Framing by Actors in the Human Rights Debate: the Kony 2012 Campaign

Abstract

Human rights actors form networks and debate in issue arenas to find solutions to violations. Framing can be used to create and increase issue salience as well as organisational importance, thus influencing power relations and the human rights debate. Not all the actors are equally powerful, meaning that the more dominant actors function as gatekeepers, controlling the debate and the subsequent decision-making process. The campaign Kony 2012 by Invisible Children (IC) is used as a case study to see whether, by observing the reaction the campaign elicited from two well-established gatekeepers (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch), this campaign by a previously relatively unknown non-governmental organisation (NGO) had affects on issue salience and on the power relations between human rights NGOs. The findings show that IC was able to generate a buzz with its Kony 2012 campaign. It was able momentarily to influence power relations by producing new ideas and content. Notwithstanding, the two established actors, however, were quick to maintain their power positions as gatekeepers, an issue much discussed by Bob and Carpenter. Although as a result the existing power relations remained unchanged at the end of the monitoring period, this case study shows that social media may lower the threshold for new actors, supporting Barzilai-Nahon's notion of the power of less central actors in networks.

Keywords:

• Framing
• Gatekeeper Theory
• Power Relations
• Non-governmental Organisations

Notes

¹ ME Keck and K Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).

² K Barzilai-Nahon, “Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control” (2008) 59 J of American Society for Info Sci & Tech 1493–1512.

³ Meriläinen & Vos, “Human Rights Organizations and Online Agenda Setting” (2011) 16 Corporate Communications, an Int J 293–310.

⁴ ME Keck and K Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1998).

⁵ Vos, Schoemaker & Luoma-aho, “Setting the Agenda for Research on Issue Arenas”, (2014) 19 Corporate Communications, an Int J. 200–215

⁶ C Bob, The International Struggle for New Human Rights (U of Pennsylvania Press: Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights, 2009).

⁷ CR Carpenter, “Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks” (2007) 51 Int Studies Quarterly 99–120.

⁸ K Barzilai-Nahon, “Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control” (2008) 59 J of American Society for Info Sci & Tech 1493–1512.

⁹ RM Entman, “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm”(1993) 43 J of Communication 51–58, 52.

¹⁰ CH Botan & M Taylor, “Public Relations: State of the Field” (2004) 54 J of Communication 645–661.

¹¹ Luoma-aho & Vos, “Towards a More Dynamic Stakeholder Model: The Role of Issue Arenas for Corporate Reputation” (2010) 15 Corporate Communication, an Int J 315–331.

¹² K Lewin, “Frontiers in Group Dynamics. II Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research” (1947) 1(2) Human Relations, 143–153.

¹³ M Castells, Communication Power (New York: Oxford UP, 2009).

¹⁴ ME Keck & K Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1998).

¹⁵ A Hudson, “NGOs’ Transnational Advocacy Networks: From ‘Legitimacy’ to ‘Political Responsibility’?“ (2001) 1 Global Networks 331–352.

¹⁶ N Lin, “Building a Network Theory of Social Capital” (1999) 22 Connections 28–51.

¹⁷ H Yanacopulos, “The Strategies that Bind: NGO Coalitions and their Influence” (2005) 5 Global Networks 93–110.

¹⁸ D Knoke, “Networks of Elite Structures and Decision Making” (1993) 22 Sociological Methods & Research 23–45, 24.

¹⁹ AM Pettigrew, “Information Control as a Power Source” (1972) 6 Sociology 187–204, (p. 188).

²⁰ CL Pallas & J Urpelainen, “Mission and Interests: The Strategic Formation and Function of North-South NGO Campaigns” (2013) 19 Global Governance: A Rev of Multilateralism & Int Orgs 401–423, 405.

²¹ K Barzilai-Nahon, “Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control” (2008) 59 J of American Society for Info Sci & Tech 1493–1512.

²² K Lewin, “Frontiers in Group Dynamics. II Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research” (1947) 1(2) Human Relations, 143–153.

²³ CR Carpenter, “Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks” (2007) 51 Int Studies Quarterly 99–120.

²⁴ C Bob, The International Struggle for New Human Rights (U of Pennsylvania Press: Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights, 2009).

