poverty. New York: I.B. Tauris.
Fenton N (2010) NGOs, New media and the mainstream news. In: Fenton N (ed.) New Media, Old
News. London: Sage, pp. 153–168.
Gandy O (1982) Beyond Agenda Setting. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Habermas J (1996) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hall S, Critcher C, Jefferson T, et al. (1978) Policing the Crisis. London: MacMillan Press.
Hannerz U (2004) Foreign News. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hopgood S (2006) Keepers of the Flame. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Keck M and Sikkink K (1998) Activists beyond Borders. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Keller B (2013) It’s a golden age of news. New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.
com/2013/11/04/opinion/keller-its-the-golden-age-of-news.html?pagewanted=all (accessed
11 July 2015).
Keys B (2014) Reclaiming American Virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kumar P (2011) Shrinking foreign coverage. American Journalism Review. Available at: http://
ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=4998 (accessed 11 July 2015).
Kyriakidou M (2014) Media witnessing: exploring the audience of distant suffering. Media,
Culture & Society. Epub ahead of print 28 November. DOI: 10.1177/0163443714557981.
Lang S (2013) NGOs, Civil Society and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Livingston S and Bennett WL (2003) Gatekeeping, indexing and live-event news. Political
Communication 20(4): 363–380.
McChesney R and Nichols J (2010) The Death and Life of American Journalism. Philadelphia,
PA: Nation Books.
McPherson E (2014) Advocacy organization’s evaluation of social media information for NGO
journalism: the evidence and engagement models. American Behavioral Scientist 59(1):
124–148.
Moyn S (2010) The Last Utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Orgad S (2013) Visualizers of solidarity: organizational politics in humanitarian and international
development NGOs. Visual Communication 12(3): 295–314.
Orgad S and Seu BI (2014) ‘Intimacy at a distance’ in humanitarian communication. Media,
Culture & Society 36(7): 916–934.
Powers M (2013) Humanity’s publics: NGOs, journalism and the international public sphere.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, New York University, New York.
Powers, M (2014) The structural organization of NGO publicity work: explaining divergent pub-
licity strategies at humanitarian and human rights organizations. International Journal of
Communication 8, 90–107.
Powers, M (2015) The new boots on the ground: NGOs in the changing landscape of international
news. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism 00, 1–17 http://jou.sagepub.com/content/ear
ly/2015/01/27/1464884914568077.abstract (accessed 11 July 2015).
Ramos H, Ron J and Thomas O (2007) Shaping the northern media’s human rights coverage,
1986–2000. Journal of Peace Research 44(4): 385–406.
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Powers 17
Reese, SD (2015) Globalization of mediated spaces: the case of transnational environmentalism in
China. International Journal of Communication 9: 2263–2281.
Russell A (2013) Innovation in hybrid spaces: 2011 UN climate summit and the expanding jour-
nalism landscape. Journalism 17(4): 904–920.
Sambrook R (2010) Are Foreign Correspondents Redundant? Oxford: Reuters Institute for the
Study of Journalism.
Thrall T (2006) The myth of the outside strategy: mass media news coverage of interest groups.
Political Communication 23(4): 407–420.
Thrall T, Stecula D and Sweet D (2014) May we have your attention please? human-rights NGOs
and the problem of global communication. International Journal of Press/Politics 19(2):
135–159.
Trenz HJ (2004) Media coverage on European governance: exploring the European public sphere
in national quality newspapers. European Journal of Communication 19(3): 291–319.
Van Leuven S and Joye S (2014) Civil society organizations at the gates? A gatekeeping study of
news making efforts by NGOs and government institutions. International Journal of Press/
Politics 19(2): 160–180.
Van Leuven S, Deprez A and Raeymaeckers K (2013) Increased news access for international
NGOs? How Médecins Sans Frontières press releases built the agenda of Flemish newspapers
(1995–2010). Journalism Practice 7(4): 430–445.
Waisbord S (2011) Can NGOs change the news? International Journal of Communication 5:
142–165.
Wright K (2015) ‘These grey areas’: how and why freelance work blurs INGOs and news organi-
zations. Journalism Studies 00, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461670X.201
5.1036904?journalCode=rjos20#.VaOs6UJ138E (accessed 11 July 2015).
