Doctoral research proposal

Name: Belinda Forde Course: PhD Media

Email address: coua99@bangor.ac.uk
Belindaforde2010@hotmail.co.uk

Provisional title (working title): Disaster Reporting: An Analysis of Journalistic Risk

Assessment and Communication, disaster and Evacuation Communication Systems
and journalistic reporting of Communicating Disaster Information (from Chernobyl to
Covid-19).

Central question/hypothesis for investigation:

Do journalists manipulate events to further the political agenda of Western
Governments, and what are the consequences of untrustworthy, journalistic risk
communications and disaster reporting?
Aims of the research
To extend my past research from my Undergraduate Module Journalism & Risk
regarding postmodern ‘risk society.’
To assess the implications of untrustworthy journalistic risk communication regarding
early disaster warnings such as natural disasters.
The purpose of this study is to use the literature about untrustworthy journalistic risk
communication of prior natural disasters and early warning systems to investigate
COVID-19 reporting and predict the outcome of such reporting.
To explore if journalists may or may not contribute to the construction of scientific
ignorance and how culpable they are in the social construction of ignorance in
scientific controversies.
The purpose of this study is to use the literature on scientific ignorance and
controversies to investigate COVID-19 reporting and predict the outcome.
To understand why specific institutions might work with Journalists to try and
manufacture doubt over scientists’ claims.
To use the literature about manufactured scientific claims by scientific institutions to
pinpoint such cases during Covid 19.
To research prior manipulation by officials regarding inaccurate information leaks to
journalists to protect their self-interests or government interests and the ethical
responsibilities and dilemmas of journalists when dealing with national security risk
information, especially in times of heightened fear.
To link prior research/literature to understand how journalists report COVID-19 and
the problems this may/may have caused.
Main aim: Bringing light to journalistic risk assessment and communication, disaster
and evacuation communication systems, and journalistic reporting of disaster
information whilst analysing the reporting of COVID-19 and the risk disaster reporting
has on society.
Description of topic/research gap: This research will add to the gap in research on
the aftermath of Covid 19 reporting. As this is a current worldwide issue, research
has yet to be conducted into the journalistic reporting of Covid-19, and this research
aims to fill that gap. This is important in understanding not only the problems in
COVID-19 reporting but also the effect it may have on society and how the
government deals with this disaster. This PhD will shed light on the reasoning behind
the mass hysteria created by sensationalist headlines and why these headlines may
benefit certain institutions by looking at how this was discovered in the aftermath of
previous disasters.

Literature review

Please note: This research is from my undergraduate module, Journalism & Risk, which
discusses postmodern ‘risk society’. I found this subject so intriguing I wish to extend this
further in my PhD. I was unable to add any further comprehensive research I found due to
word count, which I can do in the PhD literature review. For the PhD dissertation, I wish to
extend the peer research noted in this literature review, explore these issues further, and
discuss in detail the consequences of these issues. The existing research also does not
address the most recent events of Covid-19. My PhD research aims to do so.

During the past two decades, researchers have produced extensive case

studies regarding risk assessment and disaster/crisis communications in some of the

most complex journalistic reporting (see Bowonder, 1987; Cutter and Barnes, 1982;

Kurzmann, 1987; Perry et al., 1980; Shrivastava, 1987) combined with studies of

early warning and evacuation communication systems (see Bresnitz, 1984; Lindell,

1984; Lindell et al., 1983; Nilson and Nilson, 1981; Quarantelli, 1983; Sorenson and

Vogt, 1987; Turner et al., 1981). With people gaining vital disaster information and

knowledge from the media (Wenger et al. 1975) the most comprehensive research

consists of the role media plays in reporting and communicating disaster information

(see Kreps, 1984; Mazur, 1984; Rogers and Sood, 1981; Sandman et al., 1987;

Scanlon et al., 1985) along with how society contends with risk management is

disputed in new sociological debate (Perrow, 1984; Luhmann, 1986; Beck, 1992).
 Otway and Peltu (1985) state that in modern risk management,

media/journalists pose as mere actors, humouring those in the performance of its

application (Otway and Peltu (1985). Peter (1986) suggests that journalists are

influenced by public opinion in such processes and consider the sentiments of their

audiences when determining the information representation and selection (Peters,

1986).

Research by Protess et al. (1987) also suggests collaborations between

journalists and policymakers through social processes had a more significant policy

influence than the impact of the broadcasted material itself. Cook et al. (1983)

suggest a “symbiotic relationship” often derives between risk management actors

such as journalists and policymakers, whilst journalists usually abandon story

credibility when enticed by obtaining individual recognition by developing policy

solutions in their articles.

