AGENDA SETTING AND FRAMING DURING THE FIRST WAVE OF CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF NEWS IN GREEK MEDIA

Michalis TASTSOGLOU (1), Sonia KONTOGIANNI (2), Stamatis POULAKIDAKOS (3), George PLEIOS (4)
Keywords: health communication, COVID-19, pandemics, agenda setting, news framing, media

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26758/14.1.11

(1) Adjunct Lecturer, Communication & Media Studies Dept., National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

(2) Ph.D. candidate, Communication & Media Studies Dept., National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

(3) Assistant Professor, Communication and Digital Media Dept., University of Western Macedonia

(4) Professor, Communication & Media Studies Dept., National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

Address correspondence to: Michalis Tastsoglou, Communication & Media Studies Dept., School of Political and Economic Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, Sofokleous 1 str., +30 2103689279; E-mail: tastsog@media.uoa.gr

Abstract

Objectives. Drawing heavily on theories focusing on the ways media represent health issues, and more specifically pandemics, the current research seeks to scrutinize the information conveyed by the Greek media to the public regarding the coronavirus pandemic. It also explores the ways that agenda-setting and framing affect the representations of the coronavirus pandemic. These two (agenda setting and framing) are highly influential concerning the conceptualization of a crisis.

Material and methods. The research method implemented is quantitative content analysis. For the scope of the current research, 2389 research units (TV bulletins news items and online news articles) were gathered and analyzed. This research covers, in temporal terms, the period during which the Greek media started focusing on the coronavirus issue in tandem with the developments of the coronavirus crisis worldwide and in Greece, namely from February 1st until April 30th, 2020.

Results. Our results showed that the time period (either before or after the announcement of the first death in Greece due to the pandemic) was a crucial factor in the media coverage of the pandemic. Second, pandemic issues were presented through thematic frames, which outweighed the episodic ones. Finally, the Greek media were found to place more emphasis on governmental measures decided during the pandemic compared to personal and social precautionary measures.

Conclusions. The media coverage of the pandemic increased dramatically after the announcement of the first death in Greece. In this rationale, the media of our research increased significantly both the time (TV news bulletins) and extent (news sites) of the coverage of the pandemic. Thus, the event of the first death announcement appears to constitute an important milestone and can be used as an independent variable for the examination of the coverage of the pandemic in different countries/media systems. Apart from that, we have seen a prevalence of thematic and human-interest frames.

Keywords: health communication, COVID-19, pandemics, agenda setting, news framing, media

Introduction

Mass media create representations of the world, focusing on issues of public interest, especially when those issues constitute “critical junctures”. Such a critical juncture is the global transmission of the coronavirus, which has been officially declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). When a pandemic occurs, individual behavior can be strongly influenced by the way that media and governments share information, since ‘effective communication empowers people to respond appropriately’ (Lee, 2014: 294). In addition, a pandemic draws intense media attention as it is often related to worst-case scenarios (Vasterman & Ruigrok, 2013, p. 438). Although research on health news has been so far ‘largely ignored’ (Briggs and Hallin, 2016, p. 3), it is expected to grow exponentially due to the unprecedented impact of the novel coronavirus.

Thus, it is of high interest to explore whether traditional methods of news coverage are still widely applied to hard news, like pandemic issues. Drawing heavily on theories focusing on the ways media represent health issues, and specifically pandemics, this article aims to investigate the Greek media coverage of COVID-19. For the purpose of this study, a quantitative content analysis of TV news bulletins and news sites that provide useful information regarding a set of journalistic practices such as agenda-setting, priming, and framing was conducted in our efforts to scrutinize the Greek media agenda.

Pandemics and media

Agenda setting is regarded as a mechanism that reveals the way that media select certain issues to be disseminated as news and can be divided into two levels: the first one negotiates what to think about a certain issue, while the second one offers certain ways of thinking about it (Weaver, 2007, p. 142). This research delves into both levels. A media technique ascribed to the first level of agenda setting is priming. Priming indicates the salience media give to specific issues, directing the public towards using those issues as benchmarks for evaluating politicians (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007, p. 11).

