“Measure of Shame”: Media Career of the Global Slavery Index

Abstract

Rankings are widely regarded as particularly well-suited for capturing the public eye, which is considered a reason why they have become so ubiquitous. However, we know surprisingly little about how rankings direct media attention, as well as how media in turn shape and help sustain careers of specific rankings in the public over longer periods of time. To advance our understanding of the discursive dynamics at the intersection of rankings and the press, this study examines the media career of Global Slavery Index by analyzing 361 newspaper and magazine articles, published between the release of index's inaugural edition in 2013 and until the end of 2019. To interpret the media coverage, the study draws attention to the distinctive properties of the Global Slavery Index, in particular its universality, highly rationalized character, and a pledge to spotlight violation of the global moral order. The longitudinal examination of the media coverage points to the following properties of the index as having shaped and helped sustain its career in the public: (1) repeated publication; (2) broad conceptualization of modern slavery; and the construction thereof as (3) a measurable global burden. These properties further allowed for (a) the construction of countries, organizations, and individuals as morally responsible for the said global burden, as well as for (b) the discursive linking of local and situational concerns with global narratives.

Unmanaged Transparency in a Digital Society: Swiss army knife or double-edged sword?

“…Important for our purposes is the broad range of heedful ‘monitors and reporters’ (Kjær & Sahlin 2007, p. 293) that establish observational regimes by collecting, interpreting, and proliferating information. Lay audiences such as voters often depend on one type of monitor and reporter in particular, the media, from whom they ‘learn about organizational aspects that are difficult to experience or observe directly’ (Christensen & Cheney, 2015, p. 78; see also Brankovic, 2021). Recent studies have put the media and its unique modes of observation centre stage, showing how organizations are impacted by the level of mediatization to which they are exposed (Albu & Wehmeier, 2014; Hjarvard, 2017; Thompson, 2020).…”

“…However, we should not forget that there is variation too, meaning in some cases the level of mediatization is considerably higher than in others. While we base our argument on a case that is part of a specific context (politics), we believe that our theorizing can be extended to other mediatized areas, such as professional sports (Wade, Harrison, Dobbs, & Zhao, 2018), science (Hesselmann & Reinhart, 2021), high-tech markets (Reischauer, Guettel, & Schuessler, 2021), or transnational politics (Brankovic, 2021; Mehrpouya & Salles-Djelic, 2019).…”

Worlds of Rankings Research

“…However, the fact that rankings, as a specific mode of comparison, 'travel' easily across contexts does not directly translate into an 'even' uptake and impact. Given that, as mentioned earlier, the effect of rankings is contingent upon their repeated publication, the extent of change induced by rankings is expected to depend also on the ability of its producers to draw continuous public attention to them (Brankovic 2021;2022;Ringel, Brankovic, and Werron 2020).…”

Why Rankings Appear Natural (But Aren’t)

“…Its release was widely reported: “New Zealand, Vietnam top COVID performance ranking; U.S., UK languish” ( Reuters ), “Revealed: USA ranked as having 5th worst coronavirus pandemic response in the world” ( The Irish Post ). The style of reporting was typical for the media coverage of various indices, which often resorts to the vocabulary normally found in the sports commentary: top performers, best and worst, winners and losers, leaders and laggards, and their respective performances, compared and ranked (Brankovic, 2021).…”