How Do Non-Governmental Organisations Use Twitter in the Context of a Crisis
And to What Extent Can Social Network Activities Influence the News Agenda?
A Case Study of Doctors Without Borders
Abstract
The refugee crisis currently hitting Europe has seen thousands of people attempting the treacherous crossing of the Mediterranean Sea in order to reach safety in Europe. While it is widely recognised as one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our century, this new influx of migration has also proved to be a political challenge for the European bloc whose policy lacks uniformity and consistency among its members.
The situation has also proved difficult for media organisations as many fall in political traps, sometimes totally ignoring the human dimension of the crisis. Official reports from various organisations have been released to describe the failure of many major news outlets. While this issue is of critical importance for the safety and integrity of refugees, the rise of large social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, has allowed citizens and non- governmental groups to take part in this conflict of narratives and drive some powerful media operations.
Drawing upon existing theoretical frameworks of agenda setting, ethical journalism and social networks, the research considers whether the social media activities of these large NGOs can disrupt the negative effects of biased coverage of the refugee crisis.
Using a mixed methodical approach, the research focuses on the case study of Doctors without Borders and the Twitter account it has created to report on its Mediterranean Sea rescue activities.
The Twitter profile @MSF_Sea is first analysed and compared with other major news outlets. Then the publications for the whole month of July 2016 are examined in order to determine the nature of these activities and reveal MSF’s Twitter strategy based around powerful hashtags. Additionally, the nature of the discussions created by MSF on Twitter are also analysed in order to understand further how social media participate in keeping the plead for refugees on the news agenda.
The findings suggest that Twitter is providing the tools for MSF to drive an influential media campaign on the network, even if at the border between journalism and activism. This research suggests social media is shaking the structure of journalism and networks such as Twitter may participate in a redistribution of the traditional gatekeeping role of journalists.
Introduction
With the unprecedented refugee crisis currently hitting Europe, the turmoil it has brought upon European politics has also led to what might be called a media crisis too. Alarming reports have emerged to explain how the “story was there to be told” (Ethical Journalism Network, 2015) but wasn’t, and how migrants integrity failed to be protected. Unfortunately, many newspapers have failed in the trap of hate speech lay down by political agendas.
Modern technologies have transformed the media landscape, and the emergence of social networks has changed several factors of the relation between the general public and news publishers. These transformations could alter the effects of these political and media agendas as new actors are increasingly able to be heard.
A platform like Twitter is offering NGOs involved in the refugee crisis a unique opportunity to shout out their stories. At the borders of journalism and activism, some of these NGOs have developed media operations as large as traditional news groups, in what could be seen as an attempt to inform the public and counter negative, unethical covering. This paper is interested in investigating a possible countering role NGOs may play on social networks, and therefore seeks to answer the following question:
How do non-governmental organisations use Twitter in the context of a crisis and to what extent can social network activities influence the news agenda? A case study of Doctors without Borders.
While scholarly literature is abundant on the agenda setting topic, the context and the nature of the issue surrounding the current refugee crisis remain difficult to comprehend as it is still ongoing. However, the activities of a number of NGOs on social networks seem to disrupt the accepted principles of journalism and agenda setting. Very little has yet been said regarding the role of these social networks during this crisis. How they are used by non- governmental groups in order to support particular causes and campaigns? How much of a disruption can they bring about on the official news agenda?
While journalists used to be the traditional gatekeepers, social networks seem increasingly able to redistribute this role. This diversification is leading to almost a media war for opinions, as social networks allow for much noise.
Therefore, the objectives of this paper are multi-fold as it seeks to illustrate, via a case study, the role played by NGOs in this battle for attention. This research has been established around the following four objectives:
- To explore the key feature of agenda setting in journalism and its evolution in the digital age
- To identify the issue with the current media coverage of the refugee crisis
- To illustrate the role of social media in the rise of alternative agendas
- To explore the extent to which social media can contribute to a democratization of journalism.
This research paper has been articulated around three chapters. First the literature review will present scholar opinions on agenda setting as well as important official reports on the media bias against refugees. These theories form a basis upon which the research chapter will build on. Finally, it also includes a discussion about Twitter as news medium.
The second chapter presents the methodology used behind the research in order to explain why the project required a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, built around the specific case study of Doctors without Borders. The final chapter is the backbone of this paper as it includes the research sections, the presentation of findings and various analysis allowing to establish how much of the objectives have been achieved, and paving the way for deeper and more comprehensive researches on the topic.
Literature review
The issue I have decided to investigate in this paper is complex as it includes not only the use of a particular social media in the context of advocacy and non-profits, but also how it relates to agenda setting, and most importantly the effects on the audience and public policy.
Recent reports by various organisations (Ethical Journalism Networ, UN Refugee Agency) have highlighted the bias in the media against refugees and how “the story was there to be told” (Ethical Journalism Network, 2015, p. 11). Yet the conflict between political and humanitarian interests have resulted in harm caused to this vulnerable group of people, but also prompted Doctors Without Borders to launch several social media campaigns in order to counter negative narratives.
The following literature review aims to help get a better understanding of actual scholarly opinions and theories regarding agenda setting, the refugee crisis and the place of Twitter between the two. The first section is looking at agenda setting theories, from which the concept of pseudo-environment is highlighted as being of particular importance to this study in the analysis of the power of the media to influence public opinion. In the second section, some of the latest reports regarding current journalistic issues around refugees are also examined. The final part provides a brief scholarly overview of Twitter in relation to news and online advocacy.
Agenda setting theories
“The only feeling that anyone can have about an event he does not experience is the feeling aroused by his mental image of that event.” (Lippmann, 1922, p. 13)
Studies around agenda setting often trace back to ‘Public Opinion’ (Lippmann, 1922), acting as a starting point in the field. Lippmann lays down a critical assessment of functional democratic governance, in the first chapter entitled ‘The World Outside and The Pictures in our Heads’ he describes the common people inability to perceive and interpret the world which is seen as “too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance” (Lippmann, 1922, p. 16).
In order to make sense of the world, and of a complex environment, Lippmann introduced the concept of a pseudo environment inserted “between man and his environment” (Lippmann, 1922, p. 15). This pseudo environment acts as a subjective and biased filter, altering for the person the real image of the world (Lippmann, 1922). Furthermore, if a person let his actions, or behavior, to be the response he provides to a particular issue, the influence of “pseudo facts” (Lippmann, 1922, p. 15) may lead to a contradiction with the real environment and the action it requires.
Building on this concept to further explain the press, Lippmann posited the hypothesis “that news and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished” (Lippmann, 1922, p. 358). The contention in accepting that news is not truth lies on the fact that a particular news story may represent the position of a specific pseudo environment, while truth matches the real environment.