Zaller J and Chiu D (1996) Government’s little helper: U.S. press coverage of foreign policy cri-
ses, 1945–1991. Political Communication 13: 385–405.
Zuckerman E (2004) Using the Internet to determine patterns of foreign coverage. Nieman Reports
58(3): 51–53.
by guest on August 5, 2015mcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... The U.S. President and other political elites are covered even if they do not follow the media logic, whereas a social movement needs to act much more media-savvy to enter the news discourse at all. At times, this leads to the news coverage reporting in accordance with the government's frame and denying space to legitimate oppositional claims (Bennett et al., 2006), while other communicators like NGOs feel the constant need to adapt to the media logic to enter the news (Leuven & Joye, 2014;Powers, 2016). ...
... Media visibility, thus, tends to be a requirement for reaching organizational goals. NGOs need to access the news to raise funds (Powers, 2014(Powers, , 2016, just as terrorists need to enter the news coverage to shift attention to their atrocities and grievances (Weimann, 2008;Wolfsfeld, 1997). As a result, "attention from the media is key to political success" (Amsalem et al., 2018, p. 3). ...
... There is, however, some evidence that especially larger well-funded NGOs have a growing impact on the news coverage (Leuven & Joye, 2014;Powers, 2016Powers, , 2018Ramos et al., 2007;Thrall, Stecula, & Sweet, 2014). Meyer, Sangar and Michaelis (2018) suggest that this growing impact is the result of a "simultaneous increase in media demand for NGO information and analysis as well as increased NGO capacity to supply media contents compared to alternative sources" (p. ...
Book
Marc Jungblut extends existing knowledge on the role of strategic communication in conflict news by examining four violent conflicts. He relies on an automated content analysis of texts by 52 strategic communicators, such as politicians, NGOs, social movements, as well as on the international news coverage in 17 media outlets. By analyzing over 80,000 texts in seven languages, the book demonstrates that media visibility is almost exclusively granted based on ethnocentrism and elite status. The journalistic framing of conflict events, however, is much more context-dependent and shows a higher degree of independence from elite voices and strategic communication in general. Contents • The Relationship between Strategic Communication and News Coverage • Strategic Communicators in Violent Conflicts • Influences on the (Conflict) News Production Process • The (Potential) Impact of Conflict News Coverage • Analyzing the Determinants of Strategic Communicators’ Influence Target Groups • Scholars and students of communication science and political science • Politicians, NGO practitioners, journalists The Author Dr. Marc Jungblut is a researcher at the Department of Media and Communication at the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. His research focuses on political communication, conflict and terrorism news coverage, strategic communication and computational social science.
... Altri studiosi si sono invece concentrati sia sui metodi utilizzati dalle agenzie di informazione per raccogliere dati credibili (Clark, 2001;Hopgood, 2006), sia su come le ONG traducono tali notizie al fine di renderle accattivanti (Cottle, Nolan, 2007;Waisbord, 2011), sia sulle conseguenze sociali prodotte dalla diffusione delle notizie stesse (Powers, 2015). Tutti questi dibattiti sembrano mettere al centro della loro attenzione il ruolo giocato dalle ONG e dai news media nel dare forma e sostanza alle informazioni sui diritti umani. ...
Book
Full-text available
La poliedrica libertà nel proporre temi e approcci di analisi diversi, ha sempre contraddistinto il rapporto profondo e professionale che, in questi anni, ho intrattenuto con Dialoghi Mediterranei. Passando da riflessioni interdisciplinari al confine tra l’antropologia, la storia e la filosofia, a tematiche più strettamente riguardanti la mia ricerca etnografica, in questo numero di Quaderni si può individuare un sottile fil rouge che lega i contributi qui riuniti, i quali tentano di esplorare, in maniera estremamente eterogenea ma complessivamente coerente, i limiti valoriali dell’epoca storica che stiamo vivendo.
