Violence against journalists has emerged as a global human rights issue as the number of those killed in the profession has steadily risen in the new millennium. This research utilized a collective action framework, applying an adapted qualitative network model to examine organizational mobilization, transnational and domestic engagement, normative appeals, information dissemination, lobbying, and prospects for institutional and societal change. Through the Mexico case model application, the study found that instrumental change occurred through adoption of legal and policy institutions. Future research should expand upon social change measurements utilized in this study. We conclude the model can be adapted and utilized in other country cases or in cross-national research.
AdayS.LivingstonS. (2009). NGOs as intelligence agencies: The empowerment of transnational advocacy networks and the media by commercial remote sensing in the case of the Iranian nuclear program. Geoforum, 40, 514-522.
2.
AguiarA. (2002). La libertad de expresión: de Cádiz a Chapultepec [Freedom of expression: from Cádiz to Chapultepec]. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Católica Andrés Bello.
Aikin AraluceO. (2009). Transnational advocacy networks, international norms, and political change in Mexico. In StaudtK. A.PayanT.KruszewskiZ. A. (Eds.), Human rights along the U.S.-Mexico border: Gendered violence and insecurity (pp. 150-167). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
5.
AltheideD. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10, 65-77.
6.
AltheideD. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
AsalV.MilwardH. B.SchoonE. W. (2015). When terrorists go bad: Analyzing terrorist organizations’ involvement in drug smuggling. International Studies Quarterly, 59, 112-123.
BeittelJ. S. (2013). Mexico’s drug trafficking organizations: Source and scope of the violence. Washington, DC: US Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/519cb92b4.pdf
19.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.JohnsonJ. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
BryskA. (1993). From above and below social movements, the international system, and human rights in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies, 26, 259-285.
21.
CampR. A. (1999). Politics in Mexico: The decline of authoritarianism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
CarpenterR. C. (2007). Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and non-emergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 99-20.
Committee to Protect Journalists. (2016c, August14). 107 journalists killed in Syria/motive confirmed. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://cpj.org/killed/mideast/syria/
32.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
33.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
DagronA. G.TufteT. (2006). Communication for social change anthology: Historical and contemporary readings. South Orange, NJ: Communication for Social Change Consortium.
36.
DuttaM. J. (2015). Decolonizing communication for social change: A culture-centered approach. Communication Theory, 25, 123-143.
37.
FerreiraL. (2006). Centuries of silence: The story of Latin American journalism. Westport, CT: Praeger.
38.
FinnemoreM.SikkinkK. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52, 887-917.
39.
FoxJ. (1994). The difficult transition from clientelism to citizenship: Lessons from Mexico. World Politics, 46, 151-184.
Freedom House Mexico. (2013). Documents provided to researchers from Mexico City office.
47.
Fundación MEPI [Mexican Investigative Journalists Foundation]. (2010). México: La nueva espiral del silencio [Mexico: The new spiral of silence]. Mexico City, Mexico: Fundación MEPI.
48.
GamsonW. A. (1992). The social psychology of collective action. In MorrisA. D.MuellerC. M. (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 53-76). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
González de BustamanteC. (2013). Muy Buenas Noches: Mexico, television, and the cold war. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
50.
González de BustamanteC.RellyJ. E. (2014). Journalism in times of violence: Social media use by US and Mexican journalists working in northern Mexico. Digital Journalism, 2, 507-523.
51.
González de BustamanteC.RellyJ. E. (2016). Professionalism under threat of violence: Journalism, reflexivity, and the potential for collective professional autonomy in northern Mexico. Journalism Studies, 17, 684-702.
GrossmanC. (2012). Challenges to freedom of expression within the Inter-American system: A jurisprudential analysis. Human Rights Quarterly, 34, 361-403.
54.
HaasP. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46, 1-35.
55.
HallP. A.TaylorR. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936-957.
56.
HallinD. C. (2008). Neoliberalism, social movements and change in media systems in the late twentieth century. In HesmondhalghD.ToynbeeJ. (Eds.), The media and social theory (pp. 43-58). New York, NY: Routledge.
57.
HarlowS. (2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14, 225-243.
58.
HarlowS.HarpD. (2012). Collective action on the Web: A cross-cultural study of social networking sites and online and offline activism in the United States and Latin America. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 196-216.
59.
HeynsC.SrinivasanS. (2013). Protecting the right to life of journalists: The need for a higher level of engagement. Human Rights Quarterly, 35, 304-332.
60.
HughesS. (2003). From the inside out: How institutional entrepreneurs transformed Mexican journalism. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 8, 87-117.
61.
HughesS. (2006). Newsrooms in conflict: Journalism and the democratization of Mexico. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
62.