Whilst Lippmann certainly talked about agenda setting without naming it as such, it was McCombs and Shaw who officially launched the concept during the 1968 US presidential election. As they explain in relation to politics, “the pledges, promises, and rhetoric encapsulated in news stories, columns, and editorials constitute much of the information upon which a voting decision has to be made” (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p. 176). McCombs and Shaw based their researches on comparing media agenda and undecided voters agenda in order to “investigate the agenda setting capacity of the mass media” (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p. 177).
In his conclusion he agrees that if his research did not categorically prove an agenda setting function of mass media, it did however highlight the correlations between what people think is news and what the media are diffusing. This research was therefore a first step to verify the theory that mass media does play an agenda setting function.
McCombs published another paper on agenda setting in 2005, and noted interesting suggestions as for the effects of the digital revolution on the theory. The powerful communication opportunities offered by the web have led to a greater concentration of public attention than it was in the print world (McCombs M. , 2005, p. 545). In this context he explains “the media not only can be successful in telling us what to think about , they also can be successful in telling us how to think about it “ (McCombs M. , 2005, p. 546). However, he also recognizes the fact that internet has led to a multiplying number of agendas and online communities behind it, which is leading to “widespread agenda-setting effects” (McCombs M. , 2005, p. 554).
From this perspective we understand the reverse pyramid effect, as in print, news used to go from the few to the many, but for the web it seems to be that an individual can now access a large number of sources, therefore diluting the effects of any one agenda. Naturally, it seems the role of journalists is evolving too as internet presents many resources. Access to millions of photos, videos and comments is indeed an infinite source of stories, but “the most fundamental, overarching ethical question for journalists concerns their stewardship of these resources” (McCombs M. , 2005, p. 556).
Agenda effects can be very powerful in many domains, including politics, and ethical journalism seems to be the only barrier left to protect the integrity of more vulnerable people. Regarding the current refugee crisis, the integrity of large groups of people has not always been protected, and migrants often fall victims of politicians, the media and journalism in general.
The Refugee Crisis: a story to be told
In 2015, two major reports were released by the Ethical Journalism Network and the UNHCR, highlighting the issue surrounding refugees’ coverage in the media.
The document ‘Moving Stories: International Review of How Media Cover Migration’ (Ethical Journalism Network, 2015) is articulated around specific topics and case studies in relation to ethical coverage of migration. In the first chapter, the report indicates a failure of the media to sound the alarm as early as possible, implying that many signs were visible to predict the increase of people seeking refuge in Europe. Indeed, back as far as 2014, the EU authorities had already access to documents and reports warning of increasing migration flows. As the reports states: “The European story was there to be told, but media failed to alert their audience or to challenge the readiness of the European Union and its member states to deal with the crisis that was about to break upon their shores” (Ethical Journalism Network, 2015, p. 11).
Furthermore, the report also points toward the failure of journalists to cover “with accuracy and humanity, to treat government and political rhetoric with caution and ensure that refugees were treated fairly and as human beings who have travelled great distances to find safety” (Ethical Journalism Network, 2015, p. 12). Also it is understood that political discourse must be reported, but ethics demand “intemperate language” (Ethical Journalism Network, 2015, p. 12) to be questioned. Yet it wasn’t, and headlines including words such as ‘swamping’ or ‘mass invasion by illegals’ started to appear on various papers and media, causing a negative impact on how refugees are perceived by the public. Reporting must be accurate, but it must also be responsible because words do matter.
One of the media organisations to react early to this issue was Al Jazeera English who published an article in August 2015 to explain why the redaction did not consider the word ‘migrants’ fit for purpose anymore. The article explained as follow:
“The umbrella term migrant is no longer fit for purpose when it comes to describing the horror unfolding in the Mediterranean. It has evolved from its dictionary definitions into a tool that dehumanises and distances, a blunt pejorative” (Malone, 2015).
“There is no “migrant” crisis in the Mediterranean. There is a very large number of refugees fleeing unimaginable misery and danger and a smaller number of people trying to escape the sort of poverty that drives some to desperation” (Malone, 2015).
Unfortunately, this opinion did not, and still doesn’t, form a consensus among news organisations. Also in 2015, the UNHCR released a report entitled ‘Press Coverage of the Refugee and Migrant Crisis in the EU: A Content Analysis of Five European Countries’ (UNHCR, 2015). A team of researchers went through hundreds of articles covering the refugee crisis in Spain, Italy, UK, Germany and Sweden. Among the conclusions this report gives us we find that many disparities exist between various media, corroborating the Ethical Journalism Network findings. “The sources journalists used, the language they employed, the reasons they gave for the rise in refugee flows, and the solutions they suggested” (UNHCR, 2015, p. 1) differed greatly, and still do. For example, UK papers were more keen on the word ‘migrant’ in their attempt to portrait the crisis negatively, while the Swedish press has been highlighted for a more positive coverage, more inclined toward the word ‘refugees’ (UNHCR, 2015).
Language does matter
Some of the UK newspapers are known to be serial offenders in relation to unethical journalism (Greenslade, 2015).
“In what was probably the lowest point for British media coverage, the country’s highest circulation tabloid newspaper, the Sun, in April was carpeted by the United Nations human rights chief for describing migrants as “cockroaches” in a piece of journalism which he said was reminiscent of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda” (Ethical Journalism Network, 2015, p. 39).
The issue also prompted Al Jazeera to publish a documentary on UK press coverage of the refugees, noting “the way that it is covered says more about the political agendas of the news outlets doing the reporting than about the story that needs to be told” (Al Jazeera, 2015).
As mentioned previously, language matters a lot in journalism, and negative, or irresponsible, coverage of an issue can have tremendous consequences. One “important issue here is how the words ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seeker’ become generic terms for what is perceived as bad behavior” (Philo, Briant, & Donald, 2013, p. 133), therefore placing great responsibility on every journalist covering the crisis. The UN refugee agency’s report also supports this view and strongly condemns irresponsible journalism stating that “coverage constructed a largely dehumanized image of migration, focusing on increasing numbers of migrants and clandestine methods of entry” (UNHCR, 2015, p. 15).
Research conducted both by academics and official groups “suggests a very powerful link between media representations and audience belief” (Philo, Briant, & Donald, 2013, p. 134), clearly corroborating Lippmann’s theory. Modern scholars have indicated “how hostile media stories prey upon the fears of existing communities and ‘stir them’ by consistent negative portrayals” (Philo, Briant, & Donald, 2013, p. 135). If journalism cannot remain objective and impartial, and decide to take a position then it will automatically have a negative political impact too. If the public’s belief is strongly linked to media accounts, and the latter decides to pass on a negative message, then the implications can go as far as influencing political decisions, voting patterns and more.