... formats and newsworthy topics (Cottle & Nolan 2007;Fenton 2010;Waisbord 2011) only to find their contributions subordinated to dominant, Western-driven news agendas (Vestergaard 2013; see also Stupart, this volume). In a longitudinal content analysis of over 3,000 US news articles, for instance, Powers (2016), shows that, in spite of current conditions of economic constraint for news outlets, acceptance of NGOs in official circles and professionalized publicity efforts by leading NGOs, NGOs have still not gained access to the media in ways that allow them to contribute to setting media agendas. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Text-analytical approaches to humanitarian communication Anne Vestergaard The public circulation of images, speeches and written documents for the purpose of moral education dates as far back as these genres of communication themselves. Religious imagery and scripture are obvious cases in point. The practice of analyzing such texts as cultural traces of particular historical manifestations of morality has an equally long history, building on the legacy of theology and literary analysis in which, for centuries, scholars have sought to make sense of morality. Today, the integration of deep analytical engagement with individual pieces of text as a method in the social sciences is both enormously popular and, at the same time, criticized with respect to the scientific status of such methods and what kinds of conclusions they can legitimately support. The overall objective of this chapter is to explicate the epistemological assumptions of text-based qualitative research, addressing some of its critics' concerns, and to offer an overview of the uses of textual analysis in humanitarian communication by focusing on empirical work driven by visual and subsequently verbal/multimodal text analysis. I conclude by proposing directions for future textual approaches to humanitarian communication.
... Powers (2017) notes that NGOs ascribe to representative liberalism and participatory democratic perspectives, playing expert or advocate. He primarily criticizes NGOs for failing to act as facilitators or critics because they use journalism to create publicity for fundraising (Powers, 2015a;Ramos, Ron, & Thoms, 2007). NGOs have also been critiqued for failing to develop journalistic norms that are required in radical democracy (Cottle & Nolan, 2007), often eschewing discussions about root causes of systemic issues (Nash, 2008). ...
... Esta mediación de los medios de comunicación en la política de la información es atendida desde diversos ángulos. En primer lugar, quienes estudian los casos en los que las ONG logran tener cobertura en los medios, destacando la forma como los actores colectivos construyen "la credibilidad" de la información y el drama que denuncian, con la finalidad de traducir los temas de derechos humanos a las normas dominantes de las noticias y medios que favorecen "el conflicto y el espectáculo" (Cottle & Nolan, 2007;Fenton, 2010;Powers, 2016c;Waisbord, 2011). En este sentido, Waisbord (2011) señala que en América Latina las ONG siguen un "enfoque pragmático" en su relación con la prensa con el fin de lograr visibilidad, es decir, si bien muchos integrantes de las ONG tienen perspectivas críticas frente a los principales medios y la forma como suelen informar y cubrir problemas, éstos no entran en estrategias de confrontación entendiendo que su intermediación es muy importante para su trabajo. ...
... Mainstream media remains vital for interest group political influence (Powers 2016). Due to editorial routines and requirements, journalists are prone to prioritize a limited number of official, elite actors, presenting these as "authorized knowers" (Hall et al. 1978). ...
Article
Full-text available
The news media are important for political influence, and interest groups compete for visibility. However, actors on the same policy field also tend to have close ties and cooperate when interests overlap. Existing research on sources has overwhelmingly focused on journalist-source relations, and far less on how news content is negotiated between the sources themselves. Based on triangulation of in-depth interviews with 40 representatives from Norwegian health interest groups, representing business, citizens and medical professionals, the present article unpacks how groups cooperate on media management behind, and in, the media limelight. Conceptualizing cooperation as resource exchange, the study explores the barriers and incentives that condition media cooperation and visibility, theorized as network dependencies. By exploring how interest groups reason and negotiate media cooperation and access, the study adds new insight to the field of news production, and contributes to the theorizing of source representation in the news.
