Abstract
This paper describes the results of research designed to explore reporting of three indices (Corruption Perception Index, CPI; Human Development Index, HDI and the Ecological Footprint, EF) in the UK national press between January 1990 and December 2009. Reporting of the indices was assessed by: (a) the number of articles published each year mentioning the index at least once (b) a weighting of (a) allowing for the different circulation between newspapers (c) the diversity of newspapers having articles mentioning the index (using the Shannon Index). Results suggest that the EF scored highest across all three measures whereas the CPI was lowest. The EF was also more likely to be reported in terms that implied a sense of ownership as well as a concept and not just an index. Unlike the CPI and HDI, there is no single methodology for the EF with various groups having their own approach. These features appear to have aided the relative popularity of EF within newspaper reporting. Finally, there was typically little if any description within the articles of the methodology or assumptions that rest behind the indices. Hence they are usually presented as a ‘black box’ to provide authoritative support for statements.