As highlighted recently during an event organised by the European Federation of Journalists @EFJEUROPE (EFJ), “biased reporting — both for and against refugees — has led to increase distrust in the media” (European Federation of Journalists, 2016). The issue is so important that it now also jeopardizes the very basic function of journalism: truth story telling. As mentioned in the EFJ’s article, the refugees themselves used to have hope in journalism but the course of events has led them to resign and loose trust in the media (European Federation of Journalists, 2016). Not just the refugees, but also a growing portion of the population is now forced to seek information somewhere else as many are refusing to expose themselves to straight out propaganda. With an ever growing number of users, social media, particularly Twitter, is increasingly becoming a primary source of information for the general public. How, and why, news, and news consumers, are finding their way into Twitter is therefore the subject of the following final chapter of this literature review.
Twitter as a news medium
Academic discussions and researches have led to consider Twitter “an important ‘ambient’ news environment” (Murthy, 2013, p. 66). However, despite news being part of the environment and Twitter being “one of several essential strategies for disseminating news online” (Murthy, 2013, p. 66), it is not always at the centre of users’ activities. Users are not just news consumers, and often participate too. The large range of digital medias available on Twitter allow an easy sharing of information between users and the development of “new forms of journalism” (Murthy, 2013, p. 66) and communications.
Scholars have pointed the fact that “web 2.0 technologies, often referred to as social media, offer broad opportunities for individuals to participate in the observation, filtering, distribution and interpretation of news” (Hermida, Lewis, & Zamith, 2014, p. 481). Among these platforms, “Twitter is one of a range of social media technologies that privileges contribution, conversation, community and connectivity” (Hermida, Lewis, & Zamith, 2014, p. 495) and seems to be “the ideal scenario for the study of real-time information spreading phenomena” (Cataldi & Aufaure, 2015, p. 577).
These powerful communication and connectivity aspects of Twitter make it appear to be “an increasingly relevant tool for political and advocacy campaigns” (Guo & Saxton, 2014, p. 60). “For advocacy nonprofits in particular, social media sites provide a way to expand advocacy efforts by reaching new networks of community actors and by mobilizing those networks to take action” (Guo & Saxton, 2014, p. 58).
The Twitter experience offers organisations three main incentives to join the platform (Ortiz, 2011). First, the ability to establish a relationship with people through conversations and chats. One-on-one contact on Twitter greatly facilitates the dialogue with the audience, and allows closeness to the public. Secondly, Twitter provides a way to interact with the audience in a much more helpful and personal way. Also the platform gives a space for some subjects otherwise not big enough to make it into an article or a newsletter, “now quick, fun, and interesting thoughts can be sent via Twitter to further engage supporters on a daily basis” (Ortiz, 2011, p. 30). Thirdly, Twitter has already proved a powerful fundraising avenue and many not-for-profits use the platform to this end (Ortiz, 2011).
Scholars have also advanced the fact that “through advocacy activities, nonprofit organisations contribute to democratic governance by representing the interests of citizens and promoting changes in public policy” (Guo & Saxton, 2014, p. 59). This point is of particular interest to this paper as this is precisely what I am looking to investigate regarding Doctors without Borders. Among the various tool available to nonprofit, hashtags are “particularly important for advocacy organizations for aggregating knowledge, for rapidly disseminating information during crises, and for use as mobilization tools during advocacy campaigns and social movements” (Guo & Saxton, 2014, p. 65). As we will see in the case study, hashtags have tremendous power on Twitter, as they allow to federate a whole community behind a single, powerful campaign.
Conclusion
This literature review has highlighted several theories and arguments which will serve as a conceptual framework for the remaining of this paper. First, from the various agenda setting scientists we understand that mass media have long had an influence on the general public (Lippmann, 1922). However, internet and the communication revolution have also led to a greater concentration of public attention, allowing medias an even greater power of influence (McCombs M. , 2005). But this effect is also nuanced by the fact that internet also leads to a multiplying number of agendas, allowing other actors to raise their voices and reach large audiences (McCombs M. , 2005).
In terms of the refugee crisis, the two reports from the Ethical Journalism Network and the UNHCR demonstrate the issue has proved challenging for many European news organisations. Many mistakes were made by the media as the refugee issue found its way into politics. In some cases, like with the Daily Mail, it led to politically abusive coverage and dehumanizing of vulnerable people fleeing conflict and poverty (Al Jazeera, 2015), as well as an increasing number of Europeans developing hate towards refugees (Philo, Briant, & Donald, 2013). This negative, and even sometimes positive, biased reporting of the issue (European Federation of Journalists, 2016) is also leading to a loss of trust in the media while offering new actors the possibility to reach a large audience.
As we have seen, a social network such as Twitter has a lot to offer, both to publications and users as it encourages contribution and engagement. As a social network, Twitter is already a powerful tool for advocacy and campaigning, and scholars have indicated that it could contribute to democratic governance and serve citizen interests (Guo & Saxton, 2014). The research chapter of this paper will therefore attempt to illustrate this theoretical framework, by investigating the activities of the non-governmental organisation Doctors without Borders on Twitter. It will aim to determine the journalistic nature of these activities and if it really has the potential to counter negative narratives around refugees. The finding may also prove useful in understanding the transformation modern journalism is going through, while the line between advocacy and reporting is getting thinner. The next chapter explains the research methods used in this paper to reach this goal.
Methodology
This paper seeks to evaluate the Twitter activity of Doctors without Borders and understand how much of an impact it can have on the media agenda. The issue in trying to measure influence is the fact that it is not easily measurable, and much of it is likely to depend on analysis, insight and judgement. The questions and objectives set by this paper require both the detailed insight of a qualitative method in order to understand the phenomena, as well as the consistency associated with collecting data.
Therefore, this chapter, focusing on the research method, will highlight the benefits of the qualitative method of research. This will help understand how it has been coupled with a case study method. Highlighting the eventual weaknesses, this chapter also aim to explain how a quantitative method, specifically collecting data, can complement the research and offer further understandings. The final part will focus on the web tool Twitonomy, which was used to retrieve data from Twitter, and to explain the reasons behind the choice of organisations used to compare data.
Explaining the world around…
To measure a level of influence is extremely difficult as it isn’t physical, and materially measurable. Such a phenomena might rather be explained than measured, and as scholars have advanced, qualitative research is often an attempt to explain the world rather than measure it (Iorio, 2004) and its findings “develop from “the ground (field) up” and within the context of a larger social world (Iorio, 2004, p. 7). If we cannot measure it, then maybe we can explain it at a small level, and then see if the explanation can be extended to a more general level.
