The Rise of NGOs as Alternative News Providers

By Melissa Wall

California State University – Northridge

A paper presented to the annual conference of the

International Communication Association, May 26-30, 2005, New York.

Abstract: This study assesses three Non-Governmental Organizations (Electronic Iraq, Global
Exchange and OneWorld), as alternative international news providers. While Global Exchange
turned to mainstream media for its information, the other two relied on news produced by other
NGOs and the United Nations or collected and reported it themselves. The latter two also more
frequently quoted alternative sources such as citizens. Ultimately, these NGOs represent a new
sort of news provider – international non-profits, embodying different news values and practices
than corporate media.

1
 In the last two decades, there has been a remarkable increase in the numbers, activities

and influences of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) around the world (Fisher, 1998;

Kaldor, 2003; Rodgers, 2003; Warkentin, 2001). Working in numerous arenas, often in place of

governments which have abdicated many of their social service functions, NGOs are now said to

employ more people than the largest private sector firms in many countries (Handbook on

nonprofit institutions, 2003). Their expertise and advocacy functions have increasingly made

them players at UN summits and other gatherings of the world’s leaders. Indeed, well known

NGOs such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace are seen as more credible by the general

public than global corporations such as Ford or Microsoft that have spent millions building their

brand names (De Jonquieres, 2000). Although the term NGO encompasses a diverse spectrum of

organizations and agendas that is difficult to define, observers agree NGOs are now believed to

constitute a global associational revolution (Kaldor, 2003; Salamon, Anheier & Associates,

1998).

2
 The effects of this revolution are subject to debate but it is helpful to group thinking

concerning this phenomenon into two main schools (acknowledging obviously that many

opinions may fall somewhere between them): The optimists describe NGOs as flexible, creative,

fast acting and motivated by social and not commercial concerns. They see NGOs as key tenants

in the civil sphere of society, a bulwark against governments and corporations that would

otherwise overlook if not exploit ordinary people (Warkentin, 2001; Mater, 2001). Much

literature associates them with providing a voice for non-elites in the public sphere,

characterizing their work as a public good increasingly made available on a global basis

(Warkentin, 2001; Mater, 2001). The other school of thought suggests that NGOs, particularly

those operating in the international arena, are hand maidens of the powers that be. Their entry

into social services legitimizes governments’ elimination of public services, and they serve as

Trojan horses for privatization, deregulation and corporate takeovers of the world’s resources,

bringing homogenizing Western values to the rest of the world (Carapico, 2000; de Waal, 2002;

Lovink, 2002). In communicating their messages, they often de-humanize the very people they

are supposed to help (Lidchi, 1999).

3
 Whichever view one takes, one thing is certain: With a few exceptions, NGO activities

have been under-researched in mass communication, particularly in terms of their relationship to

news. It is the contention of this paper that some NGOs have begun collecting, constructing and

distributing news to an extent that they might be thought of now as a new form of news producer

(Smith & Smythe, 2001; Wall, 2002). While this might be said of various other non-news

entities in society, some of the key characteristics of NGOs make them particularly important to

consider, especially for researchers interested in international communication. Thus, this article

aims to take a step toward rectifying this dearth of knowledge by first outlining some evidence

that NGOs are news producers, then assessing three cases to illustrate potential areas of concern

for future research of NGOs as news media.

Changing roles of journalism

4
 The broader context for this paper is the idea that journalism itself is undergoing

immense transformations. These well documented changes have come about for a number of

reasons ranging from media monopolies to new technologies (Bagdikian, 2004; Kovach &

Rosenstiel, 2001; McChesney, 2004; Pavlik, 2001) Conglomerate control has increasingly led to

a journalism that values infotainment and celebrity news at the expensive of more serious and

expensive-to-collect information and, especially, international information (Kovach &

Rosenstiel, 2001). Cost-cutting and other measures have led to an increase in news media

reliance and obedience to corporate and governmental providers of pre-packaged information

such as video news releases that news media pass off as their own work, practices that the public

is often unaware of. Likewise, popular news providers such as U.S. cable television have been

documented as relying primarily on reporters’ and anchors’ opinion with few sources to back up

what they report (State of the Media, 2005). These and other such manipulative practices have

meant that journalism has less and less room for so-called hard news much less news that

challenges the status quo. The mainstream news media themselves have seen that their work

increasingly does not connect with audiences and have invoked reforms such as the civic

journalism movement which sought cosmetic but not structural changes. This failure of

mainstream media to stand up to the government and corporations or to simply cover important

news at all has opened a space for other sources of information that do not come from what we

have traditionally thought of as news producers (Schechter, 2003; Wall, 2002). Indeed, the lack

of access to media production for ordinary citizens has led some researchers to describe the rise

of “black market” or informal journalism to counter the failure of the market (Wall, 2004).

