Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

Editor-in-Chief: Renda-Tanali, Irmak, D.Sc.

Managing Editor: McGee, Sibel, Ph.D.

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.474
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.627

CiteScore 2016: 0.57

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.245
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.358

Online
ISSN
1547-7355
See all formats and pricing
More options …

“Of Gods and Men”: Selected Print Media Coverage of Natural Disasters and Industrial Failures in Three Westminster Countries

Kevin F. Quigley / John Quigley
Published Online: 2013-04-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2012-0054

Abstract

This article examines selected print media coverage of a domestic natural disaster and domestic industrial failure in each of three Westminster countries: Australia, Canada, and the UK. It studies this coverage from several perspectives: the volume of coverage; the rate at which the articles were published; the tone of the headlines; and a content analysis of the perceived performance of key public and private institutions during and following the events. Its initial findings reveal that the natural disasters received more coverage than the industrial failures in each of the newspapers considered. There was also no significant difference in the publication rate across event type or newspaper. In each case, government was assessed at least as frequently and negatively as non-government actors, particularly during and following industrial failures. The manner in which government and non-government actors were assessed following these events suggests that, contrary to government claims that owners and operators of critical infrastructure (CI) are responsible for its successful operation, government in fact is “in the frame” as frequently as the industry owners and operators are. In addition, the negative assessments of governments following industrial failures in particular may prompt over-reaction by policy makers to industrial failures and under-reaction to natural disasters. This inconsistency is indeed ironic because the latter occur more often and cost more, both financially and socially. We reviewed 340 newspaper articles from three different newspapers: The Australian’s coverage of the Canberra bushfires and the Waterfall train accident, The Globe and Mail’s (Canada) coverage of Hurricane Juan and the de la Concorde overpass collapse, and The Daily Telegraph’s (UK) coverage of the 2007 floods and the Potters Bar train wreck. Our sample size is small; our ability to compare across newspapers and countries limited. Further research is warranted.

Keywords: government performance; industrial failures; media coverage; natural disasters

References

  • Alaszewski, A. (2005) “Risk Communication: Identifying the Importance of Social Context,” Health Risk and Society, 7(2):101–106.Google Scholar

  • Atwood, L. E. and A. M. Major. (2000) “Optimism, Pessimism, and Communication Behavior in Response to an Earthquake Prediction,” Public Understanding of Science, 9(2):417–431.Google Scholar

  • Australian Government. Attorney General’s Department. (2011) Trusted Information Sharing Network. TISN for Critical Infrastructure Resilience [Internet]. Available at: http://www.tisn.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx (accessed October 11 2011).

  • Bakir, V. (2010) “Media and Risk: Old and New Research Directions,” Journal of Risk Research, 13(1):221–228.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, M. D., C. L. Hanson, L. M. B. Novilla, A. T. Meacham, E. McIntyre and B. C. Erikson. (2008) “Analysis of Media Agenda Setting During and After Hurricane Katrina: Implications for Emergency Preparedness, Disasters Response, and Disaster Policy,” American Journal of Public Health, 98(4):604–610.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baron, J., J. C. Hershey and H. Kunreuther. (2000) “Determinants of Priority for Risk Reduction: The Role of Worry,” Risk Analysis, 20(4):413–428.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boholm, M. (2009) “Risk and Causality in Newspaper Reporting,” Risk Analysis, 29(11):1566–1577.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Brun, W. (1994) “Risk Perception: Main Issues, Approaches, and Findings.” In: (G. Wright and P. Ayton, eds.) Subjective Probability. Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp. 295–320.Google Scholar

  • Canada. Public Safety Canada. (2011) Canadian Disaster Database [updated 14 January 2011]. Available at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/cdd/srch-eng.aspx (accessed October 12 2011).

  • CBC News. (2005) Forces of Nature [Internet]. Cited December 2011. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/forcesofnature/index.html (accessed December, 2011).

  • Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure. (2011) Available at: http://www.cpni.gov.uk (accessed October 12 2011).