This kind of method therefore requires the ability to explain, and news content study often depends on “fine-grained, qualitative forms of analysis” (Flaounas, et al., 2013, p. 111), based on human judgement. With enough insight, a qualitative research method can provide “detailed descriptions of situations and events but also an in-depth understanding of the actors involved” (Gagnon, 2010, p. 1). This is the method used in this paper to analyze and explain MSF’s Twitter profile.
…by giving an example…
I have selected MSF as a case study because, as a method, it can “provide an in-depth understanding of phenomena, their constitutive processes and the actors involved” (Gagnon, 2010, p. 2). Scholars have also indicated that this method is best suited to both build new theories, or to validate an existing one (Gagnon, 2010, p. 2). This paper’s aim is to establish the level of relation between MSF’s Twitter operation and the theories highlighted in the literature review.
Furthermore, “the case method is said to be appropriate for describing, explaining, predicting or controlling processes associated with a variety of phenomena at the individual, group and organizational levels” (Gagnon, 2010, p. 2). It is also used in this paper in order to evaluate the level of influence of MSF on social media regarding the refugee crisis.
Finally, a case study allows to focus on many details within the case as well as the surrounding context (Neuman, 2014, p. 42) and to establish a link between abstract ideas and concrete specifics of the case which is observed (Neuman, 2014). Scholars have developed theories to explain agenda setting in the media, the case of MSF might allow us to illustrate it.
…and collecting data.
However, the case study method also presents some weaknesses. Not only it is particularly time-consuming, the difficulty for another researcher to reproduce a case study can affect the external validity (Gagnon, 2010, p. 3). This method is also very specific and the narrow focus does not always allow a universal conclusions (Gagnon, 2010, p. 3).
One way to overcome this generalization issue is to add a quantitative element to it, so as to be able to reproduce similar studies through the same data collection method (Gagnon, 2010, p. 4). All of the data presented in this paper have been generated with the web tool Twitonomy. Twitter remains one of the most opened social networks, with few privacy functions available to its users. This openness allows a data tool such as Twitonomy to skip through the thousand tweets and profiles and generate consequent data tables. It has been particularly useful in helping me retrieve the following information:
- General information regarding the user profile, such as the number of followers or even the joining date.
- The web tool also generates calculations such as the followers/following ratio, used to evaluate the level of interest around a particular user.
- Date specific metrics regarding tweets activities. For instance, I was able to easily retrieve the data of July 2016 as it would have been much more complicated to do it directly on Twitter.
- Details regarding the nature of a user’s tweets (tweets, retweets, replies…), giving a hint at MSF’s strategy on the network.
- The number of hashtags used during the month and their impact on the social conversations.
Also data do provide a significant amount of information and insight, I have also decided to contrast these results with the retrieved data of other Twitter accounts. The reason was to be able to compare and highlight differences between similar users. Millions of people use Twitter, every day, but not always for the same purpose. So, in order to select the right type of accounts, I used the following criteria:
- Part of the media industry: as I wanted to contrast the NGO’s work with media organisations.
- Theme and subject of the account: As MSF is focused on the refugee crisis, the contrasting exercise would be more efficient if we used account of media working around similar humanitarian themes.
- The level of fame and popularity: I wanted to be sure the accounts used were known enough so as to significantly contrast the levels of influence and readership.
After considering several accounts, I selected @GdnDevelopment, @bbcworld and @irinnews. All three account are well known in their fields. All three are parts of the broad theme of international affairs, to which MSF Sea’s account belongs too. Furthermore, @GdnDevelopment and @irinnews are specifically focused on development and humanitarian affairs, which can include refugee stories among others.
For a comparing exercise to be fruitful, these criteria of similarity must be applied. The issue I encountered here is that no significant media organisations are solely focused on the refugee crisis. The Guardian Development and Irin News are, however, specialized in humanitarian affairs, which can sometimes include refugee stories. BBC World focuses on International affairs, which can sometimes include humanitarian and refugee issues too.
Importantly, all three are official news organisations, a necessary condition as we are trying to contrast traditional journalistic work with the activities of an NGO such as MSF, which primary field isn’t the media. Finally, I would like to mention the fact that the scope of research has been seriously limited by the time allocated for this paper. Being relatively superficial, this level of research did not allow for much more than superficial conclusions. However, it does open up various opportunity for further data work and deeper analysis, a point mentioned further later in the conclusion.
Research presentation: a case study of Doctors without Borders
Doctors without Borders, most commonly known by its French name ‘Médecins Sans Frontières’ is a “non-profit, self-governed organisation” (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2016) set to provide medical care and assistance to people based on needs and “irrespective of race, religion, gender or political affiliation” (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2016). Also the organisation is made of over 24 associations worldwide, with programs in 69 countries, it is all bound “together by MSF International, based in Geneva, Switzerland, which provides coordination, information and support to the MSF Movement” (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2016).
Two sorts of actions characterise MSF’s activities, Humanitarian medical actions and advocacy. So the first and maybe most important work they do is to provide “quality medical care to people caught in crisis” (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2016), while the second kind of action, advocacy, is to “speak out publicly in an effort to bring a forgotten crisis to public attention, to alert the public to abuses occurring beyond the headlines, to criticize the inadequacies of the aid system, or to challenge the diversion of humanitarian aid for political interests” (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2016).
Among the various issues on which MSF intervenes, the current Mediterranean migrants crisis has attracted a growing attention, and prompted the organisation to set up specific media operations in relation to this issue. Here again, the work of the organisation is of multi-fold, and includes search and rescue operations at sea, providing “first assistance, medical and psychological support, shelter, water, sanitation and essential relief items at reception centers and transit camps” (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2016).
But not just practical and medical help, MSF is also engaged at political levels, campaigning for safe passage and calling upon European governments to change policy toward this very fragile group of population. Also the safe passage concept might seem straight forward, it implies various legal, structural and organizational reforms of the European asylum system, not always in accordance with national political agendas (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2016).
In order to engage with this issue, drive various campaigns and report the happenings, MSF’s social media management team has created a Twitter account under the username @MSF_Sea.
This research chapter focuses on MSF Sea’s Twitter account and has been organized in four sections. The first part aims to contrast MSF’s Twitter profile with that of other known news groups and determine the nature of the publishing opportunity offered to an NGO. In the second part, the whole of MSF Sea’s Twitter campaign for July 2016 has been reviewed. This exercise allows us to obtain a detailed understanding of MSF’s publications on the platform, its performances and the audience reach opportunity. In the third part, the research focuses on the hashtags used by MSF and the social conversations that are built around them.
The final part of this chapter has been used to highlight several concluding points while relating back to the literature review and the overall theoretical framework. It is also the place to critically analyze the findings while also explaining the limits of the exercise.