The second level of agenda setting includes the process of framing. Framing implies the process to “select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). This process reveals how political and media elites manage issues, define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgements, and suggest treatments. While frames are deployed as interpretative schemas to capture public attention, shape public opinion, and guide people about the appropriateness of a policy, news coverage framing during pandemics comprises an indicative technique that describes how the network of journalism, public relations, and health communication works (Lee and Basnyat, 2013, p. 120; McInnes & Roemer-Mahler, 2017, p. 1319; Dan & Raupp, 2018, p. 206). However, it is declared that journalism contains a variety of practices and routines that facilitate journalists’ work and reduce the complexity of an issue. Hence, media function as a battlefield of the hegemony between different social groups, institutions, and ideologies, which attempt to shape individuals’ understandings (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 3).

For the scope of the current research, two basic frame categorizations are employed. Drawing on Iyengar’s classification (1991), the episodic and thematic news frames are investigated here. Episodic frames are used to present issues fragmented, free from their deepest social causes, as if they had arisen ex nihilo, while thematic frames require deeper analyses, comprehensive information taken from various sources, and more space (for news sites and newspapers) or time (for television and radio programs). Although, according to Woodly (2008, p. 110), news framing tends to be episodic, during pandemics, the prevalence of episodic framing cannot be taken for granted, since Lee & Basnyat (2013, p. 130) have demonstrated that journalists tend to prefer the thematic frame when they cover pandemic news. The second categorization contains the most commonly used frames by journalists (in order of occurrence frequency): the responsibility frame, the conflict frame, the economic consequences frame, the human-interest frame, and the morality frame (Semetko & Valkenburg 2000, p. 105).

The presentation of information by the media about a disease can strongly influence people’s behavior (Cinelli et al., 2020, p. 2). Media may influence the public, the government, and health professionals by constructing the social imagination, which comprises a crucial risk management task (Beck, 1992; Dan & Raupp, 2018, p. 203).

Health crises have global effects since they concern unprecedented, unpredictable, and uncalculated hazards (McInnes & Roemer-Mahler, 2017, p. 1316). It is a global phenomenon that requires awareness and even a broader understanding. As a result, governments tend to adopt strategic communication plans in order to respond successfully to a pandemic crisis (Lee, 2014, p. 294-295; McInnes & Roemer-Mahler, 2017, p. 1319). According to Lee & Basnyat (2013, p. 119), “effective communication from governments and health agencies to the public is a key component of pandemic response”, as it facilitates public’s adoption of appropriate actions in order to deter the proliferation of morbidity by shaping people’s minds and highlighting the hazards. As far as Greece is concerned, the media received funding from the state in order to run a social awareness campaign as a means to support ongoing governmental risk management.

Pandemics and health-related crises tend to receive intense media coverage (for instance, see Klemm, Das, & Hartmann, 2016, on H1N1; Abraham, 2007, on SARS; Poirier, Ouellet, Rancourt, Béchard, & Dufresne, 2020 on COVID-19). The media cover the global pandemic under two lenses: they articulate the real via their symbolic representations, while they give specific interpretations of the crisis to the public (Stavrakakis, 2020). Emotions, attitudes, and behaviors become more versatile during the efforts of public health agencies to manage the fear and anger of public opinion (Lee, 2014, p. 300). Demertzis (2020) argues that people, more or less, form a “synthetic experience” either as directly affected by the pandemic or as subjected to the restrictive measures taken by the government. In the core of this experience lies mediatization since media enjoy the monopoly of information while people are obliged to stay at home. Consequently, on the one hand, media “represent important information about public health issues” (Marinescu & Mitu, 2016, p. 7), while on the other hand, they influence individuals’ behavior. According to studies on past outbreaks, Medeiros & Massarani (2010, p. 461) estimated that H1N1 coverage led to high levels of public anxiety in Brazil. In the same vein, Uzuegbunam, Duru, Okafor, & Ugbo (2016, p. 32) found that panic, fear, and speculation were also dispersed among people when the Ebola virus infected Nigeria.