... Esta mediación de los medios de comunicación en la política de la información es atendida desde diversos ángulos. En primer lugar, quienes estudian los casos en los que las ONG logran tener cobertura en los medios, destacando la forma como los actores colectivos construyen "la credibilidad" de la información y el drama que denuncian, con la finalidad de traducir los temas de derechos humanos a las normas dominantes de las noticias y medios que favorecen "el conflicto y el espectáculo" (Cottle & Nolan, 2007;Fenton, 2010;Powers, 2016c;Waisbord, 2011). En este sentido, Waisbord (2011) señala que en América Latina las ONG siguen un "enfoque pragmático" en su relación con la prensa con el fin de lograr visibilidad, es decir, si bien muchos integrantes de las ONG tienen perspectivas críticas frente a los principales medios y la forma como suelen informar y cubrir problemas, éstos no entran en estrategias de confrontación entendiendo que su intermediación es muy importante para su trabajo. ...
Article
Full-text available
Resumen Objetivo. El presente artículo presenta una revisión crítica de la literatura académica que estudia la relación entre las ONG y los medios de comunicación en los conflictos por derechos humanos. Metodología. A partir de una revisión documental, a manera de balance de estado del arte, se clasifica y analizan los principales enfoques y tesis de la literatura. Resultados. Se argumenta que la literatura académica ha enfatizado en cómo la política de la información se constituye en un repertorio modular del activismo en defensa de los derechos humanos, pero mantiene un sesgo en el análisis de las dinámicas, organizaciones y medios internacionales. Conclusiones. Se plantea la necesidad de desarrollar una agenda de investigación que tenga en cuenta los procesos y relaciones entre las ONG y los medios de comunicación a nivel estatal, además de repensar dicha relación en contextos de grave violencia contra periodistas con el fin de explicar las posibilidades y límites de la política de la información. Palabras clave: ONG, derechos humanos, política de la información, medios de comunicación. Abstract Objective: This paper presents a critical review of the academic literature that studies the relationship between NGOs and mass media in human rights conflicts. Methodology: From a documentary review, as an assessment of the state of the art, the main approaches and theses of the literature are classified and analyzed. Results: It is argued that the academic literature has emphasized how information policy constitutes a modular repertoire of activism in defense of human rights, but maintains a bias in the analysis of international dynamics, organizations and mass media. Conclusions: There is a need to develop a research agenda that takes into account the processes and relationships between NGOs and mass media at the state level, in addition to rethinking this relationship in contexts of serious violence against journalists, in order to explain the possibilities and limits of the information policy./0000-0003-4877-6708 Google Scholar Como citar este artículo: López, J.A. (2020). Política de la información, las ONG y los medios de comunicación en los conflictos por derechos humanos: un balance.
Thesis
Full-text available
Although forced migration has always occurred throughout history, it has increased significantly recently. The largest increase took place between 2012 and 2015 and was largely driven by conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Central African and East African countries (the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2021). Worldwide, forcibly displaced people are, however, nowadays confronted with hostility, xenophobia and the increasing popularity of extreme right-wing political parties (Frelick, 2007; Freedman, 2015). Furthermore, in recent decades, several states have tightened their asylum policies and/or become more reluctant to cooperate with refugee organizations (Johnson, 2011; Freedman, 2015). Since 2015, the theme of forced migration has been ubiquitous in (often polarized, overlapping and interacting) public, media and political debates (Hellman & Lerkkanen, 2019). Within such contexts, UNHCR, which is mandated to lead and coordinate refugee protection worldwide (Jones, 2013), and other international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) play key roles as providers of assistance and/or protection to forcibly displaced people (Betts et al., 2012). However, through public communication, they also try to inform, raise awareness and set news media, public, political and donor agendas. Therefore, they provide diverse communication content to news media and increasingly communicate directly with citizens via social media and websites (Atkin & Rice, 2013). Hence, these organizations can significantly influence how the general public perceives forcibly displaced people and related displacement crises (Chouliaraki, 2012a) and consequently can have broader policy and societal consequences. Nevertheless, few studies have examined how they attempt to influence public, media and political agendas, and even less studies have analysed the underlying reasons behind the use of their discursive strategies. While most research has analysed the news-making activities of humanitarian organizations, and broader changing journalism-NGO relationships in evolving news and humanitarian ecologies (e.g., Ongenaert & Joye, 2016; Powers, 2018; Van Leuven & Joye, 2014), fewer studies