5
 The rise of these “new” news creators such as blogs, wikis and other channels, has been

facilitated by new technologies, most especially the Internet, although obviously political, social

and even cultural changes also play important roles. Researchers are now turning their attention

to these alternative producers in an attempt to make sense of what they mean for the journalism

of the future. Deuze (2003) suggests that the migration of journalism to the Internet has

produced not a single journalism, but multiple journalisms, each characterized by different

values. As the internet has allowed non-journalists – at least for the moment – to potentially

globally distribute their information, observers such as Williams and Delli Carpini (2000) argue

that there are no longer any gatekeepers, and Bruns (2003) even suggests that web users

themselves have become what he calls “gatewatchers,” immensely broadening the range of

materials being made available. Other research suggests that traditional journalism was a

modernist product and we are now seeing the rise of a post-modern journalism, reflected in some

of these new practices (Wall, 2005). Because this paper focuses on NGOs, of particular interest

are those online news providers who are also seeking to implement social changes, which I have

previously argued may be creating an “alternative information sphere” that will further

contribute to redefining news (Wall, 2003, p. 121).

6
 NGOs defined

What exactly, then, is an NGO? NGOs are difficult to define in part because they seem

to encompass such a large range of entities. By many definitions, NGOs include everything

from sports clubs to trade groups funded by corporations, from small kinship burial societies to

enormous relief and development agencies. The term NGO itself is often used interchangeably

with other terms such as private voluntary organization (PVO) and nonprofit organization

(NPO). In Western Europe it generally means internationally active nonprofits; in Eastern

Europe, it means all charitable and nonprofit organizations, while in the Southern Hemisphere, it

is generally associated with development organizations (Fisher, 1998). Common definitions of

NGOs describe them as private, nonprofit, voluntary and self-governing organizations (Clarke,

1995; Davenport, 2002; Fisher, 1998).

7
 While we often tend to think of NGOs as being involved in social service roles, some

carry out activities that center around the collection and distribution of information. This

includes serving as educators and watchdogs as well as agenda setters (Davenport, 2002; Kaldor,

2003; Mater, 2001; Warkentin, 2001). In terms of the former, one of the primary roles of many

NGOs is to collect and distribute information with the goals of widening public participation,

informing officials or making available information unavailable through mainstream media

channels. NGOs have also long been known as watchdogs, collecting information that is used to

monitor governments, international organizations, corporations and sometimes the traditional

news media itself (Naidoo, 2000). Whether monitoring treaty negotiations or conducting field

visits for official reports on issues such as a country's human rights violations, NGOs have been

described as communities of experts outside the state, who can provide surveillance that can

potentially prevent abuse (Cohen, 2001). NGOs often help shape or reshape public agendas

(Albin, 1999; Mathews, 1997).They may provide alternative frames for issues, foster new

identities, redefine solutions or confer legitimacy on new ideas or policies (Keck & Sikkink,

1998; Warkentin, 2001).

NGO as news media

8
 What makes the idea that NGOs are operating as news media so intriguing is the

possibility that because they are said to operate from a different set of values than mainstream

commercial media, the news they create would potentially be different as well. For example, in

what ways does their non-profit status affect their news? This is an important question because

so much of the critique of mainstream news has centered around its for-profit status with

research suggesting that advertisers and commercial interests are increasingly influential in news

selection (Bagdikian, 2004; McChesney, 2004). Does NGO news mainly promote the NGO

itself or are they simply providing information? Are there other forces shaping or influencing

NGO news that are equivalent to advertisers? In addition, we might ask whether NGOs

distribute their news freely. Increasingly, mainstream media are looking to models in which they

will sell their online news, even though critics such as Lawrence Lessig (2004) maintain that the

most effective models of distribution of the future may well be those that make information

freely available. This issue continues to play out in terms of music, and it is likely to become

increasingly important for news as well.