A number of studies (Lee & Basnyat, 2013; Pleios & Poulakidakos, 2013) have also recognized that, during pandemics, the media agenda is concentrated on certain parameters that can receive special and often differentiated attention from the media. Such parameters can be the following: number of identified cases/deaths, health institutions’ announcements (especially by the WHO), experts’ opinions, biomedical issues (e.g., new treatments or vaccines), consequences of the pandemic (political, economic, and social), and prevention measures. Regarding the last, these are important features for disseminating health information since citizens are exposed to an unprecedented risk and there is probably a lack of awareness or detailed knowledge about such types of hazards (Medeiros & Massarani, 2010; Pleios & Poulakidakos, 2013). Moreover, health journalists traditionally engage with health experts, health institutions, and biomedical insiders as their duties require specialized knowledge, articulating an elite public sphere network (Lee & Basnyat, 2013, p. 120; Briggs & Hallin, 2016, p. 74).

As a result, the media’s role is even more crucial when global health crises occur. The past H1N1 outbreak showed that there was a “deep integration of media logics into institutions of public health” (Briggs & Hallin, 2016, p. 9, p. 133). Moreover, several studies (Woodly, 2008, p. 110; Briggs & Hallin, 2016, p. 43) suggest that news coverage is biased in favor of political elites, whose opinions are more salient in the media content (Woodly, 2008, p. 110). The tight relationships between journalists, politicians, and health experts form a unique media landscape. This condition is a systemic aspect of the Greek media context as well, due to the high alignment of mainstream media with political elites (Hallin & Mancini, 2004).

Research questions and hypotheses

Based on our theoretical background, the main purpose of the current research is to investigate the information conveyed by the Greek media to the public regarding the coronavirus pandemic. Stemming from our theoretical background, our study focuses on two research questions (RQ1): How did the Greek media, in terms of agenda setting, priming, and framing,  presented the coronavirus pandemic? and (RQ2): Have Greek journalists relied on experts’ advice in their efforts to effectively communicate the pandemic to the public? More specifically, (RQ1) can be analyzed into the following supportive research hypotheses:

H.1: According to our theory, pandemics and health-related crises tend to receive intense media coverage (Abraham, 2007; Klemm, Das, & Hartmann, 2016; Poirier et. al, 2020). It is expected that news related to the coronavirus pandemic will be highly covered by the Greek media as well.

H.2: In addition, it is expected that the Greek media will emphasize the coronavirus issue in terms of priming.

H.3: Based on our theoretical framework, pandemic news tends to be more susceptible to thematic framing (Lee & Basnyat, 2013), and responsibility and conflict frames are the most frequently found in media studies (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). It is expected that these will be the prevalent ones in the representation of the pandemic by the Greek media.

H.4: Due to being an important parameter in disseminating health information to the public (Medeiros & Massarani, 2010; Pleios & Poulakidakos, 2013), it is expected that prevention measures will also be highlighted by the Greek media.

Research Method

For the purposes of the current research, the research method of quantitative content analysis has been implemented. Content analysis transforms content of quantitative and qualitative nature into a form of data in either qualitative or quantitative form. It can be briefly defined as the systematic, based on scientific criteria, quantitative or qualitative analysis of the characteristics of various messages (Berelson, 1971; Neuendorf, 2002, p. 1). It constitutes a systematic, reproducible technique of transforming the words of a text into fewer categories of meaning based on specific codification rules (Miller & Brewer, 2003). The primary objective of content analysis is the systematic research of the content of a unit of analysis (text, image, news item, advertisement, web page, etc.). Thus, the content is being examined in a holistic way, and the categories used to encode the text are clearly defined, to enable the repetition and control of the entire procedure. Research making use of content analysis focuses on the main thematics of a text, their comparative meaning, the ‘space’ and time dedicated to these thematics, and other content characteristics that respond to the main research question and the research hypotheses (Berelson, 1971). Quantitative content analysis is conducted via a coding protocol and aims to produce quantitative data from a specific sample.

