The Role of Media in a Time of National Crisis

Abstract: In a time of national crisis, such as 911 or SARS, what role can and should media play? This paper provides an initial view of how this question can be answered. It draws primarily on two different but somewhat overlapping theories: the dependency theory and the agenda-setting theory, and particularly focuses on the similarities and differences between what the two theories would help us discover the question. Associating with these two theories, we discuss and analyze three roles that media can and should play when a national crisis strikes: watchdog, expert and director.

Keywords: Media, crisis, dependency theory, agenda-setting.

I. INTRODUCTION

Media play a weighty role in our society. Media can serve a number of functions such as reporting news, providing entertainment, and monitoring government activities. In a time of national crisis, such as 911 or SARS, what role can and should media play? This article utilizes two mass communication theories that belong to different traditions to discover this question: a) the dependency theory, which is firmly planted in the sociopsychological tradition, and b) the agenda-setting theory, which shows a strong affinity with the sociocultural tradition. We particularly focus on the similarities and differences between what the two theories can help us discover the question. Our study should be viewed as an early step in raising questions and suggesting interpretations about media’s role in a time of national crisis.

II. PRELIMINARIES

Dependency theory, originally proposed by Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur (1976), predicts that people depend on media information to meet certain needs and to achieve certain goals. But we do not depend on all media equally. There are two factors that determine how dependent we will become on media: a) We will become more dependent on media that meet a number of our needs than on media that satisfy just a few; b) When social changes and conflicts are high, established institutions, beliefs, and practices are changed, our reliance on the media for information will increase. At other more stable times, our dependence on media may go way down (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p287).

Agenda-setting theory is the idea that “the media, interacting with elite opinion, determine what people think about” (Adria, 2005). It demonstrates the two-step flow of the diffusion of information: a) from the media to elite opinion-makers, and b) from opinion-makers to the broader public. Agenda-setting is one branch of understanding the interrelationships among media, public opinion, and public policy (Kellow & Steeves, 1998). It includes three dynamic concepts: media, policy-makers, and public (Adria, 2005).

Although early studies have shown that the media tell us what to think about, later agenda-setting studies, reviewed by McCombs and Shaw (1993), demonstrate that the media may also tell us how to think about particular issues and, consequently, what to think. Effects of the agenda-setting theory can be divided into two levels: a) the micro-agenda-setting level (the object level), at which the content of the media determines the relative importance of specific issues, and b) the macro-agenda-setting level (the attribute level), at which the media may distort an entire cultural worldview by fitting it into the media’s agenda (Kellow & Steeves, 1998).

III. ROLES OF MEDIA IN A TIME OF NATIONAL CRISIS

Many studies, including studies in the dependency and agenda-setting traditions, have documented and examined that actual effects of the media may be greater during times of political, economic, or environmental crisis. The dependency theory indicates that in a time of instability people may be more reliant on media for information and guidance (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p287). Consistent with the dependency theory, the study of the agenda-setting theory also suggests that “media will most often have a powerful effect on the public agenda when the audience has a high need for guidance” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p280). During a period of instability, the media’s agenda-setting function in conjunction with public’s increased dependence on media highlights the role of media. What the two theories share is a concern for audience interaction with media.

These two theories also take different approaches to look at the role of media in a time of crisis: The dependency theory focuses on the individual and psychological process involved in media effects and uses, and clearly establishes that there is an important relationship between actual events and the people’s dependency on media; While the agenda-setting theory captures large social and cultural forces of media, and “empirically demonstrates links between media exposure, audience motivation to seek orientation, and audience perception of public issues” (Baran & Davis, 2000, p315).

In the following part, we will discuss and analyze some roles of media in a time of national crisis based on the two different but somewhat overlapping theories described above.

1. Watchdog—Surveilling the environment by collecting and distributing information quickly and accurately
According to the dependency theory, in an emergency, our reliance on media becomes even more pronounced. Especially, we become incredibly dependent on news programming (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p287). Individuals rely on media each day for the news, and they have a right to expect media to be there at any time with the latest warnings and information if an emergency is imminent. So, when trouble comes, staying on the air (or quickly getting back on the air) and showing what has happened and what is happening as soon as possible is one of the most important tasks media have. In line with research on the agenda-setting theory, media can but does not always have a powerful effect on the public agenda. Media will most often be powerful when media credibility is high, conflicting evidence is low, individuals share media values, and the audience has a high need for guidance (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p280). Therefore, media should respond crises not only quickly but also accurately. This is particularly important because millions of viewers will be dependent on media for a lifeline and inaccurate and misleading statements on the air can be life threatening in a crisis. When a crisis strikes, spokesmen of public agencies should be accessible and provide a regular flow of accurate information to dispel rumor and false reports. The use of “on-the-spot reporting” and “the interviewing of experts” will enhance the credibility of the messages and thus inspire confidence in the validity of the media.

