Can Crisis Communication Survive the Media?

Neil Postman argues in Amusing Ourselves to Death (Postman, 1986) that society should be cautious of television news precisely because this media-driven duration extends the exposure of an event and opens the door for misinformation. He notes that because the public doesn’t carefully investigate such information, disinformation can be widely spread (pp.71-76; 107). Similarly, the research done by Shaw and McCombs in The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media, (1972) explains that the media can influence public opinion by ranking stories according to the media’s perception of importance thereby creating a public agenda (pp. 177-79).  Although, Shaw and McCombs wrote in the context of political communication their “agenda-setting” theory is appropriate to the current study. Finally, the “social amplification of risk” theory developed by Kasperson (1988) argues that risk amplification is created during the transmission of information which could enhance the perception of the risk and cause behavior change in groups or individuals (pp.233).   Postman, Shaw and McCombs and Kasperson provide a heuristic construct through which the media’s impact on crisis communication can be examined.  

Crisis communication is an interactive process of the exchange of information and opinions…concerning a risk or potential risk to human health of the environment (Lundgren & McMakin pp.15).  Effective crisis communication can make or break a company in crisis. To manage a crisis in a systematic fashion an organization must communicate factual material to appropriate stakeholders.  Essentially, these stakeholders need to be familiar with the facts so they can better understand the problem and act upon the information.  This essential task is accomplished by influencing the public’s opinion or attitude toward the crisis as well as seeking overall agreement among stakeholders  about the appropriate response to the risk (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, pp.17-20). Creating awareness of and an understanding of the risk, shaping public’s perception, and seeking cooperative mitigation are risk communication goals that can be accomplished with effective communication to the targeted audience (pp.2-6). If one of these goals is not met then a risk could turn into a crisis for the troubled company; a risk ignored is a crisis assured.  

     Once the media becomes involved, risk amplification is enhanced.  If the story lingers in the media, it is sensationalized, causing the public to be influenced by superficial information (1986, Postman). Thus, contemporary media can have a negative impact on a crisis by intensifying public controversy toward the targeted company, or influencing the audiences' perception of a hazard resulting in a shift in public behavior (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, pp. 276-77).  Consequently, crisis management groups should fear the possibility that media involvement will disseminate superficial information which will inhibit its effective crisis communication.  


Work Cited:

Kasperson et al. (1988). The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. In P. Slovic, The Perception of Risk (pp. 233-45). Sterling: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Shaw, Donald L & McCombs, Maxwell E. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. The American Association forPublic Opinion, 177-79.

Regina Lundgren & Andrea McMakin. (2004). Risk Communication; Third Edition. Columbus: Battelle Press.

Postman, N. (1986). Amusing Oursleves to Death . New York: Penguin Books.

Who KO'd Whom?

After reading the top political headlines from CNN, I noticed a pattern. The pattern was occupied by "who KO'd whom".

This pattern in the news headlines reminded me of Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death:Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Chapter six, The Age of Show Business, has a mild examination of the Regan and Mondale debates and how presidential candidates "were less concerned with giving argument than with "giving off" impressions" (97). This statement about presidential candidates still remains true to this day.

 What I have noticed is that contemporary candidates are more concerned with degrading their opponents than upgrading their plans for actions once elected. This concerns me because our future leaders are basing their political platform on a child-like game of "I know you are but what am I" as opposed to talk about contributing to the greater good of society.

Have we become a society that is only focused on appearance?.....A society who cares more about who KO'd whom than who has the most knowledge?

I do know that from a culture who was fostered by print, we were educated and eager to learn. Now, in a culture that is fostered by pictures, we are entertained and eager to watch.