9
 A second area of interest is whose voices are represented within NGO news. These

groups have long claimed to speak for and represent the marginalized and oppressed (Courville

& Piper, 2004). Are those voices found within their news? Certainly, we know that mainstream

media consistently to elite voices to represent elite concerns (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Do

we see some of the problems identified with NGO publicity materials which have been accused,

particularly in the international arena, of exploiting tragedy and poverty in order to generate

more donations? Finally, some NGOs are described as advocacy organizations (although this is

a complicated issue in places such as the United States where they can educate but must stay

within certain boundaries to avoid losing their non-profit status). Mainstream media base much

of their credibility on the notion that they do not take sides but remain objective when reporting

the news. This has often resulted in articles that tell only two sides to a multi-sided issue or

which even give credence to a second side which is clearly based on lies or fabrications. Does

the news NGOs produce reflect their advocacy roles? Is there an attempt to tell both sides or,

instead, is there a mobilization element within their news? And if that is the case, how is that

done?

Framework for analysis

10
 As noted earlier, the cultural category of NGOs is remarkably broad and consists of such

a diverse range of entities, that trying to generalize can prove difficult. Simply drawing a

random sample of NGOs has frustrated researchers (Jha-Nambiar, 2004). As my questions in

this exploratory article are to identify and try to better understand the news values of NGOs, a

group of NGOs was purposively selected. Three different NGOs currently distributing news are

examined here. These were chosen in two cases because they have self-identified the production

of news as their main activity. A third NGO was selected which does not claim this as a main

activity, but in fact collects and distributes news as another element in its mission. While a more

extended study of these and other organizations should be conducted in the future, for now, this

snapshot should help us think about the questions posed above in a more concrete manner. The

NGOs with news production as their main mission are OneWorld.net and Electronic Iraq. The

Third NGO is Global Exchange. What each of these shares is an international focus. This might

especially make their news functions important as the corporate news media, particularly in the

U.S., has been described as neglecting international reporting in recent years (outside of the

Anglo-American terror wars). Each NGO is further detailed below.

11
 One World Describing itself as a “civil society network online, supporting people’s

media to help build a more just global society,” OneWorld focuses particularly on sustainable

development and human rights (OneWorld, n.d., para. 1). Headquartered in London, the website

was formed in 1995 and appears in 11 different languages. It features regional editions and what

it calls thematic channels. Its mission statement says that OneWorld “brings you the latest news,

action, campaigns and organisations in human rights and global issues . . . Many of these are

produced from the South to widen the participation of the world's poorest and marginalised

peoples in the global debate”(Where are you?, 2005, para. 1-2). It includes a page called

Editorial Standards which makes clear that it seeks stories ignored by mainstream media, focuses

on context as opposed to crisis and does not allow funding to influence its content.

Electronic Iraq Electronic Iraq describes itself as a news portal and it too only exists

online as an information delivery system. It was founded by the sponsors of a similar website,

Electronic Intifada, as well as Palestinian diaspora and the peace activist group, Voices in the

Wilderness which is based in the US and UK, in 2003 to provide alternative information about

the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. It describes itself this way: “Visitors got a never before

seen glimpse of war and its aftermath through the eyes of peace activists based at ground zero”

(About this project: Introduction, n.d., para. 3). In explaining how information is selected for

inclusion, the site notes that: “Except for the Iraq Diaries section of our site, which actively

solicits submissions from members of delegations and other visitors to Iraq, it is expected that

contributions to the rest of Electronic Iraq are from people with some professional or academic

interest in the country, including journalists writing articles in the commercial media”(About this

project: Guidelines for content submission, n.d., para. 9)

12
 Global Exchange Global Exchange is a San Francisco-based non-profit that focuses on

human rights and social and environmental justices issues. Founded in 1988, Global Exchange is

different from the others in that news provision is a secondary service on its website and in that

is primarily a real world entity rather than virtual. It has been particularly active in the global

justice movement and in the peace movement that emerged in late 2002 to counter the Anglo-

American attack on Iraq. They describe their mission as to “increase global awareness among

the U.S. public while building partnerships around the world” (About Global Exchange, 2005,

para 1). The organization sponsors several kinds of educational activities including learning

tours to Third World counties; virtual and real world stores selling fair trade coffee, chocolates,

etc. Its main page features a link to “Weekly News,” a roundup of stories that have some

connection to their various topic area pages of interest such as the WTO or Cuba.