Though numerous examples might be given to illustrate the importance of the media’s watchdog role in a time of crisis, we think of no better illustration of the view than the following example: When SARS began to prevail in China, uncertainty was high, official information was scant, and rumors were rampant. We turned to media as a means of making sense of “What is going on? Is my world safe?” We wanted these questions to be answered quickly and with enough details and evidence to satisfy an attention span that was being interrupted by the anxiety. However, Chinese media had not move this health crisis onto public agenda and policy at that time. They got the ill of aphasia when we eagerly wanted to hear from them. Even then, some media and officials offered the public misinformation and sometime conflicting claims. As a result, fear was pervasive. We became more and more anxious, depressed, and demoralized, and avoided many innocent activities, like travel and shopping. Fortunately, Chinese government and media duly adjusted their strategies. The epidemic reports became a recurring agenda item as well as a routinely covered story. We were able to get enough reliable information about SARS from media. Consequently, public’s fear and anxious were controlled at certain level. In retrospect, if Chinese government officials and media struggled to find the correct answers and coherent facts for the public at the beginning of this epidemic crisis, we might feel less fearful and less anxious. So providing information quickly and accurately is the most important task of the media when a crisis strikes.

In addition, Chaffee and Frank (1996) stated that mass media play a key role in informing the citizenry about local issues. The dependency theory also points out that our dependence on information from a medium increases when it supplies information that is more central to us (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p. 287). Therefore, when a crisis strikes, media can and should find ways to make what happens in the world relevant to a more parochial audience. “Keeping the news relevant and putting the world into local context” is the watchwords for media.

2. Expert—Interpreting and analyzing particular events deeply and completely
From different aspects, both the dependency theory and the agenda-setting theory indicate that in addition to playing the watchdog role, media also can and should serve another important role: explaining and analyzing complex and frightening events deeply and completely to give the public answers and guidelines they want and need.

According to agenda-setting theory, media not only tell us “what to think about” but also “how to think about” some objects. Furthermore, an increasing body of research has been devoted to the cognitive effects of media: framing, which has been considered as an extension of the agenda-setting theory. In addition to making issues more salient, media also seek to reduce the complexity of issues for their audience by presenting news in easy-to-understand interpretive frames. Besides reducing complexity, these frames also serve as interpretive shortcuts for audience members, leading them to make attributions of responsibility or other judgments based on different interpretations offered by the media for the same factual content (Entman, 1993; Scheufele 1999). Therefore, when a disaster strikes, media can and should not only tell people what has happened and what is happening, but also how and why this happened, how and why the terrorism or disaster directly affects their lives, and what might happen in the future.

As located earlier, findings on the dependency theory suggest that people will become more dependent on media that meet a number of their needs than on media that satisfy just a few (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p287). Moreover, it proclaims that in general, the more readily available, the greater the perceived instrumentality, and the more probable media use will be regarded as the most appropriate functional alternative (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p288). It reminds us that crisis times give media an opportunity to better serve their viewers who eagerly depend on media to answer their questions and meet their needs. Hence, media’s coverage must go beyond the news items and include recommendations for actions that citizens can take. When individuals believe that they can take action that might influence the danger, even slightly, fear is much reduced. Truisms such as “be vigilant” are unhelpful unless they specify how, where, and why. For example, NBC News broadcasted a series of national reports called 12 Ways to Make America Safer, dealing with topics as general as how to make a family disaster plan and how to provide better security for railroad traffic. This sort of national coverage directly expands the public’s knowledge of what to watch for and what to do in cases involving potential emergencies.