²⁵ CR Carpenter, “Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms” (2011) 65 International Organization 69–102.

²⁶ S Erickson Nepstad & C Bob, “When do Leaders Matter? Hypotheses on Leadership Dynamics in Social Movements” (2006) 11 Mobilization: An International Quarterly 1–22.

²⁷ C Bob, The International Struggle for New Human Rights (U of Pennsylvania Press: Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights, 2009).

²⁸ See K Martens, “Mission Impossible? Defining Nongovernmental Organizations” (2002) 13 Voluntas: Int J of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organisations 271–285; Meriläinen & Vos, “Human Rights Organizations and Online Agenda Setting” (2011) 16 Corporate Communications, an Int J 293.; D Davis, A Murdie & C Garnett Steinmetz, ““Makers and Shapers”: Human Rights INGOs and Public Opinion” (2012) 34 Human Rights Quarterly 199–224.

²⁹ J Joachim, “Framing Issues and Seizing Opportunities: Women‘s Rights and the UN” (2003) 47 Int Studies Quarterly 247–274.

³⁰ Meriläinen & Vos, “Human Rights Organizations and Online Agenda Setting” (2011) 16 Corporate Communications, an Int J 293–310; Meriläinen & Vos, “Framing Issues in the Public Debate: The Case of Human Rights” (2013) 18 Corporate Communications: an Int J 119–134.

³¹ K Roth, “Defending Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Practical Issues Faced by an International Human Rights Organization” (2004) 26 Human Rights Quarterly 63–73.

³² D Davis, A Murdie & C Garnett Steinmetz, ““Makers and Shapers”: Human Rights INGOs and Public Opinion” (2012) 34 Human Rights Quarterly 199–224.

³³ RO Keohane & JS Nye Jr, “Power and Interdependence in the Information Age” (1998) 77 Foreign Affairs 81–94.

³⁴ See P Bachrach & MS Baratz, “Two Faces of Power” (1962) 56 American Pol Sci Rev 947–952; JH Rowbottom, “Media Freedom and Political Debate in the Digital Era” (2006) 69 Modern Law Rev 489–513; A Anton, “Socialist Voices”, in A Anton & R Schmitt (eds), Toward a New Socialism (Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2007), 21–52.

³⁵ LW Bennett, K Foot & M Xenos, “Narratives and Network Organization: A Comparison of Fair Trade Systems in Two Nations” (2011) 61 J of Communication 219–245.

³⁶ AM Pettigrew, “Information Control as a Power Source” (1972) 6 Sociology 187–204, 188.

³⁷ K Barzilai-Nahon, “Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control” (2008) 59 J of American Society for Info Sci & Tech 1493–1512.

³⁸ LW Bennett, K Foot & M Xenos, “Narratives and Network Organization: A Comparison of Fair Trade Systems in Two Nations” (2011) 61 J of Communication 219–245.

³⁹ Robert Dahl, “The Concept of Power”(1957) 2 Behav Sci 201–215.

⁴⁰ C Roggeband & R Vliegenthart, “Divergent Framing: The Public Debate on Migration in the Dutch Parliament and Media 1995–2004” (2007) 30 West European Politics 524–548; JW Busby, “Bono Made Jesse Helms Cry: Jubilee 2000, Debt Relief, and Moral Action in International Politics” (2007) 51 Int Studies Quarterly 247–275.

⁴¹ N Hamdy & EH Gomaa, “Framing the Egyptian Uprising in Arabic Language Newspapers and Social Media” (2012) 62 J of Communication 195–211.

⁴² JN Druckman, “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” (2001) 63 J of Politics 1041–1066, 1061.

⁴³ JN Druckman, “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” (2001) 63 J of Politics 1041–1066, 1061.

⁴⁴ WH Kilburn, “Personal Values and Public Opinion” (2009) 90 Soc Sci Quarterly 868–885.

⁴⁵ Meriläinen & Vos , “Framing Issues in the Public Debate: The Case of Human Rights” (2013) 18 Corporate Communications: an Int J 119–134.

⁴⁶ PR Brewer & K Gross, “Values, Framing and Citizens’ Thoughts about Policy Issues: Effects on Content and Quantity” (2005) 26 Pol Psych 929–948.

⁴⁷ D Chong & JN Druckman, “Framing Theory” (2007) 10 Annual Rev of Pol Sci 103–126.

⁴⁸ ML Cook, “The Advocate's Dilemma: Framing Migrant Rights in National Settings” (2010) 4 Stud in Soc Justice 145–164.

⁴⁹ S Nicholson & D Chong, “Jumping on the Human Rights Bandwagon: How Rights-based Linkages Can Refocus Climate Politics” (2011) 11 Global Env Pol 121–136.

⁵⁰ S Nicholson & D Chong, “Jumping on the Human Rights Bandwagon: How Rights-based Linkages Can Refocus Climate Politics” (2011) 11 Global Env Pol 121–136.

⁵¹ JP Winter & CH Eyal, “Agenda Setting for the Civil Rights Issue” (1981) 45 Public Opinion Quarterly 376–383.

⁵² A Downs, “Up and Down with Ecology – The ‘Issue Attention Cycle’” (1972) 28 Public Interest 38–50.

⁵³ S Hilgartner & CL Bosk, “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model” (1988) 94 American J of Soc 53–78.

⁵⁴ Meriläinen & Vos, “Human Rights Organizations and Online Agenda Setting” (2011) 16 Corporate Communications, an Int J 293–310; Meriläinen & Vos, “Framing Issues in the Public Debate: The Case of Human Rights” (2013) 18 Corporate Communications: an Int J 119–134.

⁵⁵ V Haufler, “Governing Corporations in Zones of Conflict: Issues, Actors, and Institutions”, in D Avant & M Finnemore (eds), Who Governs the Globe? (Cambridge, Cambridge UP 2010), 102–130.

⁵⁶ Meriläinen & Vos , “Framing Issues in the Public Debate: The Case of Human Rights” (2013) 18 Corporate Communications: an Int J 119–134.

⁵⁷ DR Davis & Amanda Murdie, “Looking in the Mirror: Comparing INGO Networks Across Issue Arenas” <https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/patel/psac/Davis_PSAC_3_9.pdf> Accessed 17 August 2012.

⁵⁸ C Fleay, “Transnational Activism, Amnesty International and Human Rights in China: The Implications of Consistent Civil and Political Rights Framing” (2011) 16 Int J of Human Rights 915–930; CL Pallas & J Urpelainen, “Mission and Interests: The Strategic Formation and Function of North-South NGO Campaigns” (2013) 19 Global Governance: A Rev of Multilateralism & Int Orgs 401–423, 405.

⁵⁹ DR Davis & Amanda Murdie, “Looking in the Mirror: Comparing INGO Networks Across Issue Arenas” <https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/patel/psac/Davis_PSAC_3_9.pdf> Accessed 17 August 2012.

⁶⁰ CL Pallas & J Urpelainen, “Mission and Interests: The Strategic Formation and Function of North-South NGO Campaigns” (2013) 19 Global Governance: A Rev of Multilateralism & Int Orgs 401–423, 405.

⁶¹ CL Pallas, K Fletcher & B Han “How Do Campaigners Choose Their Targets? Exploring Cost-Benefit Analysis among Nongovernmental Organizations” (2012) Presented at International Studies Association Annual Convention, San Diego, April 1–4.

⁶² See K Anderson, “The Ottawa Convention Banning Landmines, the Role of International Non-governmental Organizations and the Idea of International Civil Society” (2000) 11 Eur J of Int Law 91–120; DR Davis & Amanda Murdie, “Looking in the Mirror: Comparing INGO Networks Across Issue Arenas” <https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/patel/psac/Davis_PSAC_3_9.pdf> Accessed 17 August 2012; CL Pallas, K Fletcher & B Han “How Do Campaigners Choose Their Targets? Exploring Cost-Benefit Analysis among Nongovernmental Organizations” (2012) Presented at International Studies Association Annual Convention, San Diego, April 1–4.

