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.
Alaszewski, A. (2005) “Risk Communication: Identifying the Importance of Social Context,” Health Risk and Society, 7(2):101–106.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Boholm, M. (2009) “Risk and Causality in Newspaper Reporting,” Risk Analysis, 29(11):1566–1577.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pidgeon, N. (1997) “The Limits to Safety? Culture, Politics, Learning and Man-Made Disasters,” Jounal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5(1):1–14.
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.
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.
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.
Rundmo, T. (1999) “Perceived Risk, Health and Consumer Behaviour,” Journal of Risk Research, 2(3):187–200.
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.
Slovic, P. (1987). “Perception of Risk,” Science, 236:280–285.
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.
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.
Steinberg, T. (2000) Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (JHSEM) publishes original, innovative and timely articles describing and assessing research and practice in the fields of homeland security and emergency management. JHSEM promotes a comprehensive and dynamic perspective, providing readers with up-to-date information regarding the evolving nature of the homeland security and emergency management fields.