Researchers over the years have attempted to find how the media - both print and television have an impact on our perception of issues. For example Besley, Fetzer et al found that Tunisia was considered a highly unsafe country by foreign tourists. In a study on terror and tourism they realized that Tunisia received little international coverage, but when it did, it was only to report terrorism and attacks on tourists in the country. This led to an aggregate loss of $10million between 2011-2016 caused by negative reporting.
Another study examining the news coverage of the 2009 H1N1 flu, by the Dutch media, concluded that it was alarmist 72% of the time. This was true even when there was initial uncertainty about the extent and fatality of the flu in the Netherlands. Dutch experts believed that millions of vaccines were wasted over something that turned out to be less fatal than the common flu; and that the media inspired by sources like WHO was indeed exaggerating the threat.
This article attempts to explore how the framing of news by popular media outlets might influence decision making; and how the Indian media fares on its reporting tone and frame especially in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, with the help of tweets by leading news houses of the country.
A study done to compare the vaccination rates in Sweden and Australia shortly after the H1N1 pandemic concluded that vaccination rates were affected by the way each country’s media reported on the pandemic. It categorized media reporting under six major frames; inclusive of other similar studies using different names for similar frames. They are:
Self-efficacy - This frame in the medical context specifically provides information on the disease and protective measures against it. When using this frame it’s important that the information is not vague and is up-to-date, complete, and accurate. For example: When educating on protective measures it’s important to say, “Indians are called upon to reduce the spread by coughing and sneezing into the elbow pit (covering up when coughing and sneezing), avoid touching their faces, washing their hands often and using hand sanitizer” and not, “use simple hygiene methods”
Responsibility - This frame states who is responsible for different actions to resolve the situation.For example: While it’s important to place the responsibility on the government and other organizations (healthcare, financial, etc.): “The virus, unlike politicians, spares no faith; hence fighting it should be the government's priority” -Telegraph; responsibility also has to be placed upon the general public: “Be smart. Show solidarity. Get your vaccinations”
Risk magnitude and Uncertainty - The risk frame informs the public on how likely they are to contract a disease or die from a specific environmental or health issue; the uncertainty frame states what is unknown thus giving the impression of transparency of information.
It’s important for not only media sources but also health experts like doctors, World Health Organization (WHO), the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to convey very clearly who is most at risk and to also inform the public about the degree of uncertainty about the problem at hand, say fatality rate or effectiveness of a vaccine. Episodic + Sensationalism - This framing of news presents a single specific event related to a given issue and is often based on its sensational and emotional appeal: For example - “For the homeless, Corona is just a cold, the big worry is food.” - Times of India (TOI) A sentence like this engages heavy visual imagery and could be a great tool to mobilize action, in this example, from the affluent in the society. It is important to use this frame very carefully in times of national emergency such as right now.
Economic and Thematic frames state the benefits or consequences of an event and give background to a situation. Thus, putting the issue in perspective.For example - “Flat or negative growth for Indian IT sector this year, says former Infosys CFO” -The Hindu
Human Interest - This frame is used to engage the public on a personal level, it uses individual stories to discuss an event, such as a victim, survivor or heroes of an incident.
Otieno et al found that using negative human interest frames led to higher perceived risk and more negative emotions in the participants. This frame results in narrow processing of information, therefore leading to a rather one-sided, simplified perception of the topic at hand instead of a balanced and honest representation.For example - “Armed with a face mask, a lathi, a bottle of sanitizer and a microphone, Hemant is part of the 20,000-strong police force playing a key role in efforts to check the spread of the virus in Bengaluru.” -Livemint
A brief analysis of 1969 tweets (until 8th April) about the words coronavirus, pandemic, covid19, and nCov19 mined from five of the most read newspapers in India -Times Of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Telegraph, and Livemint revealed the following:
When compared to the total number of tweets by a news house, The Hindu reported the most on Coronavirus while The Telegraph reported the least. Livemint had the highest total tweets and The Telegraph had the least.
TOI had the most skewed ratio i.e 7:1 - 520 negative tweets for 68 positive ones while Hindustan Times had the most balanced ratio i.e 4.3:1 - 239 negative tweets for 55 positive ones
At a time when there is rampant uncertainty and helplessness, news houses in India and everywhere in the world are doing an excellent job at keeping us updated; but they must also moderate how they are reporting. As consumers of information, we can do our part in understanding frames, becoming more aware of what we’re consuming, looking out for possible fake news, and limiting our negative news intake to prevent falling into a spiral of negative thoughts. At other times, looking for hobbies, focussing on work, and connecting with an entire community who is also #BoredInLockdown could be good alternatives!
#StayHome #StaySafe
Palak Jain and Anchal Khandelwal