Turner’s model of man-made disasters (Turner, 1978) illustrates how

institutional and physiological tensions/pressures cause journalists to remain silent or

slow in reporting future catastrophes. For example, Weis and Burke (1986) and

Rubin and Sachs (1973) observed self-censorship by journalists to avoid conflict with

editors on controversial stories or advertisers, such as the deletion of anti-smoking

text from health supplements in News Week (Sachs, 1973: 46-47). Researchers

such as Lichtenstein et al. (1978), Turner (1978), and Weis and Burke (1986) argue

that media comes from what is told and not necessarily what is reality, with media

often failing to report adverse events or informing of potential warnings or incidents

that may arise (Lichtenstein et al. 1978).

The over-reliance on information presented to them without accurate

verification and the difficulties with information cohesion, credibility and consistency
between varying sources cause significant inaccuracies and embellishments by

journalists (Rubin, 1987). Sandman et al. (1987) suggest journalists rely too

unhesitatingly on a specific source/article rather than considering premeditated bias,

with risk information often coming from government sources which may have political

agendas in mind. Such as the Three Mile Island (Sandman et al., 1987) and

Chernobyl (Walker, 1986) coverage containing a lack of sincerity within sources, with

the part-truths by the Soviet society or the political agenda by Western governments

causing an absence of journalists divulging the true horror of the catastrophes which

lead to momentous consequences.

Advertising and PR techniques play an important role in risk communication

and, in part, the ethical problems faced by journalists, from convenient leaks of

information to “extensive background lobbying” and press releases ((Clarke et al.,

1985; Lichtenberg, 1991). In October 1987, a press conference set by the Influenza

Monitoring and Information Bureau governed that a killer flu epidemic was at large,

which saw an increase in the manufacturing and trade of flu vaccines; this was later

reprimanded as a falsehood which broke the code of conduct promoting products via

the media (Ferriman, 1988).

Mazur (1987) describes PR activities by environmental activists as including

staging/manipulating events to further their political agenda. For example, in 1985,

the US Environmental Agency leaked a 5-year-old internal report to a New York

Times reporter estimating high annual lung cancer deaths, which saw an increase in

indoor radon or ‘pseudo-events’ staged protests by nuclear test areas, which

encouraged an upsurge in media coverage.

Sachsman (1976 ) and A BBC television reporter (requoted in Lichtenberg,

1991: 19) claimed Greenpeace not only challenges their enemy but ensures the
world can view the conflict (Lichtenberg, 1991) with 25 %-50 % of environmental

reporting in 1970s San Francisco being predominately influenced by PR aims

(Sachsman, 1976). For example, in 1988, Dr James Hansen presented evidence

suggesting that the current drought was a predecessor of ‘the greenhouse effect’

with sensational headlines following, which was then determined as premature

without further studies of long-term, cyclical weather anomalies and patterns

(Lichtenberg, 1991).

Singer and Endreny (1987), Sandman et al. (1987) and Otway and Peltu

(1985) suggest journalists concentrate on what makes a dramatic, rare and

innovative good journalism story, with long-familiar ailments deeming less dramatic

than new, exotic diseases promising drama of epidemic proportions (Singer and

Endreny, 1987; Sandman et al. 1987). Burton et al. (1983), Combs and Slovic

(1979), Mazur (1984) and Adams (1986) also suggest that the most

critical/predominant disasters get little exposure compared to dramatic or sensational

stories with larger-scale catastrophic potential. Journalists also often focus on

scandals/authority mistrust (Slovic et al., 1984) or controversial disputes amongst

experts surrounding disaster and crisis management (Sandman et al., 1987; Nelkin

et al., 1978), which stir human interest and sensationalism (Rogers and Sood, 1981;

Peltu,1985).

Vacor (1986) and Twentieth Century Task Fund (1984) argue that journalists

look for ‘objective truths’ to sustain balance and correct biased sources (Vacor,

1986) and do a virtuous job in broadcasting complex scientific matters with a

judicious, impartial degree of accurateness despite their constraints (Twentieth

Century Task Fund, 1984). However, Valor suggests risk reporting is often motivated
by what makes good television, usually affixing blame and dramatic victim accounts

(Vacor, 1986; Otway and Peltu, 1985).

Methodology

Literature review and previous research

Literature from Peers and Theorists regarding historical disaster reporting and its

implications, such as mad cow disease, Three Mile Island (Sandman et al., 1987)

and Chernobyl (Walker, 1986).

Extensive case studies regarding risk assessment and disaster/crisis

communications in some of the most complex journalistic reporting (Bowonder,

1987; Cutter and Barnes, 1982; Kurzmann, 1987; Perry et al., 1980; Shrivastava,

1987) combined with studies of early warning and evacuation communication

systems (Bresnitz, 1984; Lindell, 1984; Lindell et al., 1983; Nilson and Nilson, 1981;

Quarantelli, 1983; Sorenson and Vogt, 1987; Turner et al., 1981).

Research into Journalistic reporting of dramatic or sensational stories with larger-

scale catastrophic potential and scandals/authority mistrust (Slovic et al., 1984)

Quantitative content Analysis of COVID-19 reporting using Risk Reporting

guidelines

Using the guidelines set out by The Rutgers University Environmental Risk

Reporting Project (see Sandman et al. 1987 and Lichtenberg, 1991), which provides

directions for journalist risk-reporting to avoid controversy, bias, political cohesion

and cover-ups to stop the criticism of experts deeming the media being inexact,

over-simplified, and prejudiced (Bellamy, 1980; 1985). I will analyse the techniques

(or lack thereof) used when reporting Covid-19. I will then use Qualitative content

analysis/methodology of a sample of the articles for an in-depth, reflective analysis

(Altheide, 2007, Schneider, 2012) of latent content and underlying meaning (Emslie,

Mason and Patterson, 2016: 3).

Quantitative content Analysis

I will note the media coverage of COVID-19, pinpointing specific issues and

keywords used in tabloids and newspapers.

I will use Quantitative content analysis to measure the frequency of manifest content

(Emslie, Mason and Patterson, 2016: 3, Kumar and Neuendorf, 2006) across the

articles, which does not require interpretation which will be collated into graphs

showing the difference between reporting of Covid-19 between UK national

newspapers and popular online news of quality, middle-market tabloids, both left-

wing and right-wing broadsheets and tabloids with varying political ideologies

(adopting Emslie, Mason and Patterson, 2016: 3 methodology). This typology allows

for a diverse readership sample of age, social class and political alignment (Emslie,

Mason and Patterson, 2016: 2; Hilton, Patterson and Teyhan, 2012) while noting

trends or differences between them.

Polls/scales/Secondary analysis
As this is a hot topic, I will also note previous research and studies in the

literature and peer studies looking at similar issues, which will prove advantageous

when looking at opinion polls and previously aggregated data. The advantages of

using other studies of similar subjects not only back up my findings from already

proven research but also help gain a more comprehensive examination of public

opinion without the time and budget constrictions of my study (Lewis, 2003: 61).

Based in Wales, with limited means of travel, gaining access to both national and

international studies, allows me to draw my conclusions from their data which should

correspond with my own more minor research. This also may help pinpoint additional
studies leading on from this paper addressing issues surrounding my subject, such

as looking at the global effect of COVID-19 and its reporting. These studies and polls

provide proven, substantial, and lucrative data that will combine with my own

research to achieve a thorough and well-researched study.

Resources and ethical clearance:
‘I will not be conducting interviews or questionnaires but agree that the research will
comply with the agreed international standards for good practise in social research,
and I am aware of the ethical issues of using published work or specific documents
and the clearances I will need if I do so.’
Signed: B. Forde Date: 15.6.20

Project Management and Schedule:

(Please note the schedule is subject due to being unsure when the PhD can start)

November-December 2020 – Literature V01 complete.

November-December 2020- Send the Literature V01 to supervisor

Supervisor meeting 1 and Literature Review Discussion.

December/January 2021- Make Changes to Literature Review. Start Methodology

V01.

January-March 2021 Methodology V01 Complete and Send to Supervisor

Supervisor meeting 2 and Methodology Discussion.

January/February/March 2021- Make Changes to methodology. Results and Data

V01 start.

March-July 2021 Results and Data V01 start Complete and Send to Supervisor.

Supervisor Meeting 3 and Results Discussion

July 2021-September 2021 Introduction, Methodology V02 & Conclusion

COMPLETE and sent to Supervisor

Supervisor meeting 4 Introduction, Methodology V02 & Conclusion discussion

September 2021-September-2022 Literature Review V02 and Results v02

Complete and sent to supervisor

Supervisor meeting 5 Literature Review V02 and Results v02 discussion

September 2022 onwards, FINALISE ALL. READY FOR SUBMISSION.