The media content under study includes the prime-time news bulletins of the six major Greek TV stations in terms of audience share: the public ERT1, the private MEGA, ANT1, SKAI, ALPHA, and STAR, and six of the most popular Greek news web sites (protothema.gr, in.gr, iefimerida.gr, news247.gr, newsit.gr, and lifo.gr) according to SimilarWeb metrics (i.e.: protothema.gr reaches 26 million monthly visits, iefimerida.gr reaches almost 22 million visits, news247.gr reaches almost 13 million visits, newsit.gr adds up 14.7 million visits, in.gr accepts 12.6 million visits and lifo.gr reaches a total number of almost nine million visits.). For the scope of the current research, 1200 articles and 1189 news items, for a total of 2389 units using a coding frame that includes a rather wide range of parameters regarding coronavirus media representations, have been gathered and analyzed using SPSS 26. The following examination covers the period from February 1st to April 30th, 2020, which can be divided into two sub-periods: the first one (from February 1st to March 15th), when there was no death by COVID-19 in Greece, and the second one (from March 16th to April 30th), when the Greek government had to respond to a tangible health crisis after the official announcement of the first death by COVID-19. The units of analysis of the current research are the news item (for the news bulletins) and the news article (for the news sites). The existence of statistically significant relationships between the different variables was tested via the chi-square test, the Fisher’s exact test, the t-test, and the ANOVA at the 95% confidence interval. Lastly, the data entry was conducted by a team of six coders, whose reliability was tested with the use of Cronbach’s alpha (Field, 2013).

Results

As far as our first hypothesis, the extent to which media pay attention to the coronavirus pandemic, is concerned, the mean row of the coronavirus news item (for TV news bulletins) was examined, as well as the ratio of the means of news items and coronavirus items, respectively. As already mentioned, in order to discover if there were any differentiations regarding the journalistic focus, our findings were divided into two sub-periods. The first one covers the period until the public announcement of the first death by COVID-19 in Greece, and the second covers the period after the official announcement of the first confirmed death. As it is shown in Table 1, the reference to the coronavirus pandemic dominates the television news, especially during the second examination period. The average order of the coronavirus news item is approximately the third (mean = 3.08 for the second period and the (approximately) twelfth (11.67) for the first period, which provides us with a mean of 7.02 for both periods. In addition, the ratio of the means indicates that a rather high percentage (64%) of the TV news bulletins referred to the coronavirus throughout the period of our examination. More specifically, 31% of the news bulletins regarding the pandemic appeared in the first period, while the coronavirus news items were overwhelmingly prevalent (92%) during the second one. These results lead us to the partial acceptance of our first and second research hypotheses, regarding the intense media coverage and the high priming of coronavirus news by the Greek media, since the pandemic appears to have “conquered” the TV news bulletins in terms of both coverage and priming during the second period of our research.

Table 1

Ratio: means of coronavirus news items/means of news items per period (to see Table 1, please click here).

Regarding the emphasis given by the Greek media on the coronavirus issue, in terms of priming, the mean duration (in seconds) for the TV stations and the mean length (in words) for the news sites were measured. As it is depicted in Table 2, SKAI (189.20 sec) and protothema.gr (636.54 words) seem to present the COVID-19 issue more “extensively” on TV and news sites, respectively. SKAI is followed by STAR (almost 166 sec) and protothema.gr is followed by in.gr (approximately 583 words).

Table 2

Mean duration (in sec)/length (in words) per each medium (ANOVA p-value = 0.000) (to see Table 2, please click here).

In terms of the average duration of coronavirus news per type of medium, Table 3 illustrates that TV stations dedicate more than 2 minutes (135.67 seconds) to the pandemic and news sites approximately 528 words.

Table 3

Mean duration (in secs)/length (in words) per type of medium (t-test p-value = 0.000) (to see Table 3, please click here).

Of particular interest is the mean duration or length when the results are broken down per examined period. The mean duration and length of the second period appear to be significantly longer, according to our t-test, than the first one (Table 4). The rather extensive duration of the news bulletins and length of news sites referring to the coronavirus pandemic lead us to accept our second working hypothesis, about a relatively high journalistic prioritization on the issue, in terms of priming.

Table 4

Mean duration (in seconds)/length (in words) per period (t-test p-value=0.000) (to see Table 4, please click here).