Comparing news groups and MSF Twitter profiles
In order to start understanding the extent of MSF’s work on Twitter, this first part is dedicated to give an overview and an analysis of the organisation’s profile on the platform. I have decided to create a table to compare basic accounts data about MSF and to contrast it with three other media publications on Twitter. @msf_sea is focused on the very specific topic of the Mediterranean refugee crisis, which already reduces the size of the potential audience as compared with a more general publication. So in order to get a better idea of the situation I have selected two media publication active on Twitter, but importantly targeting a similar audience, interested in humanitarian topics. @GdnDevelopment is the official Twitter account of the UK paper The Guardian, focused on aid, development and humanitarian affairs. @irinnews is the Twitter account of Irin News, an international news agency focused on humanitarian affairs and with over 250,000 visitors a month on its website (Irin News, 2016). In order to provide a larger angle, the third account @bbcworld allows to contrast with a more general media organisation, covering wider topics.
The joining date provided in the table (Tab 1) highlights the fact that @MSF_Sea is a very recent project, just over a year old, as compared with the other three publishing accounts. @bbcworld has been tweeting for almost a decade since 2007, and therefore has had time to become more mature in terms of the audience reached on Twitter.
In terms of followers, @msf_sea has over 32,000, a very impressive number when we take into considerations the joining date, but also compared with the other three accounts. In just over a year, MSF has attracted more than half the audience Irin News has managed to reach in the last 8 years.
A reason that could explain such a contrast could be that MSF is gaining authority and popularity in terms of reporting on refugees due to their physical involvement at sea and in the various camps across Europe. It seems possible for a great amount of Twitter users to consider @msf_sea a more reliable source, or at least the closest to reality, since the organisation appears more like an actor within the crisis, rather than being just a spectator.
An analysis of the followers/following ratio (Tab 1), which measures a user’s influential level, seems to support this explanation. MSF’s 27 score, compared with the other accounts shows the organisation has been able to produce tweets of high interest to its online community. To follow few users while having a large base of followers indicates that MSF is a popular account, regardless of size and numbers, set up to produce tweets meant to inform a growing audience. While journalist often use Twitter for more than just disseminating news with activities such as sourcing and investigating, news organisations tend to have similar accounts, with very large bases of followers while oppositely not following many users. As seen in Tab 1, @bbcworld has well over 15 million followers but only follows 69 accounts.
Furthermore, looking at the Twitter profile of MSF Sea (MSF Sea, 2015) it is possible to note the following points:
- The profile picture has been carefully selected and arranged to reflect the subject matter, the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean Sea. It is a known saying that a ‘picture is worth a thousand words’, and MSF’s choice of profile picture not only indicates the theme but also points toward the issue, there are people in the middle of the sea on boats that are too small for the trip.
- The profile description reads as follow: “Live updates from #MSF projects assisting #migrants and #refugee in #Europe and on the #Mediterranean Sea. RT≠ endorsement” (MSF Sea, 2015). The presence of five, precisely selected, hashtags demonstrates MSF Sea’s intention to relate its Twitter account to a specific sphere of keywords and themes, facilitating user searches and enhancing the chances for the tweets to be found. Even the location has been set as “Mediterranean Sea” (MSF_Sea, 2015) so that a user could find MSF’s account through a location search.
This basic profile analysis was intended to contrast MSF Sea’s account, as a humanitarian ONG, with other official media publications on Twitter. Both the statistics in terms of followers and influence as well as the profile settings point toward the ONG’s strategy to position itself as a source of information just as authentic as any other official news organisation, and influential as other topic specialists. However, even if we can make an early conclusion that MSF’s Twitter account is optimised for its audience in the same way as any other media organisation on the platform, this analysis remains superficial and does not give information regarding the publishing strategy and the performances.
@MSF_Sea, Twitter campaign July 2016
The second part of this research chapter therefore focus on the publishing element. In order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding I used the analytic web tool Twitonomy to research @MSF_Sea activities on Twitter during the month of July 2016. I have compiled the results in the tables Tab 2 and 3. The various indicators in Tab 2 are organised in four overarching publishing objectives: the level of activity, the value as a source of information, the level of interaction with other users and the number of hashtags used, which affects a user’s ability to be found on a Twitter search. In order to compare the results, I have also added the same indicators for the other three publishing accounts @GdnDevelopment, @irinnews and @bbcworld.
Tab 3 presents MSF_Sea’s publishing activities during July 2016, including the Total number of publications, the percentage of new tweets, retweets and replies to other users’ tweets. I have also included the number of ‘news orientated’ tweets which include either the word ‘Updates’ or ‘Breaking’, often used by traditional media organisations.
The objective of this section is to lay down the tweeting characteristics and details of MSF_Sea’s publications in order to highlight the value of the organisation as a source of information, as well as the level of influence within the network.
@MSF_Sea published a total of 258 tweets during July 2016, with an average of 8.32 tweets per day. Also this average remains low compared with Irin News or BBC World, it is worth noting that the more specific is the topic of a publication the less tweets we are likely to see. For example, BBC World is able to reach a daily average of 60.16 tweets, but that is across a large variety of subjects. However, @GdnDevelopment, which remains less specific than MSF (since it publishes about refugees as well as many other development related topics), is only 1.5 points above the daily average of @MSF_Sea. Taking into consideration the specificity of the topic and the growing followers base, 8.32 remains a high daily average, enabling the publication to spread a reasonable amount of information every day.
The second set of indicators is intended to help determine how much of a valuable source of information @MSF_Sea is considered by its audience. In order to do so, the analysis looks at how the audience reacts to a user’s tweets, via the retweet or like functions. Indeed, more a publication is retweeted or liked, the more it is considered a valuable source of information by its readers.
According to the indicators on Tab 2, 69.38% of @MSF_Sea’s tweets are retweeted by its followers and 81.78% are liked. In contrast, @GdnDevelopment reached 76.64% and so achieved a higher score. However, this is not enough in order to conclude The Guardian is more valued as a source of information. Indeed, by looking at the total number of times a tweet has been retweeted, we find a different result. @GdnDevelopment has been retweeted a total of 1,495 times despite a 76.64% retweeted ratio. @MSF_Sea however, reached 17,758, more than ten time The Guardian’s score. The retweeted percentage does not include the retweets of the followers of the followers. The grand total of the number of times tweets gets retweeted is therefore a further check to establish the real level of influence of a user. In this case, despite @GdnDevelopment having a greater retweeted percentage, @MSF_Sea has had a greater number of total retweets, and therefore a larger audience for its stories.
Despite having less tweets and a lesser retweeted percentage @MSF_Sea is still reaching to a greater audience, which might indicate the importance of another set of indicators measuring user interaction levels. The totals of ‘user mentions’ and ‘replies’ have been added in Tab 2 in order to show the differences of audience engagement.