Each organization’s website was examined in the following ways. Each site’s Top

News/Current News sections were visited once a week between March 25 and April 20, 2005 for

a total of 5 weeks. Employing content analysis, the following questions were asked of these

pages:

Who produces the news on these pages? Producers were coded into the following

categories: Govt., Media, NGOs, Unions, United Nations, Other.

Who is quoted in the stories that run on the top news pages? Sources were coded into the

following categories: Govt., Media, NGOs, Ordinary citizens, Unions, United Nations, Other.

Beyond focusing on the Top News pages, the following questions were asked about each

site in general:

13
 Are there any ads on the site?

Are visitors required to register to visit the site?

Does content appear to “market” the NGO? That is, do stories provide information about

issues or are they simply promotional pieces for the group which sponsors the site?

In what ways, if any, does advocacy play a role on the site?

Findings

It appears that these NGOs are producing news that is somewhat different from the

mainstream news media. These differences range from who is contributing the items to sources

being quoted.

Producers Several patterns are visible in terms of who is producing the articles that are

posted on these sites. The two sites, OneWorld and Electronic Iraq, which describe themselves

as information portals rely more on non-traditional producers of information. The NGO which

describes itself as educational but not media-oriented tended to rely on news media articles much

more. The results are summarized in Table 1 below.

14
Table 1 Producers of material found on the websites

15
Producers OneWorld Global Exchange Electronic Iraq
NGOs 39% (27) 13% (8) 27% (7)

Self 20% (14) 1% (1) 19% (5)

Media 23%916) 86% (54) 12% (3)

United Nations 14% (10) 0% (0) 42% (11)

Unions 4% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0)

OneWorld purports to be an NGO gateway and thus it should be no surprise that the site

relies heavily on NGOs’ (39%) materials. Likewise, Electronic Iraq’s mission is to deliver a

different point of view on the war against and occupation of Iraq, and so NGOs (27%) and the

UN (42%) are the most frequent producers of their news. What is of further note here is that

both sites are providing some of their own content as well. For One World, their global network

produced here 20% of their news postings. For Electronic Iraq which produced 19% of its own

news articles, this works in part by employing material from free-lance reporters and others

based in Iraq but also through the production of their own “Iraqi Diaries” which provide first-

hand reports from peace activists facilitated by the site’s co-sponsor, Voices in the Wilderness. If

all of these sites relied only on their own materials, they would be significantly less substantial

than they are, but like a newspaper or other news outlet using wire services, syndicates etc., they

are pulling from other information providers such as the news service IRIN, run by the United

Nations, which established this wire-agency like service to focus on crisis areas particularly in

poorer regions of the world.

16
 I have previously identified the changing hierarchies of news in which mainstream media

items might appear alongside a press release, an unpublished letter to the editor, etc., suggesting

items are of equal value (Wall, 2002). Subsequent research has provided further support for this

pattern, which raises significant and interesting questions about the changing nature of news.

Rogers (2003) suggest that distinctions between “raw and finished” news products are

disappearing, while Bruns (2003) writes that gatekeepers’ roles are changing in this new Internet

news environment. Rogers (2003) even argues that running press releases and other “raw”

materials might make news processes more “visible” than previously, and perhaps ultimately

provide more credibility via open processes. If corporate-run news media continue to rely on

press releases and video new releases without revealing their origins to audience, then viewers

and readers may well decide the more transparent use of such information as seen here where the

information producer is identified may ultimately make NGO and other non-traditional news be

seen as more credible.

Sources Based on literature about NGOs, the issue of who they speak for is one of

particular interest. A content analysis of story sources reveals that the two sites not relying on

mainstream news media producers, tended to frequently quote what might be called non-

traditional sources such as citizens and NGOs, whereas Global Exchange, relying heavily on

mainstream news outlets for its content, reproduced those media’s reliance on governmental

officials/politicians. Results are summarized in Table 2 below.