Regarding our third hypothesis on the prevalent frames, as discussed earlier in our theoretical background, we first examined the use of thematic versus episodic framing based on Iyengar’s (1991) typology by cross-tabulating the presence of these frames per type of medium. As Figure 1 shows, since thematic framing is prevalent in both TV stations (64.3%) and news sites (61.1%) in similar percentages, our Fisher’s exact test does not provide us with a statistically significant difference between TV stations and news sites in terms of the existence of thematic or episodic framing.

Figure 1

Thematic versus episodic framing per type of medium (Fisher’s exact p-value = 0.118) (to see Figure 1, please click here).

Similar, but with a statistically significant difference between the thematic or episodic framing of the examined periods, is the salience of thematic framing. In particular, as Figure 2 indicates, during the first period, 57.3% of all news items were thematically framed, while 42.7% were episodically. During the second period, once again, thematic frames (67.6%) outweighed the episodic ones (32.4%).

Figure 2

Thematic versus episodic framing per period (Fisher’s exact p-value = 0.000) (to see Figure 2, please click here).

The second aspect of our third hypothesis involved the classification of frames identified by Semetko & Valkenburg (2000). Our findings (Figure 3) showed that human interest was the most commonly used frame in the news regarding the coronavirus, by both TV stations (50%) and news sites (47.8%), followed by the attribution of responsibility (18.9%) and (18.3%) and the economic consequences frame (14.8%) and (16.7%), respectively. Based on this similar distribution of percentages between TV stations and news sites, our statistical test provided us with a p-value of 0.843, designating a statistically non-significant relationship between TV stations and news sites in terms of Semetko & Valkenburg’s framing classification. It is noted here that the sample for this cross-tabulation consists of 1189 news items, as there were 1200 analysis units (articles and TV news items) that could not be classified according to Semetko & Valkenburg’s framing categorization.

Figure 3

Semetko & Valkenburg’s classification of frames per type of medium (Chi square Test p-value = 0.843) (to see Figure 3, please click here).

As far as the classification of frames per period is concerned (Figure 4), the human interest frame is the prevalent one in both periods (50.1%, during the first period) and (47.9%, during the second period). Attribution of responsibility comes next (22.5%) and economic consequences third (10.8%) in the second period. On the contrary, during the first period, the economic consequences frame and the attribution of responsibility frame switch positions. Our chi-square test designates a statistically significant difference in Semetko & Valkenburg’s frames classification between the two periods that can be mainly attributed to the difference in the percentages of the economic consequences and attribution of responsibility frames.

Figure 4

Semetko & Valkenburg’s classification of frames per period (Chi square Test p-value = 0.000) (to see Figure 4, please click here).

After the abovementioned results, our third hypothesis on the prevalence of the thematic framing of the pandemic news (Lee & Basnyat, 2013) and responsibility and conflict frames (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000) is partially accepted, since even though thematic framing prevails, the human interest frame outweighs the responsibility and conflict frames.

Next, regarding the presentation of precautionary measures about the coronavirus pandemic by the Greek media, our variables were divided into three categories. The first category involves personal precaution measures (e.g., mask wearing, handwashing, and avoiding face touching with contaminated hands). The second one encompasses social distancing practices (e.g., avoiding close contacts with sick people, limitation of physical contacts, prohibition of traveling, and home quarantine). The final category refers to actions taken by the Greek government in order to prevent coronavirus spreading (e.g., prohibition of gatherings, border closure, and airport screening). As depicted in Figures 5 and 6, TV stations covered precautionary measures to a greater extent. Looking closely at Figure 5, readers can observe that up to three personal precaution measures were being mentioned on 19.6% of TV stations and 16.3% of news sites. On the contrary, the percentages for social precaution measures (Figure 6), were higher: 30.5% on TV stations and 26.3% on news sites. Our statistical test shows that there is a significant relationship between the type of medium and precautionary measures.

Figure 5

Personal precautionary measures per type of medium (Chi square Test p-value = 0.000) (to see Figure 5, please click here).

Figure 6

Social precautionary measures per type of medium (Chi square Test p-value = 0.000) (to see Figure 6, please click here).

Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate personal and social precautionary measures per reference period. Personal precautionary measures were reported mostly during the first period (19.7%), whereas social precautionary measures were reported during the second period (33.1%). Our statistical test signifies that there is a significant relationship between social precautionary measures and the period of reference.

Figure 7

Personal precautionary measures per period (Chi square Test p-value = 0.186) (to see Figure 7, please click here).

Figure 8

Social precautionary measures per period (Chi square Test p-value = 0.000) (to see Figure 8, please click here).

Regarding our third category, the presentation of the measures taken by the government in response to the coronavirus pandemic, most journalists in Greece were engaged in presenting them to the public. As it is clearly shown in Figure 9, only two news sites presented the governmental measures in less than 50% of the articles/news items: Lifo.gr (24.5%) and in.gr (43.5%).

Figure 9

Presentation of governmental measures per medium (Chi square Test p-value = 0.000) (to see Figure 9, please click here).

Moreover, TV stations covered governmental actions (Figure 10) to a slightly higher degree (68.2%) than news sites (58.2%).

Figure 10

Presentation of governmental measures per type of medium (Fisher’s exact p-value = 0.000) (to see Figure 10, please click here).

Lastly, an additional point of interest is that there was a slight increase (65.9%) in reporting such actions during the second reference period (Figure 11).

Figure 11

Presentation of governmental measures per period (Fisher’s exact p-value = 0.004) (to see Figure 11, please click here).

In accordance with the results presented in Figures 5–11, our fourth research hypothesis is accepted only for the governmental measures, since an “escalating” presentation of the various measures against the pandemic by the media was encountered. The lowest percentages in the presentation of personal precautionary measures (in less than 20% of the news items analyzed) were also encountered, followed by social distancing measures (in approximately 30% of our news items), whereas the most frequent references, concerning governmental measures, were encountered in more than 60% of our analysis units. This significant difference in the percentages of the presentation of governmental measures by the media may be attributed to the funding provided by the state as a means to support ongoing governmental risk management.

Finally, regarding the presentation of experts’ advice by the Greek journalists (RQ2), it is important to mention at this point that in our research protocol, the World Health Organization experts, the National Public Health Organization experts, and other representatives coming from the public and private health sectors were regarded as official health sources. The findings outlined in Figure 12 reveal that there was a higher reference to an expert’s opinion to the following news sites: newsit.gr (50%), protothema.gr (49.5%), Lifo.gr (37.5%), and TV stations: STAR (64.1%), MEGA (36.8%), and the public ERT1 (23%).

Figure 12

Presentation of experts per medium (Chi square Test p-value = 0.000) (to see Figure 12, please click here).

In addition, news sites incorporated significantly more health experts’ advice (34,6%) compared to TV stations (29,6%) (Figure 13).

Figure 13

Presentation of experts per type of medium (Fisher’s exact p-value = 0.010) (to see Figure 13, please click here).

Interestingly enough, there is a statistically significant relationship between experts’ advice and the reference period. It seems that journalists relied more heavily on health experts (37,3%) in an attempt to effectively communicate ways to combat coronavirus, especially after the public announcement of the first death in Greece (Figure 14), though experts “appear” in significantly less than half of the news items under scrutiny, either in terms of medium type or reference period.

Figure 14

Presentation of experts per period (Fisher’s exact p-value = 0.000) (to see Figure 14, please click here).

Discussion-Conclusions

The present study sought to investigate several basic parameters of the presentation of the coronavirus pandemic by the Greek media (agenda setting, priming, framing, reference to personal or governmental measures against the pandemic, presence of experts in the news items or articles).

In summary, our research confirmed that Greek media covered extensively the coronavirus issue in terms of both agenda setting and priming. As our results demonstrated, TV news bulletins were hyper-focused on the pandemic’s impact, and news sites prioritized the pandemic. It is worth mentioning at this point that, throughout our analysis, the period of reference (especially the one after the public announcement of the first death by coronavirus) emerged as an important factor in examining the media coverage of the pandemic rather than the type of medium. Hence, the public announcement of the first human loss in Greece during the pandemic acted as a catalyst, so that the Greek media multiplied their journalistic focus on the issue. This finding can serve as a reference point (independent variable) for the comparative examination of a wide variety of aspects regarding the coverage of the pandemic in different countries and/or different media systems.