Regarding user mentions, @MSF_Sea had the highest number in July 2016 scoring 177 compared with the other three accounts. This indicates that MSF Sea’s audience not only consumes the content but also engages with it. In fact, it appears @MSF_Sea is also much engaged in conversations with its audience as the number of replies for the month reached 87, only second to @GdnDevelopment which scored 90. In contrast, BBC World with its huge follower base only reached 10 replies. Finally, it seems that @MSF_Sea is able to reach a larger audience not through a bigger retweet percentage but rather through a high level of interaction leading to a greater total of retweets.
This point is also supported by another interaction indicator, the number of Like. 81.78% of @MSF_Sea’s tweets have been Liked, beating all three other users. Such a high percentage of Like indicates further the possibility for MSF Sea to be considered a valuable source of information by its followers.
In order to understand further @MSF_Sea’s publishing strategy I have gathered in Tab 3 data highlighting the nature of these publications. For the month of July 2016 MSF Sea published a total of 258 tweets, composed of 148 new tweets, 23 retweets and 87 replies. I have also included tweets that contained the words ‘Updates’ and ‘Breaking’ as these are particular keywords much used by news organisations. On the other side of the table I have added the total number of times each categories of publications have been retweeted.
For instances, the 258 tweets of the month have been retweeted a total of 19,539 times. Interestingly, 90.40% of the total of retweets originated from the new tweets, generating 17,671 retweets. Tweets containing the words ‘Updates’ or ‘Breaking’ represented almost 20% (10.41% and 9.44%) of the total of retweeted tweets.
The two following points are worth noting in the context of this research:
New tweets represent the larger share of MSF Sea’s publishing activities on Twitter, allowing the organisation to disseminate its news and messages continuously, keeping its audience informed of the issue at hand, and on a very similar manner than news organisations.
Secondly, it is particularly interesting to see a humanitarian NGO using headlines with words such as ‘Updates’ or ‘Breaking’. These words are usually associated with reliable news organisations, giving up to date information. MSF Sea is able to attract a great amount of interest by tweeting updates and breaking news, while re-enforcing its authority in the field.
This small level of data research on MSF Sea’s Twitter publications for July 2016 is relatively brief. However, it illustrates that an NGO can reach a large audience, not necessarily through a huge amount of publication but using the right strategy. A high level of interaction, coupled with a recognized authority on the issue (due to MSF being involved in the crisis) seem to participate in MSF Sea’s success in generating large numbers of retweets. As we have seen, these figures are also indicating the fact that for many Twitter users, MSF Sea publications are relevant and a valuable source of information.
Hashtags and conversations
The third part of this research section turns toward yet another important characteristic of social networking, the conversation. Also this topic has been mentioned to some extent previously, here we aim to illustrate the nature of the conversation. Originally, social networks were not created for marketing or commercial uses, but rather as social platforms were users can gather and comment on particular issues. News organisation, brands and NGOs have made considerable efforts to reach the audience wherever they are and engage in these social conversations.
In Tab 4 I have listed all the hashtags used by MSF Sea during July 2016, as well as the number of times they have been tweeted. Hashtags are particularly important on Twitter as they are often the central point around which conversations are built. Therefore, by analysing which hashtags MSF Sea used, and what kind of conversation they are creating around them, this section of the research chapter seeks to highlight the nature and objectives of the organisation’s Twitter activities.
As per Tab 4, 158 of MSF Sea’s tweets for July 2016 included hashtags, more than the 148 new tweets (Tab 3) they have published, indicating that hashtags are not only used in new tweets but also in retweets and reply. The reason is that hashtags are really at the centre of Twitter, and users seeking to grow their popularity and authority on the platform need to be very active in terms of hashtags use. And not just numbers, but also the keywords used for the hashtags are very important too. The hashtags used the most were #people, #Aquarius, #Argos, #MSF, #lesvos and #mediterranean.
These specific keywords allow MSF Sea to reach a larger audience while being easier to search for other users. The discussions happening around these hashtags are particularly interesting for this research as it can give us an idea of the nature of MSF Sea’s participation. I have selected the most retweeted tweet published by @msf_sea in July 2016 in order to analyse the content, the hashtags and user engagement.
“On average, 20 #people have died in the #Mediterranean Sea every day since March. #SAFEPASSAGE” (MSF Sea, 2016).
This tweet alone has been retweeted 669 times and accumulated 186 likes, making it the top tweet for the month of July. The publication also included an eleven seconds video showing a refugee empty wooden boat live from the Mediterranean Sea. In terms of the message, it is a very explicit text, relating to an unfortunate reality, which MSF wish to put forward: people are dying daily trying to cross the Sea. By using the hashtag #SAFEPASSAGE, MSF Sea is able to not only pass on this information regarding the number of dead, but also directly implies the cause. What MSF is saying here is that European policy not to provide safe corridors for migrants to reach Europe is resulting in a huge death toll.
Regardless of the coverage of this issue in the media at the time, MSF Sea must have estimated this information was important for its followers to know. It turned out the audience found it really valuable, and this is shown not only by the number of retweets, but also the engagement.
In the replies to the tweet we can find the following comments:
- - “@MSF_Sea & #AB ponder #jasonkenney support of #TonyAbbott inhumane policies for #vulnerable #cdnpoli” (MSF Sea, 2016). Here the user directly replied to the tweet by condemning the Australian Prime Minister’s immigration policies and attaching a link to an external article to read on the subject.
- - ”@MSF_Sea @MAHAMOSA 2016: 3034 displaced humans Died trying to cross the sea. A silent convention. #WhyIamAntiwar” (MSF Sea, 2016). Here the user also engaged by condemning war and providing further data as well as a link to an article.
- - ”@MSF_Sea @WritersofColour as the migrant crisis story returns to western media after a pro-longed absence. What hope of solving this crisis?” (MSF Sea, 2016). The user is highlighting the facts that this issue has been ongoing for a while already, no solution seems to appear and media coverage is lacking.
This sample of comments is indicating MSF Sea’s tweets are an opportunity for other users to express an opinion, to promote a campaign or highlight a related issue. Importantly, and whatever the reason, people come and make the effort to comment on an issue which must have some sort of importance for them. This example also shows us how inter-related topics can be on Twitter. MSF Sea tweeted about the death toll and #safepassage, but the replies, which are also considered like tweets, are enlarging the discussion by bringing Australian policy, the issue of war and the length of the crisis, into the conversation.
This brief research indicates Twitter is providing MSF Sea with the opportunity to position itself around specific hashtags, making its content easy to find. But it is also an incredible way to engage with the audience and attract more users to the conversation around refugees and the Mediterranean crisis. As we often hear, social media may well have radically changed the way information is transferred, and journalists increasingly find themselves in a filtering role, curating huge amount of information in order to present to their audience something that can make sense of the world.