17
Table 2 Sources quoted in articles

18
Sources One world Global Exchange Electronic Iraq
Business 1% (2) 5% (8) 0% (0)

Citizens 22% (32) 17% (28) 34% (25)

Govt/military/politicians 28% (40) 39% (65) 37% (27)

Media (includes books) 5% (7) 7% (11) 10% (7)

NGOs/coalitions/networks 24% (35) 19% (31) 10% (7)

Think tank/academic 4% (6) 8% (13) 1% (1)

Unions 3% (4) 1% (10) 0% (0)

United Nations 11% (16) 1% (1) 4% (3)

Religious 0% (0) 2% (4) 1% (1)

Other 2% (3) 3% (5) 3% (2)

19
TOTAL 100% (145) 100% (167) 100% (73)

These findings also suggest that to a certain extent the same sort of sources found in

mainstream media are still being used by these alternative NGO sites. While there are

differences between the websites, if the top three sources (government, citizens and NGOs) are

grouped together, the sites are fairly similar in who they quoted. Not unexpectedly, Global

Exchange has the largest number of governmental sources as the majority of its stories are from

the mainstream news media. For each site, governmental sources are quoted most frequently;

however, both OneWorld and Electronic Iraq also draw frequently on other types of sources. For

OneWorld, NGOs (24%) are their second most frequently cited source with Citizens at 22%.

This suggests that NGOs and Citizens are seen as nearly as important and authoritative as

governmental sources. With a little over a third of their sources as Citizens, Electronic Iraq

quotes ordinary people almost twice as often as Global Exchange which relies on mainstream

media to produce its content. Allowing ordinary people – peace activists – to contribute content

may have resulted in their seeking out other ordinary people – Iraqis – to interview and this

appears to account for the differences. Interestingly, the United Nations was not a major source

for any of the sites.

What this suggests is that these NGOs might indeed be providing a different sort of voice

on their sites than is typically found in mainstream media, particularly media focusing on

international news and related issues. It should be noted that the use of press releases, statements

and other similar materials may have resulted in fewer sources overall as those materials

oftentimes did not quote sources but rather carried statements from their producers. This may

indicate a decline in the future of directly quoted sources as audiences come to expect more

direct statements; however, that is unclear.

20
 Advocacy Clearly, these sites as a whole were not aiming for complete objectivity. All

the sites has advocacy elements on them, directing visitors where and how to take action related

to information of interest to the site. Electronic Iraq also offered separate sections for its

Activism pages as well as a separate page offering opinions called Opinion/Editorial. One World

also runs an article each day on its home page with the news items, but this one is labeled as

“Opinion and Analysis” as well as a mobilizing item called “Take Action.” A typical example of

the latter was the call for activists to “flood Congress with calls opposing the Patriot Act” put out

by Amnesty International. Global Exchange encourages activism throughout its site, but did not

blatantly so do on the news pages examined here. So that while each site encouraged citizen

activism, most news articles did not. Use of press releases meant that “both” sides did not

always get told, but producers of such releases were always labeled, allowing readers the chance

to make their own judgments as to their credibility.

21
 Other qualities None of the sites requires visitors to register to read their main news.

There are no advertisements on the sites. Electronic Iraq does have a page where they post

stories about Electronic Iraq that appear in the mainstream news media, while Global Exchange

has a page that features its own press releases. Yet none of the sites require visitors to wade

through such material to reach news items. Thus, it would be possible to visit any of these sites

and get a free news update about international issues of concern. Interestingly, only OneWorld

allows for significant visitor contributions. OneWorld Radio and OneWorld Television allows

anyone to post audio or video to their site, although one must first join (membership is free) and

content must focus on promoting human rights and/or sustainable development. In addition,

members can freely download other organization’s or other individual’s audio content. Content

appears to often be along the lines of public service announcements such as radio ads about the

dangers of AIDs recorded in South Africa.