Main References
Adams, W.C. 1986. Whose Lives Count?: TV Coverage of Natural Disasters, Journal of
Communication, 36(2), pp. 113-122.
Beck, U. 1987. The Anthropological Shock: Chernobyl and the Contours of the Risk
Society. Berkley Journal of Sociology, 32, pp. 153-165.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U. 1995. Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press
Beck, U. 1997. The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social
Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. 2006 Living in the World Risk Society. Economy and Society, 35(3), pp. 329-
345.
Beck, U. Risk Society and the Provident State. In: Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne,
J. (eds). 1996. Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London:
Sage.
Beck, U. Self-Dissolution and Self-Endangerment of Industrial Society: What Does This
Mean? In: Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S (eds). 1994. Reflexive Modernization:
Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Beck, U. The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization. In:
Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S (eds). 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics,
Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Beck, U. The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization. In:
Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S (eds). 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics,
Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Polity Press, Cambridge. pp. 1-55
Bellamy, D. 1980. Why Scientists are Cynical About the Media, Journalism Studies
Review, 5, pp. 37-39.
Bellamy, D. 1985. Health Risk Reporting. Institute for Health Policy Analysis.
Washington, D.C.: Journal America Water Works Association.
Bowonder, B. 1987. Low probability event: a case study in risk assessment. Industrial
Hazard Management. Surrey: Beech Tree Publishing.
Bresnitz, S. 1984. Cry Wolf: The psychology of false alarm. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
Burton, I., Victor, P. and Whyte, A. 1983. The Mississaugua Evacuation: Final Report to
the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General. Toronto: Institute for Environmental
Studies.
Chester, J. and Montgomery, K., 1988. Counterfeiting the News, Columbia Journalism
Review, 27(1), pp. 38-41.
Chilvers, J. and Macnaghten, P. 2011. The Future of Science Governance: A review of
public concerns, governance and institutional response.
Clarke, T.K., Schellinck, D.A. and Leonard, T.L. 1985. Developing an Effective
Communication Strategy to Modify Environmental: Related Consumer Behaviour,
International. Journal of Advertising, 4(2), pp. 105-118.
Combs, B., and Slovic, P. 1979. Newspaper coverage of causes of death. Journalism
Quarterly, 56, pp. 837-843.
Cook, F.L., Tyler, T.R., Goetz, E.G., Gordon, M .T., Protess, D., Leff, D.R., and Molotch,
H.L. 1983. Media and Agenda Setting: Effects on the Public, Interest Group Leaders,
Policy Makers, and Policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), pp.16-35.
Cozzens, M.D. and Contractor, N.S. 1987. The Effect of Conflicting Information on
Media Skepticism. Communication Research, 14(4), pp. 437-451.
Cutter, S. and Barnes, K. 1982. Evacuation behavior at Three Mile Island. Disasters, 6,
pp. 116-124.
Ferriman, A. 1988. Drug Firms 'Guilty' on Flu Scare. The Observer. July 26 1988.
Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. 1997. Risk Society: the context of British politics. In: Franklin, J. (ed). 1997.
The Politics of Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. 1999. Risk and Responsibility. The Modern Law Review, 62 (1), pp. 1-10.
Kreps, G. 1984. Sociological inquiry and disaster research . In: Turner, R.H . and Short,
J.F. (eds.) Annual Review of Sociology, 10, pp. 309-330.
Kurzmann, D. 1987. The Killing Wind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lash, S. and Urry, J. 1994. Economics of Signs and Space. London: Sage.
Lichtenberg, J. and MacLean, D. 1991. The role of the media in risk communication.
Communicating risks to the public. Switzerland: Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 157-173.
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., and Combs, B. 1978. Judged
Frequency of Lethal Events: Human Learning and Memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 4(6), pp. 551- 578.
Lindell, M., Perry, W., and Greene, M. 1983. Individual response to emergency
preparedness planning near Mt . St. Helens. Disaster Management, pp. 5-11.
Lindell, M.K. 1984. Communicating risk information to the public : A review of research
on natural hazards.
Lowry, S. and DeFleur, M .L. 1983. Milestones in Mass Communication Research:
Media Effects. London: Longman.
Luhmann, N. 1986. The Theory of Social Systems and It’s Epistemology: Response to
Danilo Zolo’s Critical Comments. Sage Journals, 16 (1), pp. 129-134
Mazur, A. 1987. Putting Radon on the Public's Risk Agenda, Science, Technology and
Human Values. 12(3&4), pp. 86-93.
McCombs, M.E. and Shaw, D.L. 1972. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), pp. 176-187.
Nelkin, D. and Fallows, S. 1978. The evolution of the nuclear debate: The role of public
opinion. Annual Review of Energy, 3, pp. 275-312.
Nilson, L.B. and Nilson, D.C. 1981. Resolving the "sooner vs. later" controversy
surrounding the public announcement of earthquake predictions. Disasters, pp. 391-397.
Otway, H. and Peltu, M. 1985. Regulating Industrial Risks: Science, Hazards and Public
Protection. London and Boston: Butterworths.
Perrow, C. 1984. Normal Accidents. New York: Basic Books.
Perry, R.W., Greene, M.R., and Lindell, M .K. 1980. Enhancing evacuation warning
compliance: Suggestions for emergency planning. Disasters, 4, pp. 433-449.
Peters, H.P. 1986. Public Opinion as a Channel of Communication between Science and
other Parts of Society.