specifically investigated refugee organizations. Second, most research centres on agenda-setting (e.g., McCombs & Valenzuela, 2021) and, to lesser extents, stakeholders’ efforts to influence about which subjects news media, citizens or other stakeholders should think (cf. first-level agenda-building) (Kim & Kiousis, 2012). However, to our knowledge, only a few studies, have thoroughly explored refugee organizations’ second-level agenda-building strategies which attempt to influence how stakeholders perceive certain subjects (Kim & Kiousis, 2012). Further, they mainly textually focus on one organization, media genre, year, and/or crisis, lacking essential explanatory comparative, production, and/or societal perspectives. Therefore, adopting a mixed-methods research design, this research project analysed refugee organizations’ public communication strategies from multiple perspectives. More specifically, we examined various relevant international refugee organizations’ public communication strategies regarding the recent Syrian and Central African crises. Hence, the central research objective of this project is to investigate the conceptual, textual, production and societal dimensions and their interactions involved in international refugee organizations’ public communication strategies. This overarching objective is operationalized through three more specific, interrelated sub-objectives, corresponding to three components and adopting a source-to-end product perspective. First, we examined the conceptual dimension of international refugee organizations’ public communication strategies (component 1). How can the public communication of international refugee organizations be conceptualized? For this purpose, we conducted an extensive literature review. Second, we studied the textual dimension of international refugee organizations’ public communication strategies (component 2). Which discursive strategies do international refugee organizations mainly use (cf. how, who, what)? Acknowledging current trends and gaps within the literature, this sub-objective can be further divided into three more specific objectives: 1. How are forcibly displaced people mainly (not) represented and discussed in international refugee organizations’ public communication? In other words, which representation and argumentation strategies do the international refugee organizations use? For this purpose, we conducted two empirical studies. First, acknowledging potential organizational differences, we applied a comparative-synchronic (Carvalho, 2008) critical discourse analysis (CDA) according to Fairclough’s (1992, 1995) CDA model on the international press releases (N=122) of UNHCR and two INGOs, de ‘Danish Refugee Council’ (DRC) and de ‘International Rescue Committee’ regarding the Syrian crisis (2014-2015). Additionally, we conducted semi-structured expert interviews (N=6) with press and regional officers at these organizations to yield additional empirical material about the underlying production and societal contexts. Second, recognizing potential media genre and crisis differences, we applied a comparative-synchronic multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA) (Machin & Mayr, 2012), again following Fairclough’s (1992, 1995) CDA model, on UNHCR’s international press releases (N=28), news stories (N=233), and related photos (N=462) and videos (N=50) of the key year 2015. 2. Who is mainly (not) represented and given a voice in international refugee organizations’ public communication? 3. What is mainly (not) represented and discussed in international refugee organizations’ public communication? Which key characteristics (e.g., organizations, crises, media genres, years) and themes do international refugee organizations represent? To meet these specific objectives and acknowledging organizational, media, crisis and temporal differences, we applied a comparative, longitudinal, intersectional quantitative content analysis (Neuendorf, 2017; Riffe et al., 2019) on the press releases and news stories (N=1244) about the recent Syrian and Central African crises (2015-2018) of UNHCR, and two INGOs, the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). Third, we focused on the production and societal dimensions (component 3). Central to the corresponding component are the production, political, economic and socio-cultural contexts, forces and motivations behind the public communication strategies. How do the underlying production, political, economic and socio-cultural contexts, forces and motivations explain the discursive strategies of international refugee organizations (cf. why)? Likewise, this sub-objective can be further divided into three more specific objectives that correspond with the specific textual objectives: 1. How can we explain how forcibly displaced people are mainly (not) represented and discussed in international refugee organizations’ public communication? 2. How can we explain who is mainly (not) represented and given a voice in international refugee organizations’ public communication? 