Conclusions

22
 While certainly every NGO is not going to be interested in or devote time to collecting

news, there does appear to be a growing number that are taking on news provision functions. A

quick scan of NGOs reveals various examples ranging from the Sierra Club’s Daily Scoop, a

blog-like look at environmental news items, to the Rainforest Action Network, which provides

breaking news and feature feeds from various news media on its homepage. The presence of

these functions comes not simply from capabilities made possible by the Internet, although that

certainly plays a role, but by the failure of mainstream media to comprehensively cover serious

issues, especially those in the international realm. Particularly for US audiences, there has been

a well documented cutback in foreign reporting so that American audiences are left without a

basic understanding of what is happening in an ever more complicated and connected world. The

shift toward entertainment and celebrity news seems to have left audiences for serious

information turning to other sources.

23
 Several possible trends seem apparent from this analysis. First, news hierarchies seem to

be changing. Mainstream news entities are not necessarily seen as the only or the most credible

sources of news. This has been suggested by earlier research and seems to be confirmed here.

While various news services such as Agence France Presse or Associated Press are said to be

considering actions to stop Google, Yahoo and others from redistributing their work without

paying for it, other non-news entities are producing information which may well replace some

wire service stories and certainly has widened the range of sources that can not only be consulted

by audiences but that can be used to supplement NGO and other alternative news producers’

information sites. Of course, whether large audiences will pay attention to these NGO sites is an

important question, and some critics argue that such alternatives will still be marginalized by

mainstream information producers and distributors and perhaps Internet Service Providers

(Dalhberg, 2005).

A second point is that at least in the cases examined here, this information is being

provided without cost to audiences; indeed they are not required to register or in other ways

supply information to the NGO. These two characteristics might also be characteristic of other

new online news forms such as blogs, but there seems to be a difference. Here, the news

producers are turning to sources that often have broad international credibility – NGOs and the

UN – for example. These sources are following professional communication forms and practices

in a way that bloggers often do not. The site’s own contributors tend to be experts within their

area, and while the sites may not be completely balanced, they often tend to provide some

distance from their subjects (with the exception of the Iraqi Diaries). They are in a word,

professional. They also differ from blogs in that they consistently connect their work with

concrete political actions that visitors can take, providing clear instructions on how to do so.

24
 Finally, what seems to be of further importance here is that these NGO sites, particularly

the two information portals, do not appear to be employing a national lens for their information.

That is, much international news has been characterized as nationalistic at heart and to be

reported historically by entities such as press agencies that were tied to a specific country,

ultimately reflecting its values. These NGO sites suggest instead a sort of post-national

framework for information, particularly OneWorld with its multiple nodes. Electronic Iraq

seems to a certain extent to also adopt a post-place identity. These sites suggest that NGO news

might also offer new frames for news that could contribute to what Appadurai (1996) has

identified as post-national allegiances – here to human rights, social justice and other similar

values, ultimately contributing to new forms of not only news production but of political and

social actions.

25
 References

About Global Exchange. (2005, March 25). Global Exchange. Retrieved April 1, 2005 from

http://www.globalexchange.org/about/.

About this project: Guidelines for content submission (n.d.). Electronic Iraq. Retrieved January

14, 2005 from http://electroniciraq.net/news/46.shtml

About this Project: Introduction. (n.d.). Electronic Iraq. Retrieved January 14, 2005 from

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1.shtml.

Albin, C. (1999, March). Can NGOs enhance the effectiveness of international negotiation?

International Negotiation, 4(3), 371-387.

Bagdikian, B. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press.

Bruns, A. (2003). Gatewatching, not gatekeeping: Collaborative online news. Media

International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, 107, 31-44

Carapico, S. (2000, Spring). Making sense of Nongovernmental Organizations. Middle East

Report, 214, Retrieved January 4, 2005 from

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer214/214_carapico.html

Clark, A. M. (1995). Nongovernmental organizations and their influence on international society.

Journal of International Affairs, 48(2), 507-525.

Cohen, D. W. (2001). International expertise: A position paper. The Journal of the

International

Institute. 9(1). Retrieved June 23, 2004 from

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/journal/vol9no1/cohen_expertise.htm.

Courville, S., & Piper, N. (2004). Harnessing hope through NGO activism’ ANNALS: American

Association for Political Science, 592, 39-61.

