Media use in times of crisis has changed from one-way
communication to multi-way interactions since the introduction of social media,
such as Twitter, forums and blogs. In a recent paper published in Public
Understanding of Science, researchers from the EU funded project FoodRisC
(Perceptions and communication of food risk/benefits across Europe), analysed
traditional and social media coverage of a food crisis. Using the 2008 Irish
dioxin crisis as a case study, they found that social media reported faster and
covered fewer topics than traditional media. When looking at the source of
information, social media relied mainly on offline and online media news (e.g.
BBC or Reuters); whilst, traditional media relied on diverse offline sources,
such as experts, politicians or food suppliers. Twitter in particular
functioned as a news information disseminator, with almost 90% linking only to
newspapers or other media sources.
The Irish dioxin crisis is considered to be one of the
first food crises with international impact that was covered not only in
traditional media, but also in social media. During routine testing of Irish
pork in November 2008, elevated levels of dioxins (reaching 200 times the EU
recommended limit) were detected. This was caused by contaminated animal feed
being fed to Irish swine. According to the World Health Organization (WHO),
dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems,
damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer.
Consequently, on 6th December 2008, the Irish government announced a total
recall of all potentially contaminated pork products.
A team of European researchers carried out a
quantitative media content analysis on 141 printed newspaper articles, on 107
blog and forum posts and on 68 Tweets, published in the UK and Ireland. The
popular social media platform Facebook was excluded from this research, as the
majority of Facebook posts back in 2008 were, and still are, protected by
privacy settings. The data frame was set between 1 December 2008 and 28
February 2009, a time period in which nearly 90% of the coverage on the dioxin
crisis was concentrated. Each newspaper article or social media posting was
read by two independent coders to determine certain variables of interest
(source, primary story topic and tone of voice) in the headline and main body
of text.
Results from statistical analyses showed that
reporting in social media happened quicker than traditional media, but it also
declined faster. The authors explained that social media responded faster due
to its ability to provide instantaneous responses without the time lag
associated with editorial processes. On the other hand, social media is not
necessarily bound by the restriction of traditional media to choose news stories
based on the ‘value’ of the news, which the authors clarified was one factor
influencing the faster decline of the social media coverage.
The research also revealed that social media only
reached its highest level of coverage after traditional media had peaked. Given
the fact that social media mainly used the online and offline media news as a
source of information, especially on the day after traditional media had
peaked, it is plausible to believe that traditional media stimulated this
second boom of social media.
Compared to traditional media, social media reported
about very limited topics, focusing on the global reaction, governments’
handling and how the lives of the public were affected by the crisis.
Traditional media covered a wider range of topics, including the cause and the
macroeconomic impact of the crisis. By emphasizing and excluding different
topics, social and traditional media exposed slightly different ‘agendas’ or
interpretations to the public. Therefore, researchers concluded it is important
for today’s food crisis managers and communicators to have a good understanding
of social media alongside the classical media channels.
Finally, the study also analysed the difference in
tone of voice between the different media types. No significant differences
were found, except that traditional media presented more negative tones in
headlines than in the main text, and blog and forum postings were the opposite.
According to researchers, this could be explained by the fact that some traditional
media opted for eye-catching, negative headlines, without considering the
consequence of the use of negative words.
The authors encourage follow-up investigations, but
also studies considering the impact of the different approaches in coverage by
traditional and social media. As social media continues to become more
important in the world of communication, the effect of relying on this rather
than traditional media as a source of information during a food crisis could be
an interesting topic for further research.
Reference:
Shan L, Regan A, De Brún A, Barnett J, van der Sanden
M, Wall P and McConnon A. (2013) Food crisis coverage by social and traditional
media: A case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin crisis. Public
Understanding of Science. February 1, 2013, DOI: 10.1177/0963662512472315.
This work was supported by the FoodRisC project
(www.foodrisc.org) under the Seventh Framework Programme (CORDIS FP7) of the
European Commission [grant number: 245124].
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου