My normal area of research lies in the analysis of various media as they
report natural disasters and hazardous situations and affect public perception
and agency response. Unlike a disaster of natural origins or of technological
accident, however, this event is equally a crime and an act of war. I agreed
to do an analysis of one newspaper's coverage of these incidents and their
aftermath (
Figure 1).
I am utilizing the online edition of the Los Angeles Times, which
dominates the region in which I live. So far, I can present preliminary
results on the first six weeks of articles that the L.A. Times deemed
important enough to put on the front page. These are the standout events for
those six weeks.
I have coded 288 such articles, slotting them into categories common in
coverage of other disasters and a few unique to this disaster (Figure 2). The main concerns of the stories break down into
ten principal categories, plus miscellaneous and unrelated categories. Three
categories garnered the most overall front page attention from the L.A.
Times during the first six weeks: Military, Investigation, and
Reactions, categories one would expect of a war, a crime, and a disaster,
respectively. The L.A. Times' attention shifts through time, however,
as one would expect (Figure 3).
The first week's coverage is dominated by four concerns: Investigation,
Reactions, Military, and Restoration. Coverage during the second week focusses
on Reactions, Military, and Investigation. The third week's front page
coverage is the most diverse in concerns, with five main themes: Mitigation,
Reactions, Restoration, Diplomacy, and Military. During the fourth week,
concerns narrow to Diplomacy and Military. The fifth and sixth weeks are
largely confined to Military and Investigation. The first non-attack related
items show up on the front page on the third week, making up 9% of the
coverage, increasing to 44% by the fifth and sixth weeks.
Looking at these more critically (Figure 4), one finds
that the disaster story experienced daily in the lives of New Yorkers and
Washingtonians has become more of a war story. The military-related coverage
takes up 31% of the first six weeks of overall coverage. Disaster-related
stories did dominate for the first three weeks of coverage, but they gave way
to the war story for the last three weeks. I worry about whether this emphasis
on war coverage may deprioritize the needs of New Yorkers and Washingtonians
in recovering from these horrible events.
As often seen in the coverage of any disaster, the context of the events of
the 11th is poorly drawn out. Only four stories appeared in the front page of
the L.A. Times about the geopolitical background that produced such
suicidal and homicidal men.
Sensationalism is evident in the obsessively repetitive imagery of the plane
striking the South Tower on television and on the front page graphics of
newspapers, including the L.A. Times. Anthrax has been
sensationalized, too, amplifying public concern far above the actual numbers
of people exposed, sickened, and killed, and leading to pressure on physicians
for wanton prescription of Cipro.
Despite the expectations of media criticism literature and to its credit, the
L.A. Times has covered impacts on businesses and impacts on workers in
roughly equal numbers of front page stories.
For people involved in clearing the rubble, restoring the full
functionality of New York, rebuilding the World Trade Center, and trying to
mitigate the risk of any similar event, your disaster stories are being
gradually submerged in the stories of war. While the war takes more and more
media attention away from your needs, your needs are not just gradually fading
away at this point. You have to work to get the media to focus on your needs.
Based on my work with other hazards and disasters, I would recommend the
following (Figure 5):
First, those of you in non-governmental and victim advocacy organizations are
in a position to play to the media's need for human drama by generating
"newsworthy" events, including demonstrations.
Second, government agencies and NGOs can actively cultivate personal
relationships between particular reporters and particular representatives of
your organizations. A great example of this is the relationship of national
media with seismologists Kate Hutton and Lucy Jones of Caltech and the USGS,
respectively. Many journalists want to do a good job and do appreciate
knowing who the experts are.
Third, look into using the Internet to generate public interest in and support
for your needs. Other work of mine has shown the stunning efficacy of
Internet organizing in public risk debates. While the web is all the rage,
it's e-mail, listservers, and news groups that offer the possibility of
exponential expansion of your message to reach an audience of a size and
geographical scope once the domain exclusively of national media
conglomerates.