  • Conver, W. J. (1999) Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Cottle, S. (2000) “New(s) Times: Towards a ‘Second Wave’ of News Ethnography,” Communications, 25(1):19–42.Google Scholar

  • Drottz-Sjoberg, B. M. (1991) “Non-Experts Definitions of Risk and Risk Perception.” In RHIZIKON: Risk Research Reports, no. 3. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.Google Scholar

  • Fischhoff, B. (1985) “Managing Risk Perception,” Issues in Science and Technology, 2:3–96.Google Scholar

  • Fischhoff, B. (1995) “Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process,” Risk Analysis, 15(2):137–145.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Frewer, L. (2004) “The Public and Effective Risk Communication,” Toxicology Letters, 149(1):391–397.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gaskell, G., M. Bauer, J. Durant and N. Allum. (1999) “Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the US,” Science, 285(16):384–387.Google Scholar

  • Hood, C., H. Rothstein and R. Baldwin. (2001). The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hughes, A. and L. Pelan. (2010) “Twitter Adoption and Use in Mass Convergence and Emergency Events,” International Journal of Emergency Management, 6(3/4):248–260.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, B. B. and V. Y. Cavello. (1987) The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk. Dordrecht: Reidel, 12.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, P., A. Couture and R. Nicolet. (2007) Report of the Commission of inquiry into the collapse of a portion of the de la Concorde overpass [Internet]. Quebec: Gouvernement du Québec. Available at: http://www.cevc.gouv.qc.ca/UserFiles/File/Rapport/report_eng.pdf (accessed December 2011).

  • Kasperson, R., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. Brown, J. Emel, R. Globe, J. Kasperson and S. Ratick. (1998) “The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,” Risk Analysis, 8(2):177–187.Google Scholar

  • Kitzinger, J. and J. Reilly. (1997) “The Rise and Fall of Risk Reporting: Media Coverage of Human Genetics Research, False Memory Syndrome and Mad Cow Disease,” European Journal of Communication, 12(3):319–350.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kraus, N. N., T. Malmfors and P. Slovic. (2001) “Intuitive Toxicology: Experts and Lay Judgements of Chemical Risks.” In: (P. Slovic, ed.) Perception of Risk. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 285–315.Google Scholar

  • Leahy, P. J. and A. Mazur. (1980) “The Rise and Fall of Public Opposition in Specific Social Movements,” Social Studies of Science, 10(3):259–284.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McInerney, P. (2005) Special Commission of Inquiry into the Waterfall Rail Accident [Internet]. New South Wales. Cited December 2011. Available at: http://www.railcorp.info/data/assets/pdf_file/0017/7145/Waterfall_Inquiry-Final_Report.pdf (accessed December, 2011).

  • McLeod, R. (2003) Inquiry into the Operational Response to the January 2003 Bushfires in the ACT [Internet]. Canberra: Cabinet Office. Cited December 2011. Available at: http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0008/113939/McLeodInquiry.pdf (accessed December, 2011).

  • Moeller, S. D. (2006) “Regarding the Pain of Others: Media, Bias and the Coverage of International Disasters,” Journal of International Affairs, 59(2):173–196.Google Scholar

  • Mutz, D. C. and J. Soss. (1997) “Reading Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on Perceptions of Public Sentiment,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(3):431–451.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pidgeon, N. (1997) “The Limits to Safety? Culture, Politics, Learning and Man-Made Disasters,” Jounal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5(1):1–14.Google Scholar

  • Quigley, K. (2005) “Bug Reactions: Considering US Government and UK Government Y2K Operations in Light of Media Coverage and Public Opinion Polls,” Health, Risk & Society, 7(3):267–291.Google Scholar

  • Quigley, K. (2008) “Opinion-Responsive Hypothesis.” In: Responding to Crises in the Modern Infrastructure: Policy Lessons from Y2K, Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 95–121.Google Scholar

  • Quigley, K., J. Quigley and E. Pond. (2012) “Convergence, Variation and Volatility in H1N1 Coverage in Four National Newspapers.” CIP Initiative Working Paper. Published at www.cip.management.dal.ca.

