Pandemic alarm in the Dutch media

Pandemic alarm in the Dutch media: Media coverage of the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic and the role of the expert sources

European Journal of Communication June 10. 

Published online before print June 10, 2013, doi: 10.1177/0267323113486235

Peter LM Vasterman
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Nel Ruigrok
Netherlands News Monitor

Abstract
In 2009, the outbreak of a new flu virus in Mexico developed into the first pandemic in more than 40 years. For years the world had been warned about such a catastrophic global epidemic, but influenza A/H1N1 (also called swine flu or Mexican flu) turned out to be even milder than the common flu. This study is based on a content analysis of newspaper and television coverage from April to December 2009, and focuses on the volume and the content of the news coverage of the pandemic in the Netherlands. The research shows that media coverage was intensive and alarming, especially during the first and third stages of the epidemic. As it turns out, news sources had about the same share of alarming messages as the media. Therefore, although the media were indeed alarming in their coverage, they were so on the authority of their sources, the experts and the public health officials.

Download full text

Onderzoek naar berichtgeving over UMTS en fijn stof

Towards a Model for Evaluation of Reporting on Risk. The case of UMTS and Fine Particles.

The media's coverage of risk issues is often criticized for neglecting the scientific perspective on risk. This criticism, however, ignores the social context in which journalists operate: they have to report on people's worries about health-threatening issues and they have to cover actions taken by the government to address these worries. The media have to report on such issues, irrespective of the fact that in terms of scientific risk assessment the risk may be negligible. In this article, a new evaluation model for media coverage of risk is developed on the basis of a content analysis of two risk issues — universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) base stations and fine particle pollution (FPP) — and extensive consultation with prominent journalists, scientists and stakeholders in the Netherlands. The model defines criteria regarding sources, frames, amplification, risk perception, scientific data and the language used in the coverage. This approach offers a concrete starting point for the reporters who cover these issues in the daily news pages.

Key Words: frames • journalism • media • risk • sources

European Journal of Communication, Vol. 23, No. 3, 319-341 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0267323108092538

Co-authors: O. Scholten en N. Ruigrok.

MESSENGER— media, science & society - engagement & governance in Europe

MESSENGER was a 12-month project funded by the European Union under the 'Science and Society' section of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. It is being undertaken by the Oxford-based Social Issues Research Centre(SIRC) in partnership with theAmsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR).

The SIRC team:

Dr Peter Marsh (project coordinator), Simon Bradley (project

coordinator), Francesca Kenny (senior research associate), Carole

Love, Elanor Taylor, Zoe Khor, Patrick Alexander, Kate Kingsbury,

Jeanne Feaux Croix, Natalia Lorenzoni, Gurval Durand, Ivan

Costantino, Emilie Fergusson, Mauro Sarrica, Patrizia Bassini,

Nadine Beckman.

The ASCoR team:

Dr. Otto Scholten (supervision & research), Dr. Peter Vasterman

(supervision & research), Dr. Nel Ruigrok (content analysis),

Christine Pawlata (content analysis), Annemiek Verbeek

(interviews key-persons), Sacha Wamsteker (interviews

key-persons).

Copies of this report and all associated materials can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:

http://www.sirc.org/messenger

Output of the Messenger project:

• Messenger Final Report
• Guidelines for scientists
• Layperson's Guide

The ASCoR project: 

3.9 The ASCoR media analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

3.9.1 Evaluating the news media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

3.9.1.1 Media criticised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

3.9.1.2 Criticism criticized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Operational modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Social amplification of risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128

Risk perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129

Framing risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

3.9.2 Evaluation criteria for risk coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

3.9.3 Content analysis to explore evaluation criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

3.9.4 A typical example? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  133

3.9.5 Introduction to UMTS and FP pollution as risk issues . . . . . . 133

3.9.5.1 UMTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

3.9.5.2 Fine particle pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134

3.9.6 Hypothesis content analysis UMTS and FPP . . . . . . . . . . . . .  135

3.9.7 Methodology of content analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

UMTS sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137

FPP sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  139

3.9.8 Results of the quantitative content analysis of newspapers . . 141

3.9.8.1 Sources in the news on UMTS and FPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Quotes and paraphrases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

3.9.8.2 Subject or object position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 143

3.9.8.3 Defining power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  146

Summary actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148

3.9.8.4 Issues in the news . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Actors and issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Conclusions – actors and issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

3.9.8.5 How do the media evaluate the different actors? . . . . . . . .  154

3.9.9 Frames in the coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  155

3.9.9.1 Operational questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 157

3.9.9.2 Results of the analysis of frames in the coverage. . . . . . . . . 158

3.9.9.3 Summary: framing UMTS and FPP . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 161

3.9.10 Whose language is being used?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  161

3.9.11 The TNO study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . 162

3.9.12 Content analysis conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

3.9.12.1 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

3.9.12.2 Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

3.9.12.3 Media and actors . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

3.9.12.4 Frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

3.9.12.5 Language and scientific information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 165

Second Part ASCoR

4.3 Course materials for journalists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

4.3.1 Self-instruction course in Risk Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

4.3.2 Reporting on Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 184

4.3.2.1 Risk Communication Basics . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

4.3.2.2 Risk Assessment Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

4.3.2.3 Reporting Health Risk Stories . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

4.3.2.4 Some fragments from Risk Communication Basics. . . . . .  . 185

Outrage Factors.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 185

Risk Communication Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . 186

Helping the Audience Evaluate Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 186

Risk Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

4.3.3 Power lines as health issue . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

4.3.3.1 Excerpt from the simulation Power lines as health issue . . 187

4.3.4 Risk Communication Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Media-Hype. Self-Reinforcing News Waves, Journalistic Standards and the Construction of Social Problems.

European Journal of Communication Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com,

Vol 20(4): 508–530. [10.1177/0267323105058254]

Peter L.M. Vasterman

1. faculty of the Master of Journalism programme at the Department of Media Studies, University of Amsterdam, Turfdraagsterpad 9, 1012 XT Amsterdam, The Netherlands, vasterman@uva.nl
2. 
   

Abstract

News often seems to develop a life of its own, creating huge news waves on one specific story or topic. The term ‘media-hype’ is often used in popular debate about this kind of self-inflating media coverage, but the concept has never made it into the scientific discourse, mainly because of its implicit value judgements. However, by excluding criteria like ‘exaggeration’ and ‘distortion’ and by focusing on the process of amplification and magnification during these media-generated news waves, the concept can become a valuable tool for news research. A theoretical framework of media-hype is developed in this article, not only to analyse the specific dynamic of media-hype, but also to deal with the role it plays in the process of framing and social amplification. A content analysis of media coverage of ‘senseless’ street violence in the Netherlands is used to evaluate the consequences of media-hype for the role the media play in society.

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE HERE