Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 120, Issue 4, pp 509–525 | Cite as

Mediatized Humanitarianism: Trust and Legitimacy in the Age of Suspicion

  • Anne Vestergaard
Article

Abstract

The article investigates the implications of mediatization for the legitimation strategies of humanitarian organizations. Based on a (full population) corpus of ~400 pages of brochure material from 1970 to 2007, the micro-textual processes involved in humanitarian organizations’ efforts to legitimate themselves and their moral claim were examined. A time trend analysis of the prioritization of actors in the material indicates that marked shifts in legitimation loci have taken place during the past 40 years. A discourse analysis unfolds the three dominant discourses behind these shifts, namely legitimation by accountancy, legitimation by institutionalization, and legitimation by compensation. The analysis relates these changes to a problem of trust associated with mediatization through processes of mediation.

Keywords

Humanitarian communication NGOs Legitimacy Discourse analysis Mediatization Mediation 

References

  1. Atac, I. (1999). Four criteria of development NGO legitimacy. World Development, 27, 5.Google Scholar
  2. Bakir, V., & Barlow, D. M. (2007). Communication in the age of suspicion: Trust and the media. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z. (2001). Community: Seeking safety in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, R., & Sargeant, A. (2005). The nonprofit marketing landscape: Guest editors’ introduction to a special section. Journal of Business Research, 58, 797–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benthall, J. (1993). Disasters, relief and the media (p. 267). London: Tauris.Google Scholar
  6. Biekart, K. (1999). The politics of civil society building: European aid agencies and democratic transitions in Central America. Amsterdam: International Books and the Transnational Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Boltanski, L. (1999). Distant suffering. Morality, media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, D. (2004). Horrific blindness: Images of death in contemporary media. Journal for Cultural Research, 8, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson, D. K. 2002. Trust in Media. 17 sep. Retrieved August, 2006 from http://www.poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=6802&pg=1.
  10. Chouliaraki, L. (2005). Spectacular ethics. Journal of Language and Politics, 3, 2.Google Scholar
  11. Chouliaraki, L. (2006). The spectatorship of suffering. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Chouliaraki, L., & Morsing, M. (2010). Media, organization and identity. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  13. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Cheney, G. (2008). Corporate communications: convention, complexity, and critique. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. R. (1994). Critical viewing and participatory democracy. Journal of Communication, 44, 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, S., & Seu, B. (2002). Knowing enough not to feel too much: Emotional thinking about human rights appeals. In M. Bradley & P. Petro (Eds.), Truth claims: Representations and human rights. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cornellisen, J. P. (2008). Corporate communication. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Cottle, S., & Nolan, D. (2007). Everyone was dying for footage. Global humanitarianism and the changing aid-media field. Journalism Studies, 8, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Couldry, N. (2008). Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the emergent space of digital storytelling. New Media and Society, 10, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daccord, Y. (2005). IRCR communication: Generating support. International Review of the Red Cross, 87, 693–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Darcy, J. (2004). Human rights and humanitarian action: A review of the issues, background paper prepared for the Workshop on Human Rights and Humanitarian. www.odi.org.uk/rights/Publications/HPGBackgroundPaperforIASC.pdf.
  21. Duffy, B. (2003). Who do we trust?. London: Ipsos Mori.Google Scholar
  22. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). NGO performance and accountability: Introduction and overview. In M. Edwards & D. Hulme (Eds.), Non-governmental organisations: Performance and accountability. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  23. Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fowler, A. (1997). Striking a balance: A guide to enhancing the effectiveness of non-governmental organisations in international development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  25. Grounds, J. (2005). Editorial: Special issue on charity branding. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 10, 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall, S. (2007). The west and the rest. Discourse and power. In Tania Das Gupta (Ed.), Race and racialization: Essential readings. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. New York: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  28. Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society. A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review, 29, 2.Google Scholar
  29. Krotz, F. (2007). The meta-process of ‘mediatization’ as a conceptual frame. Global Media and Communication, 3, 256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lidchi, H. (1999). Finding the right image: British development NGOs and the regulation of imagery. In T. Skelton & T. Allen (Eds.), Culture and global change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1989). On the critical abilities of television viewers. In E. Seiter, et al. (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Lissner, J. (1981). Merchants of misery. New Internationalist, 100, 23.Google Scholar
  33. Lister, S. (2003). NGO legitimacy. Technical issue or social construct? Critique of Anthropology, 23, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLagan, M. (2006). Introduction: Making human rights claims public. American Anthropologist, 108, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Minear, L., Scott, C., & Weiss, T. G. (1996). The news media, civil war and humanitarian action. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  36. Moeller, S. D. (1999). Compassion fatigue: How the media sell disease, famine, war and death. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. O’Dwyer, B. (2004). The construction of a social account: A case study in overseas aid agency. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, B. J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 7–8.Google Scholar
  39. Ossewaarde, R., Nijhof, A., & Heyse, L. (2008). Dynamics of NGO legitimacy: How organizing betrays core missions of NGOs. Public Administration and Development, 28, 42–53.Google Scholar
  40. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pearce, J. (1997). Between co-option and irrelevance: Latin American NGOs in the 1990s. In D. Hulme & M. Edwards (Eds.), NGOs, states and donors: Too close for comfort?. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Ritchie, R. J. B., Swami, S., et al. (1998). A brand new world for nonprofits. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4, 1.Google Scholar
  43. Rothberg, R. I., & Weiss, T. G. (1996). Introduction. In R. I. Rothberg & T. G. Weiss (Eds.), From Massacres to Genocide. The media, public policy and humanitarian crises. Washington: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  44. Saxby, J. (1996). Who owns the private aid agencies? In D. Sogge (Ed.), Compassion and calculation: The business of private foreign aid. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication, 19, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seaton, J. (2005). Carnage and the media: The making and breaking of news about violence. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  47. Seu, B. (2003). Your stomach makes you feel that you don’t want to know anything about it: Desensitization, defence mechanisms and rhetoric in response to human rights abuses. Journal of Human Rights, 2, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Silverstone, R. (2006). Media and Morality on the Rise of the Mediapolis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  49. Slim, H. (2002). By what authority? The legitimacy and accountability of nongovernmental organizations. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance., 4, 23–25.Google Scholar
  50. Smillie, I. (1995). Alms Bazaar: Altruism under fire—non-profit organisations and international development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.Google Scholar
  52. Tester, K. (2001). Compassion, morality and the media. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tester, K. (2010). Humanitarianism and modern culture. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2006). Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(3), 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vaux, T. (2006). Humanitarian trends and dilemmas. Development in Practice, 16, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vestergaard, A. (2008). Humanitarian branding and the media. The case of Amnesty International. Journal of Language and Politics, 7, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vestergaard, A. (2010). Identity, integrity and humanitarian appeal. In L. Chouliaraki & M. Morsing (Eds.), Media, organisations and identity. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  58. Vestergaard, A. 2011. Distance and suffering. Humanitarian discourse in the age of mediatization. Unpublished PhD Manuscript. Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Copenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations