Samenvatting literatuur Gezondheidsjournalistiek:
Changed priorities ahead: Journalists’ shifting role perceptions when
covering public health crises:
Together with health workers, journalists are often on the frontline of disease outbreaks. During such
health crises, ‘journalists find themselves at the center of an emotionally loaded, complex playing
field; and are pulled in many directions’. Health authorities and medical experts, for example, often
appeal to the media to use their power to impact public health to the better. They desire the media
to broadcast their messages of reassurance and appeals of adherence to precautionary measures to
the public. Scholars, in turn, admonish journalists to act as accurate and critical reporters on health
matters, to function as health educators and to be aware of becoming mere mouthpieces of
authorities. Probably resulting from these diverse expectations, there generally exists more
discontent than content regarding how well the media perform their various roles. During past crises,
journalists were repeatedly criticized for falling short of expectations, reporting inaccurately,
imbalancedly or aggravating fears and panic.
The fact that journalists face strongly articulated (and at times conflicting) expectations hints at what
may be an important variable in the overall process of communicating health crises, namely,
journalistic role perceptions. Journalistic role perceptions have been defined as ‘generalized
expectations which journalists believe exist in society and among different stakeholders’ and which
they perceive as legitimate part of their professional self-image. They are not established in a
vacuum but in response to the expectations journalists experience from various societal
stakeholders, some of which they endorse and eventually act on. Role perceptions influence
journalists’ decision-making and their news products, and can serve as a base for normative
judgement as role performance is judged by others (and role holders themselves) by ‘how well they
conform to the expectations’. Accordingly, journalists’ self-perceived roles can be interpreted as a
pivotal concept that is logically positioned between stakeholders’ expectations and the actual
journalistic product.
Journalistic role perceptions: Role shifts during crises
One of the key studies by Weaver and Wilhoit proposed a taxonomy of 4 roles that journalists adopt:
interpreter, disseminator, adversarial and populist mobilizer. Journalists assuming an interpreter role
feel they ought to provide analysis and interpretation of complex problems, as well as investigate
government claims. The disseminator role entails fast information dissemination and verification of
facts. The adversary role mainly involves developing public interest, and the populist mobilizer role
giving a voice to ‘ordinary’ citizens and providing entertainment. In the last decades, several other
typologies have been developed. Most prominently, Hanitzsch identified 4 professional milieus with
shared values: detached watchdog, critical change agent, opportunist facilitator and populist
disseminator. Skovsgaard and colleagues differentiated roles based on 2 dimensions: an active versus
passive stance, and journalists’ democratic conception, representation versus participation.
Prior research indicates that journalists working in different journalistic beats, that is, covering
designated subjects such as politics or economy, differ in the professional standards they endorse,
and in the importance they assign to journalistic roles, depending upon several contextual factors,
such as news organizations, culture and national politics. Mellado and Lagos found that within stories
belonging to different news beats, different roles predominated. Finaly, Mogensen demonstrated for
the case of terrorist attacks that crisis coverage as a specific subgenre of news requires unique
,journalistic norms. Extending this logic, we argue that other contexts, like a health crisis, may equally
bring certain journalistic roles to the fore.
In this article, the definition of health crisis is narrower than the definition in the Oxford Handbook of
Public Health Practice, including only crisis of the former type, that is, outbreaks of previously
unknown infectious diseases, re-emerging diseases or diseases that are spreading to new areas of
the world, or the occurrence of food safety crises.
Health crises situations are characterized by a sudden, often inconceivable, emergence of a severe
threat, creating a sense of urgency and a need for immediate response. Paradoxically, crises create a
pressing ‘need for specific and accurate information’, yet, they are also characterized by uncertainty
and high complexity, and scientific knowledge might not be available yet. When the public’s demand
for accurate and actionable information is not filled in a timely manner, rumours may arise and be
relied upon, making crises often inherently emotion-laden. We propose that these contextual
characteristics influence journalists’ perceived importance of various roles. Journalists might adopt a
stronger role in crisis mitigation, or of pressing for political solutions.
Health crisis coverage and professional characteristics
The journalistic practice of ‘balance’ can generate bias in news reporting. Although generalizations
have to be treated with caution, common patterns in the way the mass media report on risk stories
have been uncovered. Media are more likely to cover risks with a large number of fatalities at one
time rather than a cumulative number of larger fatalities over time, risks that are unusual or evoke
controversy, and stories tend to focus on conflict between stakeholders, or the human aspect of risk.
In terms of sources, news media rely heavily on authority and official sources.
A study of journalists on their criteria for newsworthiness, perceptions of news accuracy and
journalistic roles, found journalists experienced role conflicts between assuming a role as
independent and neutral public informants and feeling responsible for supporting public interests
and officials’ crisis mitigation efforts.
Leask et al. indicate that general and specialist reporters differ in their reporting in that specialist
reporters are better able to produce high-quality stories, and have negotiating power within their
organizations. Other studies likewise indicate that such differences might exist, specifically with
regards to the use of sources, and journalists’ critical perspective on scientific events.
Continuities and situation-driven shifts in roles
We found both continuities in roles and role shifts that appear driven by the contextual specifics of a
health crisis. Several of the roles identified in earlier studies as ‘universal’ or ‘general’ roles remain
important professional roles in the context of health crises coverage. First, interviewed journalists
were strongly committed to their information dissemination function. Some stated, gathering as
much new information as possible and adhering to classic journalistic norms like balance, verification
of facts and accuracy is what matters most, also during health crises. Second, interviewees
mentioned responsibilities that resonate with Weaver and Wilhoit’s interpretive role, namely,
providing contextual analysis as well as commentary. Some journalists mentioned, third, assuming a
classic watchdog role and, fourth, a translator role, which has been identified as a common role
among science journalists. Besides these continuities, we identified 3 role shifts.
Towards a role as public mobilizers
,Most noteworthy was a shift towards a public mobilizer role that many of the journalists in our
sample assume when covering health crises events. We identified 2 core responsibilities – mobilizing
self-protective behaviours and mobilizing social responsibility – as part of this role.
Mobilizing individuals’ self-protective behaviours involves enabling audiences to take precautionary
measures, and – to some extent – also encouraging the performance of such measures. Most
interviewees felt they hold an important duty to provide advice or action recommendations.
Some interviewees perceived their role to go beyond solely supplying practical ‘how-to-act’ messages
and adopt a role as health educators. Germen interviewees frequently described their key
responsibility as Aufklärung, a concept which includes both providing practical instructions and
health education, enabling citizens’ self-determining health decision-making. While there was
general agreement about their role of enabling precautionary health behaviours, there was little
explicit mention of health promotion or advocacy of such behaviours.
The discussed responsibility of advice-giving and health education reflects a general trend in news
reporting. 1 editor recounted that her newspaper had recently formally introduced a ‘how-to-act’
journalism.
Providing ‘how-to-act’ messages, what health communication scholars term ‘mobilizing information’,
is thus not restricted to health crises. However, we find that in greatly gains in importance in the
crisis context.
If a crisis becomes more acute, journalists’ role seems to shift from a more general-educative to a
more active, advising role. Several interviewees state they focus more on action recommendations –
at times in collaboration with authorities – while these are usually a side-facet of reporting.
A second core responsibility of the public mobilizer role is mobilizing social responsibility. Journalists
in this study described their role as ‘social conscience’, reminding societies ‘we have to act like
human beings’, or ‘create an awareness’.
One key aspect commonly mentioned was encouraging philanthropic behaviours such as
volunteering or donations.
Another aspect which several journalists considered important is discouraging anti-social behaviours
and attitudes, such as stigma, prejudices, racism and ‘othering’.
Particularly in health crises situations, stereotypes and resultant blames can easily surface, and in
extreme cases, individuals can become an object of stigma or hatred. Many journalists in our sample
were aware of these issues and considered fighting stereotypes and safeguarding the anonymity of
the affected party a particularly important ethical consideration. 1 journalist remarked that fighting
stereotypes includes a perceptive treatment of official materials, which are not always immune to
prejudice.
The public mobilizer role has been identified in earlier research and described as a responsibility ‘to
pursue and promote certain solutions to societal problems’. This definition fits with the enhanced
sense of responsibility among our sample. However, unlike earlier definitions that viewed the role as
a duty to motivate citizens to participate in a democratic debate and give a voice to ordinary citizens,
we identified 2 substantially different core responsibilities: mobilizing self-protective behaviours and
mobilizing a socially responsible treatment of others. Journalists shift towards a specific type of
public mobilizer when covering health crisis events.
Towards classifying risk
, Second, we identified a shift towards a stronger focus on classifying health crisis risks and
treatments. This seems closely related with journalists’ shift towards a public mobilizer role, as it
likewise aims to enable people’s decision-making regarding risk. Interviewees commonly felt that the
public disproportionately fears new health risks, while in reality common disease or other threats
pose bigger risks.
Hence, journalists emphasized providing a framework that allows to grade or assess events/facts in a
context of other entities. While this role is also important in non-crisis contexts, journalists’ roles shift
in acute crises in the sense that classifying risks becomes a prime responsibility.
Besides the finding that certain responsibilities within roles becomes accentuated, also journalists’
interpretation of their respective roles is influenced by the health crisis context. Although we find like
Weaver and Wilhoit that journalists adopt an interpretive role in health crisis coverage, some of the
responsibilities that define this role, for example, ‘investigating government claims’, were not
mentioned among our interviewees. Rather, their focus shifts from official policies to a
contextualization and interpretation of complex medical or scientific facts.
From watchdog to co-operative
Third, we identified a shift in the stance journalists adopted towards authorities. Earlier studies
suggest that journalists tend to assume a strong watchdog role and critically evaluate authorities’
emergency response to health crises. Yet, in the current study, few interviewees expressed
adversarial attitudes or adopted a watchdog role. Rather, interviewees described their relations to
authorities as based on co-operation or consider co-operation highly important. It must be noted
that journalists in this study generally differed in their stances towards authorities: some assumed a
stronger watchdog role, while others were more neutral, or co-operative. Yet, when discussing
health crisis reporting, most interviewees expressed co-operative attitudes, and especially in more
acute stages, there was a general shift towards co-operation.
Journalists’ shift from a watchdog to a more co-operative role appears logical given that as public
mobilizers, journalists’ goals are more naturally aligned with the goals of health authorities than in
the reporting of other issues.
In more acute crises, interviewees’ willingness to disseminate authorities’ messages also tends to
grow, at times notwithstanding own concerns. A shared narrative among many interviewees
concerned their support of authorities’ vaccination campaigns despite own concerns about vaccine
safety. Eventually, however, safety concerns materialized and some journalists reported negative
feelings about their own responsibility and their decision to support official vaccination
recommendations.
Overall, few interviewees reflected critically on the increased co-operation with authorities in crisis
times. 1 journalists criticized that some journalists ‘shut along’ with governments’ appeals for
vaccinations; another criticized that journalists often ‘blindly follow that which someone burbles’,
which effectively lets authorities ‘have complete partners in the media, because they print
everything’. That being said, it becomes evident that co-operation must not necessarily preclude
critical stances, the latter serving as a shield for preserving independence. Working in partnership
with authorities – aligning interests and adopting the goals of authorities – is a disputed issue,
particularly regarding its exact boundaries. In this sense, the term partnership is a stronger one than
that of co-operation, denoting a reduction in independence or agency.