⁶³ CL Pallas, K Fletcher & B Han “How Do Campaigners Choose Their Targets? Exploring Cost-Benefit Analysis among Nongovernmental Organizations” (2012) Presented at International Studies Association Annual Convention, San Diego, April 1–4, 12; AJ Semb, ”Why (not) Commit? Norway, Sweden and Finland and the ILO Convention 169” (2012) 30 Nordic Journal of Human Rights 122–146.

⁶⁴ See J-H Zhu, “Issue Competition and Attention Distraction: A Zero-Sum Theory of Agenda-Setting” (1992) 69 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 825–836; CR Carpenter, “Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks” (2007) 51 Int Studies Quarterly 99–120; Meriläinen & Vos, “Framing Issues in the Public Debate: The Case of Human Rights” (2013) 18 Corporate Communications: an Int J 119–134.

⁶⁵ C Bob, The International Struggle for New Human Rights (U of Pennsylvania Press: Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights, 2009); CR Carpenter, “Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks” (2007) 51 Int Studies Quarterly 99–120.

⁶⁶ Meriläinen & Vos , “Framing Issues in the Public Debate: The Case of Human Rights” (2013) 18 Corporate Communications: an Int J 119–134.

⁶⁷ JP Winter & CH Eyal, “Agenda Setting for the Civil Rights Issue” (1981) 45 Public Opinion Quarterly 376–383.

⁶⁸ JP Winter & CH Eyal, “Agenda Setting for the Civil Rights Issue” (1981) 45 Public Opinion Quarterly 376–383.

⁶⁹ IC, “Invisible Children” <http://invisiblechildren.com/> Accessed 6 September 2012.

⁷⁰ LL Burges, “Efforts at Peace: Building a United Uganda” (University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects) <http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1157> Accessed 17 August 2012.

⁷¹ Meriläinen & Vos, “Human Rights Organizations and Online Agenda Setting” (2011) 16 Corporate Communications, an Int J 293–310; D Davis, A Murdie & C Garnett Steinmetz, ““Makers and Shapers”: Human Rights INGOs and Public Opinion” (2012) 34 Human Rights Quarterly 199–224.

⁷² Conrad Quilty-Harper, “Kony 2012: Stats breakdown of the viral video” (The Telegraph, March 9 2012) <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/joseph-kony/9134431/Kony-2012-Stats-breakdown-of-the-viral-video.html#> Accessed 5 September 2012.

⁷³ E.g. http://edition.cnn.com/search/?query=invisible+children&x=0&y=0&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=relevance&intl=true#&sortBy=date e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=invisible%20children&video=on&audio=on&text=on e.g. http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=Invisible+children e.g. http://yle.fi/uutiset/maailman_lehdet/3348967 e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/21/us-usa-kony-idUSBRE83K03A20120421 e.g. http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/Lapsisotilaiden+vapauttamista+vaativa+dokumentti+levi%C3%A4%C3%A4+verkossa/a1305557196325 e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jagd-auf-rebellenchef-kony-aktivisten-starten-kampagne-gegen-den-schlaechter-von-uganda-a-820110.html.

⁷⁴ K Barzilai-Nahon, “Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control” (2008) 59 J of American Society for Info Sci & Tech 1493–1512.

⁷⁵ http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/efforts-arrest-joseph-kony-must-respect-human-rights-2012-03-08.

⁷⁶ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/09/capturing-kony; http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/09/how-catch-joseph-kony.

⁷⁷ https://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/Support-UN-role-in-arresting-International-Criminal-Court-fugitives.

⁷⁸ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/12/child-soldiers-worldwide.

⁷⁹ http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/landmark-icc-verdict-over-use-child-soldiers-2012-03-14.

⁸⁰ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/14/icc-landmark-verdict-warning-rights-abusers; http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/14/campaigning-action-joseph-kony-and-lra.

⁸¹ http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR62/005/2012/en/56c3e218-514d-4e0e-97f4-128d56a864dc/afr620052012en.pdf; http://www.amnesty.org/zh-hant/node/30985.

⁸² http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/15/justice-congo.

⁸³ http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/uganda/report-2012.

⁸⁴ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/21/qa-joseph-kony-and-lords-resistance-army.

⁸⁵ http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL10/024/2012/en/784820f2-5a3a-4dff-b7b4-b814033b5b9b/pol100242012en.pdf http://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report/2012/global-update.

