How and why does information become currency in human rights advocacy? Human rights organizations (HROs) produce media content in an increasingly diverse manner today across multiple platforms, for divergent purposes, and for distinct audiences. Advocacy practices are no longer confined to fact-based reporting aimed at exposing abuse. The sheer magnitude of resources expended in communication evidences the early stages of a shift in which HROs widen their broadcast and target mass audiences. However, human rights scholarship has not adequately addressed this new trend, which has the capacity to radically alter the advocacy landscape. Moving beyond the traditionally narrow focus on “naming and shaming,” we contend that a critical, detailed approach to understanding the strategic use of information will reveal a more complete image of how HROs build influence through their communications strategies. Expanding upon Keck and Sikkink's concept of “information politics,” we develop a theoretical framework that distinguishes a set of practices we call media advocacy. Three unique modalities of media advocacy (juridical, revelatory, and activating) capture a robust portrait of information politics in twenty-first century human rights advocacy. Our innovative tools disclose specific operational and pragmatic implications for HROs, as well as help structure future research in this area.

There is increasing interest today in the relationship between diaspora groups and international development. As a stand-in for the domestic organisation in Keck and Sikkink’s model of a ‘transnational advocacy network’, diasporas serve as important sources of legitimacy and first-hand knowledge to support the ‘information politics’ of host country ngos; in turn, diasporas gain access to policy making around development and conflict resolution. But these alliances present a complicated picture of power and agency with unevenness across actors. Using field research on the US-based ngo Save Darfur Coalition and its partnership with the Darfuri diaspora, I argue that a host country ngo must balance its relationships across numerous stakeholders, including the diaspora, as well as short and long-term development needs. In addition, the strength of the alliance across actors may be influenced by the status of the diaspora and the home and host country contexts.

This contribution looks at the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests that took place in Bolzano-Bozen, the capital of the autonomous province of South Tyrol (Italy). As part of the BLM protests, an iconic statue of Italian cultural heritage was doused with red paint, transmitting a message with local, national, and international resonance. The case demonstrates how the USA BLM diffusion in Europe interacted with the ongoing statue wars to not only advance national level dialogues around racist legacies related to imperialism and colonialism but also specific local grievances. I marshal the concept of ‘ideological vandalism’ to argue that red paint attacks on public monuments can link transnational messages around racism and colonialism with local and national debates particularly regarding participation in heritage politics. This case underscores how claims can arise when national and international sociopolitical debates connected to colonialism and imperialism activate and surface additional local grievances around participation.

Global celebrities are increasingly important in human rights—promoting causes, raising awareness, and interacting with decision-makers—as communicators to mass and elite audiences. Deepening the literature on transnational advocacy and North-South relations, this article argues that celebrities shape human rights narratives by selecting issues and interacting with dominant framings. This hypothesis is tested through a discourse analysis of professional entertainer Ben Affleck's spoken and written texts along with organizational materials covering the establishment of the Eastern Congo Initiative. The study explains how celebrities' ability to contend with narratives reflects elite practices in human rights advocacy.

How do celebrities go beyond the promotion of human rights causes to shape thinking around possible solutions? This article looks at celebrity activism in international politics by tracing Mia Farrow’s norm entrepreneurship of the term ‘Genocide Olympics’. Expanding on the concept of ‘celebrity diplomacy’, I utilise a norm-building ‘life cycle’ model to argue that a celebrity can not only amplify human rights issues but may also reshape non-governmental organisational and institutional policy frameworks. I contend that the ‘norm entrepreneurship’ of a celebrity lies outside of international forums like the United Nations and involves a more aggressive polemical approach, contrasting with previous understandings of celebrity engagement in international politics. While scholarship has viewed figures such as humanitarian actors and world leaders as norm entrepreneurs, this case demonstrates the capacity of a celebrity to convince the international community to embrace a new norm.