26
Dahlber, L. (1995). The corporate colonization of online attention and the marginalization of

critical communication? Journal of Communication Inquiry, 29(2), 160-180.

Davenport, D. (2002, December). The new diplomacy (alliance of NGOS and small and

medium sized nations)’ Policy Review, pp. 17-31.

De Jonquieres, G. (2000, Dec. 6). NGOs in winning battle to sway opinion, Financial Times.

De Waal, A. (2002). Media wars and the humanitarian (non)-intervention; an interview

with Thomas Keenan. In G. Lovink (ed). Uncanny networks; dialogues with the

virtual intelligentsia (pp. 214-223). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Deuze, M. (2003). The web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of different types

of news media online. New Media & Society 5(2).

Fisher, J. (1998) Nongovernments: NGOs and the political development of the Third

World. West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press.

Handbook on nonprofit institutions in the system of national accounts. (2003). New York:

United Nations.

Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass

media. New York: Pantheon Books.

Jha-Nambiar, S. (2004, May). Getting organized: The Internet as a tool for empowerment and

mobilization for US non-profits. A paper presented to the annual meeting of the

International Communication Association, New Orleans.

Kaldor, M. (2003). Global civil society; an answer to war. Cambridge: Polity.

Kaul, I. (2001). Global public goods: What role for civil society?’ Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly 30(3): 588-602.

Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

27
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2001). The elements of journalism; what news people should

know and what the public should expect. New York: Crown Publishers.

Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down

culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin.

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 (pp. 87-

101). London: Routledge.

Lovink, G. (2002). Dark fiber; tracking critical Internet culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Mater, M. A. (2001). A structural transformation for a global public sphere? In R. Asen

& D. C. Brouwer (eds.), Counterpublics and the state (pp. 211-234). Albany: State

University of New York Press

McChesney, R. (2004). The problem of the media : U.S. communication politics in the twenty-

first century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Naidoo, K. (2000, May 8). NGOs should be made more effective in strengthening

democracy: The new civic globalism, The Nation, p. 34.

Oneworld.net. (n.d.). Retrieved January 14, 2005 from

http://www.oneworld.net/article/frontpage/2/2333.

Pavlik, J. (2001). Journalism and new media. Columbia: Columbia University Press.

Rodgers, J. (2003) Spatializing international politics: Analyzing NGOs use of the Internet.

London: Routledge.

Rogers, R. (2003). All-American issues: Seven stories from the Homeland. Retrieved March 12,

2005 from www.issuenetwork.org/node.php?id=46.

28
Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., & Associates. (1998). The emerging sector revisited.

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies Center for Civil

Society Studies.

Schecter, D. (2003). Media wars: News at a time of terror. Lanham, Md.: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Smith, P. J., & Smythe, E. (February 2001). Sleepless in Seattle: Challenging the WTO in a

globalizing world, A paper presented at the 42nd International Studies Association

Conference, Chicago.

State of the media. (2005). The Project for Excellence in Journalism. Retrieved from

www.stateofthemedia.org, March 18, 2005.

Wall, M. A. (2002). The Battle in Seattle: How Nongovernmental Organizations used websites

in their challenge to the WTO. In E. Gilboa (Ed.), Media and conflict; framing issues,

making policy, shaping opinions (pp. 25-44). Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers.

Wall, M. A. (2003). Social movements and the net: Activist journalism goes digital. In K.

Kawamoto (ed.) Digital journalism; emerging media and the changing horizons of

journalism (pp 113-122). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Wall, M.A. (2004). Blogs as black market journalism: A new paradigm for news. Berglund

Center for Internet Studies. Retrieved April 3, 2004 from

http://bcis.pacificu.edu/journal/2004/02/wall.php.

Wall, M.A. (2005). Blogs of war: Weblogs as news. Journalism: Theory, Criticism and Practice.

6(2).

Warkentin, C. (2001). Reshaping world politics: NGOs, the internet, and global civil society.

29
 Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Where are you? (2005, Jan. 14). Oneworld.net. Retrieved January 14, 2005 from

http://www.oneworld.net/.

Williams, B. A. & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000) Unchained reaction: The collapse of media

gatekeeping and the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Journalism: Theory, Practice and

Criticism, 1(1), 61-85.

30