Postman, N. 1986. Amusing Ourselves to Death. London: Heinemann.

Protess, D .L., Cook, F.L., Curtin, T.R., Gordon, M.T., Leff, D.R., McCombs, M.E., and
Miller, P. 1987. The Impact of Investigative Reporting on Public Opinion and
Policymaking: Targeting Toxic Waste. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(2), pp. 166-185
Quarantelli, E. 1983. Evacuation Behaviour: Case Study of the Taft, Louisiana, Chemical
Tank Explosion Incident. Final Report to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Renn, O. 1988. Evaluation of Risk Communication: Concepts, Strategies, and Guidelines.
In: Managing Environmental Risk Proceedings of an APCA International Speciality
Conference. Washington: APCA, pp. 99-127
Rogers, E.M., and Sood, R. 1981. Mass media operations in a quick onset natural
disaster: Hurricane David in Dominica. Boulder, CO: Institute for Behavioural Sciences.
Rubin, D . and Sachs, D. 1973. Mass Media and the Environment. New York: Praeger.
Rubin, D.M. 1987. How the News Media Reported on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Journal of Communication, 37(3), pp. 42-57.
Sachsman, D.B. 1976. Public Relations Influence on Coverage of Environment in the San
Francisco Area. Journalism Quarterly, 53(1), pp. 54-60.
Sandman, P., Sachsman, D., Greenberg, M. and Gochfeld, M. 1987. Environmental Risk
and the Press. New Jersey: Transaction Books.
Sandman, P.M. 1987. Apathy Versus Hysteria: Public Perception of Risk. In Batra, L.R.
and Klassen, W. 1987. Public Perception of Biotechnology. Bethesda: Agricultural
Research Institute.
Scanlon, T.J., Alldred, S., Farrekkm, A. and Prawzick, A. 1985. Coping with the Media in
Disasters: Some Predicable Problems. Public Administration Review, 45, pp. 123-133.
Shrivastava, P. 1987. Are We Ready for Another Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Tylenol?.
Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 1(1), pp. 1-4.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. 1984. Characterizing perceived risk . In:
Kates, W. R. Hohenemser, C. and Kasperson, J.X,. (eds.). 1987. Perilous progress:
Technology as hazard. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Smith, A. 1978. The Future of the Newspaper: The Waning of the Fourth Estate.
Intermedia, 6(4), pp. 6-25.
Sorenson, J.H., and Vogt, B. 1987. Emergency Planning for Nuclear Accidents :
Contentions and Issues. Nuclear Radiation and Public Health Practices and Policies in the
Post-Chernobyl World. Journal of The Washington Academy of Sciences, 78(2), pp. 210-
225
Turner, B. 1978. Man-Made Disasters. London: Wykeham Publications.
Turner, R.H., Nigg, J.M., Paz, D.H., and Young, B.S. 1981. Community response to
earthquake threat in Southern California. Los Angeles: Institute of Social Science
Research.
Twentieth Century Fund Task Force (1984) The Communication of Scientific Risk,
Science in the Streets. New York: Priority Press.
Vacor, T. 1986. Responsibilities of Risk Communicators, Risk Communication.
Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.
Walker, M. 1986. A Stroll Along Gogol Boulevard. The Guardian, UK. May 26 1986.
Weis, W.L. and Burke, C. 1986. Media Content and Tobacco Advertising: An Unhealthy
Addiction. Journal of Communication, 36(4), pp. 59-69.
Wenger, D.E., Dykes, J.D., Sebok, T.D. and Neff', J.L. 1975. It's a matter of myths: An
empirical examination to individual insight into disaster response. Mass Emergencies, 1,
pp. 33-46.
Wynne, B. 1996 May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay
Knowledge Divide. In: S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds). 1996. Risk,
Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage.
Zimmermann, R. 1987. A Process Framework for Risk Communication. Science,
Technology, and Human Values, 12(3 & 4), pp. 131-137.