3. Director—Influencing opinion
From a sociacultural perspective, the agenda-setting theory clearly claims that “the media exert influence on what is significant in the public domain (Kellow & Steeves, 1998)”. Just as Iyengar and Kinder (1987) stated: “our view of our society and nation are powerfully shaped by the stories that appear on the evening news. Our subjects regarded the target problem as more important for the country, cared more about it, believed that government should do more about it, report stronger feeling about it, and were much more likely to identify it as one of the country’s most important problems” (p. 112). From a sociopsychological perspective, the dependency theory shows that individuals who grow dependent on a particular segment of the media will be affected cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally by that segment (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005, p288). Therefore, the third important role media can and should play is influencing opinion. This duty becomes more urgent when a crisis strikes the country. If the media convince audiences that: the problem is important, they are vulnerable to it, the solution will eliminate the problem, and they are able to carry out the solution, it can be a powerful means of changing attitudes and reducing fear. In case of emergency, media’s responsibility of influencing opinion is a delicate balancing act: raising the level of concern for the crisis on the one hand, while reducing the level of panic on the other hand.

On the one hand, media should and can remind not only the public but also policy-makers that the “war” they are fighting is a very important one, ensuring that they are aware of the broader security issues that face the country. Colby and Cook (1991) argued that “the media help to determine which private matters, such as disease, become define as public events, such as epidemics. The media’s definition then influences the public’s construction of problems”. They also stated that the media’s identification and definition of public problems work not only on mass audiences but also on policymakers, who are more likely to respond to highly salient issues and do so largely in the context of the frame that the media have provided. The media’s construction of disaster thus has influenced not only merely how we as individual will react but also how we as a society and as polity will respond. By their ability to transform occurrences into news, the media exert power. Therefore, through setting object and attribute agenda for public and government, the media may have played and should continue to play a critical role in the construction of the epidemic, the war, the terrorist attack and the range of possible social and political response.

On the other hand, the media should immediately, and throughout the crises, take the responsibility and power to undercut people’s fear. Fear is an important and sensible human response to events such as 911 and SARS. In this kind of national crisis, fighting against the fear seems as important as fighting the terrorism or disease itself. The media should become a calming voice in a nervous country to reduce people’s fear. At the same time, the government should use the media as agenda-setting tools to instill courage and calm. News, of course should be reported, however, by repeatedly showing the hijacked planes hitting the towers, news magnified our fear that we could be trapped in a tall building as it collapsed. By repeatedly airing the dramatic, vivid pictures about SARS, news made us overestimate the likelihood that we would be killed by the disaster. Seeking to raise public awareness without creating public panic is not easy, however, media must avoid being inflammatory when taking their perceived role of informing and alerting the public. The stories media tell matter. If media focus too much attention on stories of the country’s lack of preparedness to cope with the crisis and too little on the capacity of the country to respond to challenges, they would lead to a more horrible fear. Through choosing stories of survival and triumph, displaying historical events that would arouse emotion, they can let audiences to ignore the oppositional information and thus reduce their anxiety and fear. Additionally, the frequent use of powerful cultural and religious symbols, realistic and historical contextual details and biblical references can strengthen the power of the media in influencing opinion. Just as fear is contagious so too is courage. Media that model courage and heroism inspire them in others. By using the strategy of agenda-setting, the media can work to instill a pronounced patriotism. For instance, in the weeks following the Sep. 11, 2001, the United States was swept by a wave of patriotism not seen since the Second World War. Through using several techniques related the agenda-setting theory to encourage public and incite patriotism, media played a role in fostering this transformation of public opinion.

IV. CONCLUSION

Associating with the dependency theory and the agenda-setting theory and particularly focusing on the similarities and differences between what the two theories would help us discover the question that what role media can and should play when a national crisis strikes, we have discussed and analyzed three roles of media in a time of national crisis: watchdog, expert and director. Our study suggests consistency between media’s roles in a crisis, the dependency theory and the agenda-setting theory. We hope that when something really important is on the line, when lives are at stake, the media will be able to join together for the common good of all.

V. REFERENCES

Adria, M. (2005). EXT 502 class lecture. University of Alberta. May 17, 2005.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. (1976). A dependency model of mass-media effects. Communication Research, 3, 3-21.
Baran, S. J. & Davis, D. K., (2000). Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future (3th edition). Belmont, CA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Chaffee, S., & Frank, S. (1996). How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcast news. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 48-58.
Colby, D. C., & Cook, T. E. (1991). Epidemics and agendas: The politics of nightly news coverage of AIDS. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 16, 215-249.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kellow, C. L., & Steeves, H. L. (1998). The role of radio in the Rwandan genocide. Journal of Communication, 48, 107-128.
Kim, S. H., Scheufele, D. A., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting theory of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 7-25.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of Human Communication (8th edition). Belmont, CA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43, 58-67.
McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 101-120.