HughesS.GarcésM.Márquez-RamírezM.ArroyaveJ. (2016). Rethinking professional autonomy: Autonomy to develop and to publish news in Mexico and Colombia. Journalism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1464884916659409
63.
HughesS.LawsonC. (2005). The barriers to media opening up in Latin America. Political Communication, 22, 9-25.
64.
HughesS.Márquez-RamírezM. (2017). Examining the practices that Mexican journalists employ to reduce risk in a context of violence. International Journal of Communication, 11(23), 1-22.
65.
HughesS.MelladoC.ArroyaveJ.BenitezJ. L.de BeerA.GarcésM.Márquez-RamírezM. (2017). Expanding influences research to insecure democracies: How violence, public insecurity, economic inequality and uneven democratic performance shape journalists’ perceived work environments. Journalism Studies, 18, 645-665.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2002, February22). Bámaca Velásquez Case, Judgment of February 22, 2002, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 91. Human Rights Library, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/iachr/C/91-ing.html
KeckM. E.SikkinkK. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in International politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
70.
KimH. S. (2010). Forces of gatekeeping and journalists’ perceptions of physical danger in post-Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87, 484-500.
71.
Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. (2015, February3). Hundreds of Mexican judges, lawyers take online course on freedom of expression offered by UNESCO and Knight Center. Austin, TX: Author.
72.
Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. (2016, February16). UNESCO and Knight Center offer new online course for Latin American judges on Freedom of Expression. Austin, TX: Author.
LisoskyJ. M.HenrichsenJ. (2009). Don’t shoot the messenger: Prospects for protecting journalists in conflict situations. Media, War & Conflict, 2, 129-148.
80.
LivingstonS.AsmolovG. (2010). Networks and the future of foreign affairs reporting. Journalism Studies, 11, 745-760.
MilwardH. B.RaabJ. (2006). Dark networks as organizational problems: Elements of a theory. International Public Management Journal, 9, 333-360.
83.
MintromM. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 738-770.
84.
MoncadaC. (2012). Oficio de muerte: Periodistas asesinados en el país de la impunidad [Profession of death: Murdered journalists in the country of impunity]. Mexico City, Mexico: Grijalbo.
85.
MuñozA. A. (2009). Transnational and domestic processes in the definition of human rights policies in Mexico. Human Rights Quarterly, 31, 35-58.
86.
MuñozA. A. (2014). Transnational advocacy for human rights in contemporary Mexico. In SimmonsW. P.MuellerC. (Eds.), Binational human rights: The US-Mexico experience (pp. 181-201). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
87.
National Commission of Human Rights. (2013, August15). Recomendación General No. 20 sobre agravios a periodistas en México y la impunidad imperante [General Recommendation No. 20 about aggressions against journalists in Mexico and prevailing impunity]. Mexico City, Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5310858&fecha=19/08/2013
88.
National Commission of Human Rights. (2016). Recomendación General No.24 [General Recommendation No. 24]. Mexico City, Mexico: Author. Retrieved from http://dof.gob.mx/nota_to_doc.php?codnota=5429312
89.
NorthD. (2004). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
90.
OliverP. E. (1993). Formal models of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 271-300.
91.
OlsenL. (2014). Investigative reporting at risk: The horrors behind attacks on journalists in Mexico. In Dell’OrtoG.BirchfieldV. L. (Eds.), Reporting at the southern borders: Journalism and public debates on immigration in the US and the EU (pp. 233-252). New York, NY: Routledge.
92.
Organization of American States. (2011). UN and IACHR Rapporteurs for freedom of expression present reports on visit to Mexico. Washington, DC: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States. Retrieved from http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=873&lID=1
Organization of American States. (2015b, December31). Situation of human rights in Mexico. Washington, DC: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights-Organization of American States. Retrieved from http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Mexico2016-en.pdf
95.
Organization of American States. (2016, March2). IACHR publishes report on the human rights situation in Mexico. Washington, D.C: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights- Organization of American States. Retrieved from http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/023.asp
PintakL.GingesJ. (2008). The mission of Arab journalism: Creating change in a time of turmoil. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 193-227.
98.
PintoJ. G. (2009). Transparency policy initiatives in Latin America: Understanding policy outcomes from an institutional perspective. Communication Law and Policy, 14, 41-71.
99.
PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.). (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
100.
PowersM. (2016). NGO publicity and reinforcing path dependencies: Explaining the persistence of media-centered publicity strategies. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21, 490-507.
ReeseS. D. (2015). Globalization of mediated spaces: The case of transnational environmentalism in China. International Journal of Communication, 9, 2263-2281.
106.