3. How can we explain what is mainly (not) represented and discussed in international refugee organizations’ public communication? Therefore, we conducted a three-week office ethnography at NRC’s main press and communication department, semi-structured expert interviews with press and communication officers of NRC (N=10), and a document analysis of the key communication policy documents of NRC. We thereby focused each time on the production and societal contexts of NRC’s public communication regarding the recent Syrian and Central African crises. In general, we found diverse, often mixed results that nuance, extend and sometimes contradict the existing literature on the public communication of refugee organizations and, more generally, humanitarian communication, and frequently interact with and explain each other. For reasons of relevance, focus and space, we discuss below interactions between different dimensions, as evidenced within one or more studies. The literature review indicated that in recent decades the social and scientific relevance of research on strategic and non-profit communication in general and on refugee organizations’ public communication particularly have increased. Nevertheless, these fields remain underdeveloped and are mostly text-focused, while the production and reception dimensions are barely explored. Remarkably, however, little or no research has been conducted from an organizational communication perspective, although this study demonstrates that the subject can be adequately embedded in and examined from the fields of strategic, non-profit and public communication. Specifically, our dissertation highlights the relevance of the holistic Communicative Constitution of Organizations (CCO) perspective. This perspective argues that communication is not just an activity that occurs within or between organizations, but forms the constitutive process of organization (Putnam & Nicotera, 2010). Further, strongly influenced by the understandings of Oliveira (2017), Atkin and Rice (2013), and Macnamara (2016), we define refugee organizations’ public communication as the practice of organized and systematic symbolic social action (diversified communication disseminated through a variety of channels and activities) within the public sphere to reach set goals, co-create the refugee organization, perform civic relations and fulfil its mission by groups of people that pursue the (perceived) common good for forced migration. Finally, our conceptual study argues that future research can benefit by adopting multi-perspective, practice-oriented, multi-methodological, comparative and/or interdisciplinary approaches to which we respond in our empirical studies. Regarding the ‘how’ and related ‘why’ dimensions, the critical discourse analysis shows that the observed organisations to varying extents dehumanize forcibly displaced people and subordinate them to the ‘Western Self’ and national state interests in their press releases. Acknowledging organizational and media genre differences, these power inequalities can be explained by the use of various discursive strategies, as well as the broader production and social contexts. The findings demonstrate that forcibly displaced people are often portrayed as a homogenous and suffering collective, confirming the dominance of the regime of pity’s traditional ‘negative’ representational strategies (Bettini, 2013; Chouliaraki, 2012a; Johnson, 2011). However, unlike existing fragmented research, this analysis also found evidence of the use of other discursive strategies and explored the production process and the social context. The aforementioned depersonalising humanitarian discourse can be considered to be the product of the specific features of the press releases. The importance of news media attention and commercial reasons are other explanatory factors. In addition, the study found articulations of a simultaneously existing post-humanitarian discourse. The interviews revealed that the humanitarian sector has evolved from a non-economic to a market-oriented sphere within which private choice and self-expression are central. One can relate this post-humanitarian discourse to the regime of irony and consider it as an expression of neoliberalism (Chouliaraki, 2012a). While post-humanitarian discourses respond to the needs for personal development and self-expression, the oft-deployed cross-issue persuasion strategy responds to state interests and reflects political realism (Grieco, 1999). Both strategies are self-directed and reduce forcibly displaced people principally to secondary figures. Similarly, the comparative-synchronic multimodal critical discourse analysis reveals that UNHCR primarily represents forcibly displaced people in its press releases and, to lesser extents, in its news as generic, anonymized, passive, victimized, deprived, and/or voiceless masses, reproducing humanitarian saviour logics and hierarchies of deservingness. However, stories, photos, and videos frequently combine these representations with portrayals of empowered individual doers, speakers, and/or thinkers. Both representation strategies can be partially explained by news logics such as genre characteristics, news media conventions, and representations, and by respectively political and private sector discourses and agenda-building opportunities, and related organizational goals, as the expert interviews show. Furthermore, we identified several argumentation methods, particularly in textual communication genres. UNHCR mainly attempts to stimulate pity-based solidarity but also voices various neoliberal post-humanitarian (mainly Western) Self-oriented solidarity discourses. Refining cross-issue persuasion, we discovered that UNHCR links protection to states’ (perceived) interests in various issue areas but also in various principles and values, and propose the more appropriate concept of ‘cross-interest persuasion’. Rather than just to other (perceived) important issue areas, refugee organizations link contributions to protection to the interests of states in general. Moreover, the term emphasizes the political realist nature of the pragmatic argumentation strategy. Finally, we consider these discursive strategies as reflections and reproductions of, and responses to dominant migration management paradigms and the increasingly neoliberalized and political realist international refugee regime. Concerning the textual ‘who’, ‘what’ and connected ‘why’ dimensions, the comparative, longitudinal and intersectional quantitative content analysis shows a mixed picture of what and who are (not) represented, involving interorganizational commonalities and differences. First, regarding ‘what’, the refugee organizations predominantly communicated in 2015 and 2016 about forcibly displaced people involved in the Syrian crisis, because of intertwined organizational, societal and/or financial reasons and mainstream media logics. More specifically, it is far more difficult for international refugee organizations to obtain media attention for the Central African crisis than the Syrian crisis, because of various factors such as the nature, magnitude, implications, mediatization and comprehensibility of the conflicts, and geographic and cultural proximity. As there is more media attention on Syria, international refugee organizations generally obtain also more resources specifically intended for the Syrian crisis, including for press and communication efforts. This leads on its turn to even more attention for this crisis, creating a ‘Vicious Neglected Crisis Circle (VNCC) effect’. Organizational factors generally reinforce this effect, while security and political factors in the case of communication about Syria limit it. Regarding ‘who’, we observed that primarily forcibly displaced people and refugee organizations obtain voices in het public communication about the investigated forcibly displaced people, refining earlier studies. Additionally, examining several (largely unexplored) sociodemographics, this study finds that individualized forcibly displaced people are represented in significantly unbalanced manners (e.g., mainly along age, geographical location, legal status, current country and continent, nationality, life stance, sexual orientation, family situation, marital status and former and current profession). This can be explained by a myriad of pragmatic, humanitarian, societal, organizational, ethical/personal, practical, security, political and/or narrative reasons. Shaped by production and societal contexts, humanitarian communication reproduces and reflects quantitative mediated hierarchies of suffering, both between (cf. what) and within (who) crises. In general, we can conclude that various pragmatic and contextual factors explain ‘how’, ‘who’ and ‘what’ are represented. Finally, we argue that well-balanced humanitarian communication is essential for societal and strategic reasons (e.g., negative long-term implications of imbalanced humanitarian imagery and sensational public communication, branding opportunities as reliable, accountable ‘authorised knowers’).
Article
Full-text available
Objetivo. El presente artículo presenta una revisión crítica de la literatura académica que estudia la relación entre las ONG y los medios de comunicación en los conflictos por derechos humanos. Metodología. A partir de una revisión documental, a manera de balance de estado del arte, se clasifican y analizan los principales enfoques y tesis de la literatura. Resultados. Se argumenta que la literatura académica ha enfatizado en cómo la política de la información se constituye en un repertorio modular del activismo en defensa de los derechos humanos, pero mantiene un sesgo en el análisis de las dinámicas, organizaciones y medios internacionales. Conclusiones. Se plantea la necesidad de desarrollar una agenda de investigación que tenga en cuenta los procesos y relaciones entre las ONG y los medios de comunicación a nivel estatal, además de repensar dicha relación en contextos de grave violencia contra periodistas con el fin de explicar las posibilidades y límites de la política de la información.
Article
Full-text available
Interest groups depend on visibility for political influence and organizational growth. The current hybrid media landscape presents both opportunities and constraints for visibility and influence. For organized interests, if, when and how to use established media involves a continuous evaluation of different media strategies, as well as evaluations of how to best combine media and non-media platforms for efficient, multi-platform advocacy campaigns. Through qualitative interviews with 39 health interest organizations, representing a broad spectrum of group types, resources and access to decision-makers, this study analyses evaluations of the perceived gains and risks associated with media strategies. Although all interviewees value media visibility, their actual access to the established news media varies significantly. In the current media landscape, which is characterized by hyper-competition and hybridity, we find that it is primarily the well-resourced organizations, with storytelling expertise, which gain and prioritize visibility in the established media. Other organizations, independent of other group characteristics, seek visibility by increasingly becoming networked content distributors to bypass established media and target specific publics to promote organizational aims.