  • Rowe, G., L. Frewer and L. Sjoberg. (2000) “Newspaper Reporting of Hazards in the UK and Sweden,” Public Understanding of Science, 9(1):59–78.Google Scholar

  • Rundmo, T. (1999) “Perceived Risk, Health and Consumer Behaviour,” Journal of Risk Research, 2(3):187–200.Google Scholar

  • Rundmo, T. and B. E. Moen. (2006) “Risk Perception and Demand for Risk Mitigation in Transport: A Comparison of Lay People, Politicians and Experts,” Journal of Risk Research, 6:623–640.Google Scholar

  • Slovic, P. (1987). “Perception of Risk,” Science, 236:280–285.Google Scholar

  • Slovic, P., M. L. Finucane, E. Peters and D. G. MacGregor. (2004) “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts About Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality,” Risk Analysis, 24(2):311–322.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Soumerai, S. B., D. Ross-Degnan, and J. S. Kahn. 1992. “Effects of Professional and Media Warnings about the Association between Aspirin Use in Children and Reye’s Syndrome,” Millbank Quarterly, 70(1):155–182.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steinberg, T. (2000) Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • United Kingdom. Cabinet Office. (2008) Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods – Full Report [Internet]. Available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100807034701/ http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/_/media/assets/ www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/flooding_review/pitt_review_full%20pdf.pdf (accessed December 2011).

  • United Kingdom. Health and Safety Executive. (2002) Train Derailment at Potters Bar – Friday 10 May 2002: HSE Interim Report [Internet]. Cited December 2011. Available from http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/incident-pottersbar-interim.pdf (accessed December, 2011).

  • United States. Department of Homeland Security. (2008) One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland: US Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2009–2013. Available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/DHS_StratPlan_FINAL_spread.pdf (accessed October 11 2011).

  • Wahlberg, A. and L. Sjoberg. (2000) “Risk perception and the media,” Journal of Risk Research, 3(1):31–50.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Kevin F. Quigley, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada, e-mail:


Published Online: 2013-04-13

Published in Print: 2013-01-01


For the U.S., see US, Department of Homeland Security (2008); for the UK, see Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (2011); for Australia, see Australian Government, Attorney General’s Department (2011); for Canada, see Canada, Public Safety Canada (2011).

For example, see Public Safety Canada’s Canadian Disaster Database, the International Disaster Database at the Université catholique de Louvain or the Attorney General of Australia’s Emergency Management Australia Disasters Database. The Canadian Disaster Database, for instance, reports that natural disasters occur 40 times more frequently in Canada than conflict disasters. This ratio has been (relatively) stable for over 40 years.

All three countries derive their governance arrangements from the Westminster tradition. Canada and Australia are federal systems. The UK is traditionally described as a unitary state, though devolution introduced a degree of decentralization that is similar to a federation.

For Australia, see Australian Government, Attorney General’s Department (2011); for Canada, see Canada, Public Safety Canada (2011); for the UK, see Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (2011).

The Daily Telegraph publishes seven days per week; the other two newspapers publish 6 days per week. For the purposes of this research, this difference only affects volume of coverage and performance assessment of government and industry.

Local media coverage may well yield different results but they are not part of this research project.

Rowe, Frewer, and Sjoberg examine how science and technology risks are communicated to the public.

Using a one-sided Mann-Whitney test for comparing these samples resulted in an exact p value of 0.05.

If we were to assume that the publication time of each article was independent and identically distributed we would obtain a 95% confidence interval about the median of (26.57, 29.42). The strength of such an assumption would rely in part on the similarities between the distributions for each event.

We used the Mann-Whitney U test when comparing two sub-populations and the Kruskal-Wallis Test when comparing more than two (Conver 1999).

Using the Kruskal-Wallis test, the hypothesis that the three distributions in Figure 3 are sampled from the same distribution resulted in a significance value of 0.966 and thus would not be rejected at the 5% level.

Using the Mann-Whitney U test to assess the difference in the distributions between event types we obtained a significance value of 0.298 so the null hypothesis that the two distributions have the same underlying distribution would not be rejected at the 5% level.

Using a Kruskal-Wallis test, we obtained a significance test statistic of 0.004, thus a statistically significant difference at the 1% significance level.

For the U.S., see US, Department of Homeland Security (2008); for the UK, see Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (2011); for Australia, see Australian Government, Attorney General’s Department (2011); for Canada, see Canada, Public Safety Canada (2011).


Citation Information: Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, ISSN (Online) 1547-7355, ISSN (Print) 2194-6361, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2012-0054.

Export Citation

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Kevin Quigley, Colin Macdonald, and John Quigley
Canadian Public Administration, 2016, Volume 59, Number 2, Page 267

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in