ReeseS. D.ShoemakerP. J. (2016). Media sociology and the Hierarchy of Influences Model: A levels-of-analysis perspective on the networked public sphere. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 389-410.
107.
RellyJ. E. (2012). Freedom of information laws and global diffusion: Testing Rogers’s model. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 431-457.
108.
RellyJ. E.GonzálezdeBustamanteC. (2014). Silencing Mexico: A study of influences on journalists in the northern states. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19, 108-131.
109.
RellyJ. E.ZangerM. (2016). The enigma of news media development with multi-pronged ‘capture’: The Afghanistan case. Journalism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1464884916670933
RikerJ. V. (2002). NGOs, transnational networks, international donor agencies, and the prospects for democratic governance. In KhagramS.RikerJ. V.SikkinkK. (Eds.), Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norms (pp. 181-205). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
114.
RisseT.RoppS. C. (1999). International human rights norms and domestic change: conclusions. In RisseT.RoppS. C.SikkinkK. (Eds.), The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change (pp. 234-278). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
115.
RisseT.SikkinkK. (1999). The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction. In RisseT.RoppS. C.SikkinkK. (Eds.), The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change (pp. 1-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
SchedlerA. (2014). The criminal subversion of Mexican democracy. Journal of Democracy, 25, 5-18.
118.
Secretaría de Gobernación. (2016, April). Mecanismo para la protección de personas defensoras de derechos humanos y periodistas informe estadístico al 30 de Abril de 2016 [Mechanism for the protection of defenders of human rights and journalists through April 30, 2016]. Mexico City, Mexico: Author. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2lwogMV
119.
SiegelD. A. (2009). Social networks and collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 122-138.
SimmonsW. P. (2011). Human rights law and the marginalized other. Cambridge University Press.
122.
SimmonsW. P. (2014). Conclusion: Multiple states of exception, structural violence, and prospects for change. In SimmonsW. P.MuellerC. (Eds.), Binational Human Rights: The U.S.-Mexico experience (pp. 221-232). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
123.
SimmonsW. P.MuellerC. (Eds.). (2014). Binational Human Rights: The U.S.-Mexico Experience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
StaudtK. (2008). Violence and activism at the border: Gender, fear, and everyday life in Ciudad Juárez. Austin: University of Texas Press.
127.
StaudtK. (2014). The persistence of femicide amid transnational activist networks. In SimmonsW. P.MuellerC. (Eds.), Binational human rights: The U.S.-Mexico experience (pp. 165-180). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
128.
StaudtK.PayanT.KruszewskiZ. A. (Eds.). (2009). Human rights along the U.S.-Mexico border: Gendered violence and insecurity. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
129.
SteinmoS.ThelenK. (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
130.
TarrowS. (2005). The new transnational activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
131.
ThelenK. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369-404.
132.
ThrallA. T.SteculaD.SweetD. (2014). May we have your attention please? Human-rights NGOs and the problem of global communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19, 135-159.
Trejo DelarbreR. (1992). La sociedad ausente. Comunicación, democracia y modernidad [Absent Society: Communication, democracy and modernity]. Mexico City, Mexico: Cal y Arena.
135.
TumberH. (2006). The fear of living dangerously: Journalists who report on conflict. International Relations, 204, 439-451.
United Nations General Assembly. (2013a, August6). National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution: Mexico. Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/526794d54.pdf
150.
United Nations General Assembly. (2013b, December11). Report of the working group on the Universal Periodic Review: Mexico (A/HRC/25/7). Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/52f8bfed4.html
151.
United Nations General Assembly. (2013c, October21-November1). Summary prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council. Retrieved from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/160/14/PDF/G1316014.pdf?OpenElement
WaisbordS. (2002). Antipress violence and the crisis of the state. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 90-109.
159.
WaisbordS. (2007). Democratic journalism and “statelessness.”Political Communication, 24, 115-129.
160.
WaisbordS. (2014). Reappraising media sociology. In WaisbordS. (Ed.), Media sociology: A reappraisal (pp. 1-21). Malden, MA: Polity Press.
161.
WaisbordS. (2015). Three challenges for communication and global social change. Communication Theory, 25, 144-165.
162.
WaismanC. H.FeinbergR.ZamoscL. (2006). Introduction: Civil society and democracy: The Latin American Case. In FeinbergR.WaismanC. H.ZamoscL. (Eds.), Civil society and democracy in Latin America (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
WilkinsK. (2014). Mobilizing global communication: For what and for whom? In WilkinsK.StraubhaarJ. D.KumarS. (Eds.), Global communication: New agendas in communication (pp. 100-118). New York, NY: Routledge.