Article
Full-text available
This article examines the role of humanitarian and human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in producing global news content in light of legacy news media's shrinking international footprint. Using original interviews, NGO documents, and content analysis, it finds that different types of funding, government relationships, organizational dynamics and desired impacts tend to be associated with divergent publicity strategies. In particular, some NGOs target the prestige press to engage with political elites, while others use the general news media to attract new audiences for fund-raising and educational purposes. The implications of these findings, both for international news and scholarly analysis of civil society, are discussed in the conclusion.
Book
Empire of Humanity explores humanitarianism’s remarkable growth from its humble origins in the early nineteenth century to its current prominence in global life. In contrast to most contemporary accounts of humanitarianism that concentrate on the last two decades, Michael Barnett ties the past to the present, connecting the antislavery and missionary movements of the nineteenth century to today’s peacebuilding missions, the Cold War interventions in places like Biafra and Cambodia to post-Cold War humanitarian operations in regions such as the Great Lakes of Africa and the Balkans; and the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863 to the emergence of the major international humanitarian organizations of the twentieth century. Based on extensive archival work, close encounters with many of today’s leading international agencies, and interviews with dozens of aid workers in the field and at headquarters, Empire of Humanity provides a history that is both global and intimate. Avoiding both romanticism and cynicism, Empire of Humanity explores humanitarianism’s enduring themes, trends, and, most strikingly, ethical ambiguities. Humanitarianism hopes to change the world, but the world has left its mark on humanitarianism. Humanitarianism has undergone three distinct global ages-imperial, postcolonial, and liberal-each of which has shaped what humanitarianism can do and what it is. The world has produced not one humanitarianism, but instead varieties of humanitarianism. Furthermore, Barnett observes that the world of humanitarianism is divided between an emergency camp that wants to save lives and nothing else and an alchemist camp that wants to remove the causes of suffering. These camps offer different visions of what are the purpose and principles of humanitarianism, and, accordingly respond differently to the same global challenges and humanitarianism emergencies. Humanitarianism has developed a metropolis of global institutions of care, amounting to a global governance of humanity. This humanitarian governance, Barnett observes, is an empire of humanity: it exercises power over the very individuals it hopes to emancipate. Although many use humanitarianism as a symbol of moral progress, Barnett provocatively argues that humanitarianism has undergone its most impressive gains after moments of radical inhumanity, when the “international community” believes that it must atone for its sins and reduce the breach between what we do and who we think we are. Humanitarianism is not only about the needs of its beneficiaries; it also is about the needs of the compassionate.
Article
The combined interplay of commercialisation, digitalisation and globalisation offers opportunities for international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to gain more news access. We set up a quantitative content analysis to study how and to what extent press releases from the international NGO Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) were adopted in foreign coverage by four Flemish newspapers (1995-2010). First, the analysis shows that fewer articles were based on MSF press releases in 2010 than in 1995. Furthermore, we found that Flemish journalists generally supplemented the MSF press releases with additional information. The decreased agenda-building capacity of MSF can be explained by the nature of events (violent conflicts in 1995 versus natural disasters in 2010) and by the increased competition between NGOs in 2010. The fact that MSF press releases and articles ncreasingly discuss global issues nonetheless indicates that globalisation offers opportunities for international NGOs to enhance their agenda-building capacities. Second, our research found less evidence to support often heard complaints about ‘‘churnalism’’ in newsrooms and showed that public relations can also be a positive factor in the news production process; specifically, we found that MSF press releases are often used to counterbalance the ‘‘official’’ message coming from political representatives or contending parties.
Article
Nongovernmental organizations act on behalf of citizens in politics and society. Yet many question their legitimacy and ask who they speak for. This book investigates how NGOs can become stronger advocates for citizens and better representatives of their interests. Sabine Lang analyzes the choices that NGOs face in their work for policy change between working in institutional settings and practicing public advocacy that incorporates constituents' voices. Whereas most books on NGOs focus on policy effectiveness, using approaches that treat accountability largely as a matter of internal performance measurements, Lang instead argues that it is ultimately several public accountabilities that inform NGO legitimacy. The case studies in this book use empirical research from the European Union, the United States, and Germany to point to governments' role in redefining the conditions for NGOs' public advocacy.