This study also examined the salience of certain frames as our third hypothesis postulated. Overall, thematic frames outweighed the episodic ones, a finding that is in accordance with previous research, suggesting that pandemic news tends to be more susceptible to thematic framing since, in this way, a pandemic is constructed as a “public” problem that requires collective action (Lee & Basnyat, 2013, p. 130). However, even though thematic framing was confirmed, our results indicated the prevalence of the human-interest frame rather than the responsibility and conflict frames (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). It is speculated that the main reasonable account for this focus is, on the one hand, the dangerous and uncertain nature of the coronavirus pandemic leading to personalized news coverage, while on the other, as relevant research has shown, the tendency of the Greek media to overemphasize the dramatic appeal during pandemics (Pleios & Poulakidakos, 2013).

Regarding the presentation of precautionary measures, our findings suggested an “escalating” presentation of actions taken by the government (e.g., prohibition of gatherings, border closure, and airport screening) against the pandemic. More specifically, the lowest percentages appeared in the presentation of personal precautionary measures, followed by social distancing measures, whereas the most frequent references, concerning governmental measures, were encountered in more than 60% of our analysis units. The emphasis placed on governmental measures by the Greek media may be attributed, as discussed earlier, to the “emergency”, direct funding they received from the Greek government as a means to support ongoing governmental risk management.

Lastly, the current study explored the presentation of experts’ advice in the news coverage of the pandemic. Interestingly enough, even though journalists were found to rely more on health experts during the second reference period, the overall results do not demonstrate an overwhelming dependence on health experts’ advice. One possible explanation for this finding may be based on the fact that, although there is an increased need for scientific and precise information, the interpenetration of multiple stakeholders, such as industry, government, and scientists in the health sector, poses significant challenges to journalists nowadays in their efforts to find reliable sources and discover possible conflicts of interest (Stroobant, Van den Bogaert, & Raeymaeckers, 2019, p. 1839).

This research attempted to analyze the Greek media content on the pandemic in order to contribute to a broader view of the coverage of COVID-19. Despite the fact that it concerns only the Greek media landscape, it can lead to a deeper understanding of public health crisis coverage. Furthermore, by analyzing how the same content was articulated, it aims to unravel what really happens in the Greek media. If the same could be done for other media systems or countries, it would be very useful for the scientific community to draw comparative results. At the same time, our research is based on a protocol that includes variables that could be examined in other countries’ media content too. Therefore, it can also function as a research tool for conducting research in different countries.

The findings of our study are limited to a content analysis of news bulletins and news sites within the Greek context. In order to gain more in-depth knowledge regarding the media coverage of the coronavirus pandemic, future research could be enhanced through comparative results in diverse cultural settings and by focusing on the ways people perceive news media through the examination of the audience’s frames.

A summary of this paper was presented at the online international conference: Individual, family, society: contemporary challenges, fifth edition, October 4–5, 2023, Bucharest, Romania, and published in the journal Studii şi Cercetări de Antropologie, No. 8/2023.