In this context, we can conclude that Twitter is giving the tools (hashtags, retweets…) to MSF Sea to position itself as an authority regarding the refugee crisis. This gatekeeping role, which once was solely accessible to journalists can now be occupied by a humanitarian organisation. In a way, we could say @MSF_Sea is constantly working toward maintaining, and strengthening, its position as the gatekeeper of refugee news. Whether this is achieved or not is another issue, but Twitter is definitely offering the opportunity.
The first three parts of this chapter have helped to highlight several points. By observing and comparing MSF Sea with other similar accounts, we have seen that an NGO is able to optimise its profile in order to portray itself as a source of information on a given topic. Secondly, it has also appeared that Twitter is providing MSF with the opportunity to reach an audience as large as other media organisations through subject knowledge and interaction. As we have seen, MSF Sea levels of engagement and retweets are particularly high. Finally, the whole Twitter operation is strengthening its authoritative position on the topic, allowing it to play a gatekeeping role on information around refugees, migration and related hashtags.
The following and final part of this chapter is an attempt to relate these findings to the topics discussed in the literature review: agenda setting, refugees media bias and Twitter as a news platform. Also, the fine line between advocacy and journalism is also discussed in order to determine what exactly MSF Sea is doing on this social network. Is it journalism or activism? And if it is journalism, then can we really say that Twitter is democratising journalism?
Discussion
As we have seen in the literature review, there is a relation of influence between the news media and the audience, and powerful groups are able to steer the general understanding of a topic in one way or another. The rise of social media has given new opportunities to news organisations to reach larger audiences. In fact, these new networks have also provided other actors, such as NGOs, with the opportunity to extend their voice and message. If audience reach is a basic ingredient for a good agenda setting recipe, then this research has shown that social media, Twitter in particular, is giving MSF a chance to be heard, and so, to some extent, to influence ideas and agendas around the refugee crisis.
However, the how much question remains unanswered as measuring influence is a difficult task. Also, and as it has been pointed by scholars, “global attention is heavily skewed toward a few large and well-funded NGOs” (Trevor Thrall, Stecula, & Sweet, 2014, p. 148) who are able to afford the cost of such media activities. MSF is likely to be one of them as it is already an old, well established and well-funded NGO. For the majority of much smaller NGOs the cost to be significantly influent on social media remains high (Trevor Thrall, Stecula, & Sweet, 2014).
Furthermore, and looking at the statistics, MSF’s Twitter profile has grown increasingly popular in a very short period of time. This popularity shows that many Twitter users will prefer to keep informed directly from a source close to the issue. And indeed, why going through the filter of a newspaper, when you can follow MSF’s live tweets straight from the Sea. This open space character of Twitter is facilitating both communication and discussion between audience and media other than news groups.
The link between media technologies and democracy can easily be made when we associate communication characteristics to the possibility of a stronger political participation of individuals and groups, as well as government management (Gingras, 2009, p. 216). This is because IT, internet media and social networks all support two important concepts, transparency and enhanced public participation (Gingras, 2009, p. 216).
Scholars have pointed that internet can greatly facilitate public access to government documents and archives, but most importantly, it can allow a government to reach directly its citizens without the news media filter (Gingras, 2009, p. 216). In terms of democracy, this is also true for any political and civic actor such as an NGO. As we have seen in the research chapter MSF Sea is able to reach directly an informed audience on Twitter in the same way as other media groups. In terms of agenda setting, McCombs (2005) admitted internet facilitates a greater number of agendas, and certainly MSF Sea has one on Twitter, which is to advocate for refugees in the Mediteranean Sea. Twitter is offering a great opportunity, as everyone can have a voice on the platform and reach a larger audience.
As mentioned previously in this paper, measuring levels of influence is difficult and requires more elaborated researches. However, the various analysis around the tables presented in this chapter indicate an NGO such as MSF is not only able to profile itself as a valuable source of information but also to create social discussions around powerful hashtags, and generating a strong engagement from its audience. Since it is able to do so, we can at least affirm the following:
An NGO is able to establish a social media strategy on Twitter just as traditional news organisations, in order to push forward a particular agenda. The opportunity to influence an audience regarding a specific topic on Twitter is a reality. There is a niche effect here too, as the audience attracted is also likely to be specificaly interested in the topic. Despite the significant size of MSF’s media operation, we cannot talk about mass media in such a case. Mass media are usually cross topics, with a larger and diverse audience, as we have seen with the BBC World account. Users wanting to keep up with the latest news are more likely to follow the BBC than MSF. But anyone interested to know about the refugees crisis at sea can follow MSF Sea and get to know what is happening directly from the source.
It is worth noting that if Twitter can help MSF to become more influential regarding the refugee crisis then there are two point we can take away:
- Just as journalists were the traditional gatekeepers of ethical and unbiased reporting in the print era, Twitter is now allowing a redistribution of this role. As the refugee crisis evolves and more Twitter data becomes available, there is a possibility to see an increasing number of NGOs such as MSF to take this gatekeeping role.
- The line between journalism and advocacy is becoming extremely thin with the rise of social media. Also, the popularity and enthusiasm around hashtags could possibly influence newspaper in deciding headlines, as they cannot afford to ignore trends and buzzes. This situation presents both a risk and an opportunity. The risk is to see advocacy infiltrating journalism without any way to prevent possible damages. But it also gives hope to the refugees as their stories have more chances to reach out.
Finally, relating back to the literature review, MSF Sea’s Twitter activity can be corroborated to the pseudo-environment theory (Lippmann, 1922). Pseudo-environments are various versions of one specific real story. When newspapers decide to report on this story from a particular angle, it becomes a pseudo-reality upon which a part of the audience will make judgement. However, as McCombs (2005) pointed, internet facilitates the multiplying of agendas. This research further supports this point by demonstrating, at least on Twitter, that Doctors without Borders is able to promote its own pseudo-environment on the refugees story. Popularity on Twitter has also exponential effects, and stories can reach wide and far, as we have seen with MSF’s number of retweets during July. The amount of people MSF is able to reach in a month on Twitter indicates the social network is a platform allowing the dilution of any one agenda as almost everyone can tweet.
Most importantly, by being able to drive a successfull Twitter strategy, MSF Sea, and so the issue, becomes more difficult for official newspapers to ignore. While news organisation still decide of the headlines, Twitter offers NGOs the opportunity to access them.
As we have seen in the reports from the Ethical Journalism Network and the UNHCR, the integrity of refugees is often at stake with unethical reporting. MSF are able to leverage the power of Twitter in order to campaign and protect this integrity. Also from the reports, the media failed to sound the alarm early and by 2015 it was too late to prevent the crisis. The kind of social media operations MSF are driving could greatly help in alerting the general public as soon as a crisis is about to break. The more buzzing is their Twitter campaign the more chances they have to reach headlines too.