⁸⁶ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/23/child-soldiers-worldwide-scourge.

⁸⁷ http://www.amnesty.org/en/activism-center; http://www.amnesty.org/en/international-justice.

⁸⁸ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/04/other-half-kony-equation.

⁸⁹ http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/NWS21/004/2012/en/c47306ab-3d23-4ff4-afd8-3eae61a079e6/nws210042012en.pdf; http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/after-10-years-time-leaders-champion-international-criminal-court-2012-07-01.

⁹⁰ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/20/central-african-republic-lra-attacks-escalate; http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/20/insecurity-mbomou-and-haut-mbomou-prefectures-car; http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/20/call-solidarity-populations-central-africa.

⁹¹ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/29/icc-court-last-resort.

⁹² http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/05/letter-foreign-ministers-19th-african-union-summit.

⁹³ http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/09/central-african-republic-lra-attack-near-hunting-reserve; http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/09/central-african-republic-letter-minister-justice-massacre-cawa-concession-mbomou-pre.

⁹⁴ Meriläinen & Vos, “Human Rights Organizations and Online Agenda Setting” (2011) 16 Corporate Communications, an Int J 293–310.

⁹⁵ C Bob, The International Struggle for New Human Rights (U of Pennsylvania Press: Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights, 2009); CR Carpenter, “Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks” (2007) 51 Int Studies Quarterly 99–120.

⁹⁶ K Barzilai-Nahon, “Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control” (2008) 59 J of American Society for Info Sci & Tech 1493–1512.

⁹⁷ C Bob, The International Struggle for New Human Rights (U of Pennsylvania Press: Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights, 2009); CR Carpenter, “Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks” (2007) 51 Int Studies Quarterly 99–120. CR Carpenter, “Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks” (2007) 51 Int Studies Quarterly 99–120.

⁹⁸ CL Pallas & J Urpelainen, “Mission and Interests: The Strategic Formation and Function of North-South NGO Campaigns” (2013) 19 Global Governance: A Rev of Multilateralism & Int Orgs 401–423, 405.

⁹⁹ JN Druckman, “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” (2001) 63 J of Politics 1041–1066, 1061.

¹⁰⁰ C Bob, The International Struggle for New Human Rights (U of Pennsylvania Press: Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights, 2009); CR Carpenter, “Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks” (2007) 51 Int Studies Quarterly 99–120.

¹⁰¹ K Barzilai-Nahon, “Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control” (2008) 59 J of American Society for Info Sci & Tech 1493–1512.

¹⁰² Meriläinen & Vos, “Human Rights Organizations and Online Agenda Setting” (2011) 16 Corporate Communications, an Int J 293–310.

¹⁰³ S Pepper, “Invisible Children and the Cyberactivist Spectator” (2009) 6 Nebula 40–55.

¹⁰⁴ See M Schomerus, “They Forgot What they Came For: Uganda‘s army in Sudan” (2012) 6 J of Eastern African Studies 124–153; RR Atkinson, P Lancaster, L Cakaj & G Lacaille, “Do No Harm: Assessing a Military Approach to the Lord's Resistance Army” (2012) 6 J of Eastern African Studies 371–382.

¹⁰⁵ LL Burges, “Efforts at Peace: Building a United Uganda” (University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects) <http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1157> Accessed 17 August 2012.

¹⁰⁶ CL Pallas, K Fletcher & B Han “How Do Campaigners Choose Their Targets? Exploring Cost-Benefit Analysis among Nongovernmental Organizations” (2012) Presented at International Studies Association Annual Convention, San Diego, April 1–4, 2.

¹⁰⁷ S Finnström, ““KONY 2012” and the Magic of International Relations” (2012) <http://www.e-ir.info/2012/03/15/kony-2012-and-the-magic-of-international-relations/> Accessed 16 August 2012.

¹⁰⁸ JP Winter & CH Eyal, “Agenda Setting for the Civil Rights Issue” (1981) 45 Public Opinion Quarterly 376–383.

¹⁰⁹ Meriläinen & Vos, “Human Rights Organizations and Online Agenda Setting” (2011) 16 Corporate Communications, an Int J 293–310.