References

  1. Abraham, T. (2007). Twenty-First Century Plague: The Story of SARS. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
  2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
  3. Berelson, B. (1971). Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York: Hafner Publishing Company.
  4. Briggs, C. L. & Hallin, D. C. (2016). Making Health Public: How News Coverage is Remaking Media, Medicine, and Contemporary Life. London: Routledge.
  5. Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Galeazzi, A., Valensise, C. M., Brugnoli, E., Schmidt, A. L., Zola, P., Zollo, F. & Scala, A. (2020). The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports, 10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5.
  6. Dan, V. & Raupp, J. (2018). A systematic review of frames in news reporting of health risks: Characteristics, construct consistency vs. name diversity, and the relationship of frames to framing functions. Health, Risk & Society, 20(3), 203-226. doi: 10.1080/13698575.2018.1522422.
  7. Demertzis, N. (2020). Η πανδημία ως τραύμα [The pandemic as trauma]. Dianeosis, Retrieved from https://www.dianeosis.org/2020/06/i-pandimia-os-travma/?fbclid=IwAR1mJIY3vYEjux-GuBa7BM1r0cfrVIjU8EZkSBjEL-wHudyQ7Xt_iEMqFRc [accessed 26 September 2023].
  8. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27. doi; 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
  9. Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics using the SPSS, 4th edition. London: SAGE.
  10. Gamson, W. A. & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780405 [accessed 26 September 2023].
  11. Hallin, D. C. & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  13. Klemm, C., Das, E. & Hartmann, T. (2016). Swine flu and hype: A systematic review of media dramatization of the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Journal of Risk Research, 19(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2014.923029.
  14. Lee, S. T. (2014). Predictors of H1N1 influenza pandemic news coverage: Explicating the relationships between framing and news release selection. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 8, 294-310. doi: 10.1080/1553118X.2014.913596.
  15. Lee, S. T. & Basnyat, I. (2013). From press release to news: Mapping the framing of the 2009 H1N1 A influenza pandemic. Health Communication, 28, 119-132. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2012.658550.
  16. Marinescu, V. & Mitu, B. (2016). Introduction: emerging trends in media and health research. In V. Marinescu & B. Mitu (Eds.), The Power of the Media in Health Communication (pp. 1-8). London: Routledge.
  17. McInnes, C. & Roemer-Mahler, A. (2017). From security to risk: reframing global health news. International Affairs, 93(6), 1313-1337. doi: 10.1093/ia/iix187.
  18. Medeiros, F. N. S. & Massarani, L. (2010, December). Spreading news or panic? A study case on Brazilian TV: Coverage of A (H1N1) 2009 influenza. In 11th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, New Delhi, India (pp. 461-465). Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/27795076/Spreading_News_or_Panic [accessed 26 September 2023].
  19. Miller, L. R. & Brewer, D. J, (2003). The A-Z of Social Research. London: Sage.
  20. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. London: SAGE.
  21. Pleios, G. & Poulakidakos, S. (2013). Η1Ν1 και τηλεοπτικές ειδήσεις: κωδικός ενημέρωσης ή πανικού; [H1N1 and television news: A code of information or panic?]. Ζητήματα Επικοινωνίας [Communication Issues], 16-17, 88-109.
  22. Poirier, W., Ouellet, C., Rancourt, M. A., Béchard, J. & Dufresne, Y. (2020). (Un)Covering the COVID-19 Pandemic: Framing Analysis of the Crisis in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science. Revue Canadienne De Science Politique, 53(2), 1-7. doi.org/10.1017/S0008423920000372.
  23. Scheufele, D. A. & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x.
  24. Semetko, H. A. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x.
  25. Stavrakakis, G. (2020). Ιδεολογικές όψεις της υγειονομικής κρίσης (COVID19) [Ideological aspects of the health crisis (COVID19)]. Retrieved from https://poulantzas.gr/yliko/giannis-stavrakakis-ideologikes-opsis-tis-ygionomikis-krisis-covid19/ [accessed 28 September 2023].
  26. Stroobant, J., Van den Bogaert, S. & Raeymaeckers, K. (2019). When medicine meets media: How health news is co-produced between health and media professionals. Journalism Studies, 20(13), 1828-1845. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2018.1539344/
  27. Uzuegbunam, C. E., Duru, H. C., Okafor, G. O. & Ugbo, G. O. (2016). Media coverage of the Ebola Virus Disease: a content analytical study of The Guardian and Daily Trust newspapers. In V. Marinescu & B. Mitu (Eds.), The Power of the Media in Health Communication (pp. 29-42). London: Routledge.
  28. Vasterman, P. L. M. & Ruigrok, N. (2013). 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, 28(4), 436-453. doi: 10.1177/0267323113486235,
  29. Weaver, D. H. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing and priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 142-147. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x.
  30. Woodly, D. (2008). News competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political participation. Public Choice, 134(1/2), 109-123. doi: 10.1007/s11127-007-9204-7.

 

PDF
HTML