An increasing number of journalists are embarking on board of MSF’s boats in order to report on the NGO’s rescue activities. But for a great number of journalists working remotely online, the Twitter account MSF Sea is clearly becoming an important source of information to monitor.
Concluding remarks
The first objective was to explore the key features of agenda setting in journalism in the context of the digital revolution. A review of the various scholarly opinions indicates there is a relation between what the people think is news and what the news organisations publish (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). However, the internet revolution and the rise of social media has transformed the publishing environment and new actors are able to diffuse valuable information. As illustrated by the case of MSF Sea, the Twitter facilities are allowing a constant flow of information, breaking news and updates to be published, which are of high value to a growing audience.
The analysis of two major reports from the UNHCR and the Ethical Journalism Network indicates the political turmoil surrounding the refugee crisis to be a challenge for traditional newspapers. Oppositely, Doctors without Borders is able to report on the crisis without the restriction of any particular political angle. By reporting live from its sea rescue activities, MSF can leverage this social media power and use it to campaign against European migration policy, as we have seen with #SafePassage. Further research could help demonstrate the extent to which these activities can lead to a positive change of media coverage of the refugee crisis and furthermore, to an amelioration of migration policies, necessary to solve this humanitarian issue.
This research has also illustrated the important role Twitter is playing in this conflict of narratives and agendas. The social network allows MSF to enter in direct competition with traditional news publishers. While the level of success of MSF’s social media campaigns would require further researches too, it could have major implications for the development and the resolution of the crisis. With Twitter able to give MSF the means to have such a media influence, it becomes legitimate to ask who is the gatekeeper of good journalism from the perspective of a refugee?
There are chances that Doctors without Borders will increasingly take on this role in the future as the number of crisis multiplies. The NGO is already currently involved in a series of other crisis in Africa and Asia. In Afghanistan, the bombing of the MSF hospital in Kunduz by the US army on the 3rd of October 2015 resulted in the apparition of powerful hashtags on Twitter such as #NotATarget and #StopBombingHospitals.
Further research could also help understand how powerful this social media reporting can be in influencing policy making and it would have to be compared with traditional news publishers. However, the apparent benefits of such a shift would also need to be contrasted with the implications of concentrating so much media power in the hands of just a few large social networks.
Bibliography
Al Jazeera. (2015, August 8). Politics and polemics: Europe’s immigration story. Retrieved from Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2015/08/politics-polemics-europe-immigration-story-150808090144535.html
Cataldi, M., & Aufaure, M.-A. (2015, September). The 10 million follower fallacy: audience size does not prove domain-influence on Twitter. Knowledge and Information Systems, 44(3), 559–580.
Dwyer, T. (2010). Media convergence. New York: Open University Press.
Ethical Journalism Network. (2015). Moving Stories. Retrieved from Ethical Journalism Network: http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/assets/docs/054/198/8feb836-108e6c6.pdf
European Federation of Journalists. (2016, June 13). Refugees cover-up and impact on media freedom . Retrieved from European Federation of Journalists: http://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2016/06/13/refugees-cover-up-and-impact-on- media-freedom/
Fenton, N. (2010). New media, old news : journalism & democracy in the digital age. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Flaounas, I., Ali, O., Lansdall-Welfare, T., De Bie, T., Mosdell, N., Lewis, J., & Cristianini, N. (2013, february). Research Methods in the Age of Digital Journalism: Massive-scale automated analysis of news-content — topics, style and gender. Digital Journalism, 1(1), 102–116.
Gagnon, Y.-C. (2010). The Case Study As Research Method : A Practical Handbook. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Gingras, A.-M. (2009). Médias et démocratie : le grand malentendu. Les Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Greenslade, R. (2015, December 17). Where media fails on the reporting of migrants and refugees. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/dec/17/where-media-fails- on-the-reporting-of-migrants-and-refugees
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. (2014). Tweeting Social Change: How Social Media Are Changing Nonprofit Advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57–79.
Hermida, A., Lewis, S., & Zamith, R. (2014, April). Sourcing the Arab Spring: A Case Study of Andy Carvin’s Sources on Twitter During the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 19(3), 479–499.
Iorio, S. H. (2004). Qualitative Method Journalism. In S. H. Iorio, Qualitative research in journalism: taking it to the streets (pp. 3–21). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Irin News. (2016). About us. Retrieved from Irin News: https://www.irinnews.org/content/about-us
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.
Malone, B. (2015, August 20). Why Al Jazeera will not say Mediterranean ‘migrants’. Retrieved from Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/editors-blog/2015/08/al-jazeera-mediterranean-migrants-150820082226309.html
McCombs, M. (2005). A Look at Agenda-setting: past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543–557.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
Médecins Sans Frontières. (2016). About MSF. Retrieved from msf.org: http://www.msf.org/en/about-msf
Médecins Sans Frontières. (2016). Mediterranean Migration. Retrieved from msf.org: http://www.msf.org/en/topics/mediterranean-migration
MSF Sea. (2015, April). Twitter profile of MSF_Sea. Retrieved from Twitter: https://twitter.com/MSF_Sea
MSF Sea. (2016, July 22). Tweets by @msf_sea. Retrieved from Twitter: https://twitter.com/MSF_Sea/status/756745353152622596
MSF_Sea. (2015). MSF Sea. Retrieved from Twitter: https://twitter.com/MSF_Sea
Murthy, D. (2013). Twitter. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods qualitative and quantitative approaches. Essex: Pearson.
Ortiz, C. D. (2011). Twitter for Good. Jossey Bass Ltd.
Philo, G., Briant, E., & Donald, P. (2013). Bad News for Refugees. Web: Pluto Press.
Trevor Thrall, A., Stecula, D., & Sweet, D. (2014). May We Have Your Attention Please? Human-Rights NGOs and the Problem of Global Communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(2), 135–159.
UNHCR. (2015). Press Coverage of the Refugee and Migrant Crisis in the EU: A Content Analysis of Five European Countries. Cardiff: UNHCR.
Williams, K. (2011). International journalism. London: SAGE.
How do non-governmental organisations use Twitter in the context of a crisis and to what extent can social network activities influence the news agenda? A case study of Doctors without Borders.
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International and Online Journalism to the School of Arts and Media, University of Salford, Manchester
Acknowledgements
I would like to thanks Professor Seamus Simpson for his advice and supervision during this research project and Programme Leader Marek Bekerman for his guidance and support throughout the year. I would like also to thanks my wife Yasmin, whose personal story as a refugee has been an incredible source of inspiration and motivation.
