Risk and the Media: A Comparison of Print and Televised News Stories of a Canadian Drinking Water Risk Event
Abstract
This article explores the utility of using media analyses as a method for risk researchers to gain an initial understanding of how the public may perceive a risk issue or event based on how it is presented and communicated in news media stories. In the area of risk research, newspapers consistently provide coverage of both acute and chronic risk events, whereas televised news broadcasts report primarily acute risk events. There is no consensus in the literature about which news format (print vs. televised) may be better to study public conceptualizations of risk, or if one format (e.g., print) may be used as a surrogate measure for another format (e.g., televised). This study compares Canadian national televised and newspaper coverage of the same risk event: the E. coli contamination of a public drinking water supply. Using a content analysis, this study empirically demonstrates the overall similarity in story content coverage in both televised and print coverage, noting that televised coverage promotes primarily emotional story themes while print coverage tends to also include coverage of analysis and process. On this basis, the research draws two conclusions: 1) given its more comprehensive coverage, newspaper broadsheets may provide a better measure of media coverage of a risk event than televised coverage (if only one format can be studied); and 2) when the risk area of interest is chronic, and/or if the scale of analysis is at a community/local level (i.e., when it is unlikely that archived televised coverage is available), then a researcher may find the print media to be a more useful format to study.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Theoretical Background
The public typically receives a variety of information through the news media—from environment and health risks and benefits, to advances in science and technology, and government policy decisions. The mass media has been recognized as one of the key actors (and gatekeepers) that help to build (Lang & Lang, 1981, 1983) and, some argue, set a policy agenda for what issues gain public attention and which do not (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, 1993; McLeod et al., 1974; McCombs, 1981; Cook et al., 1983; Nelkin, 1987; Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988; Brosius & Weimann, 1996; Dunwoody, 1992; Scanlon et al., 1999; Allan et al., 2000; Flynn et al., 2001). Media influence is often short-lived because it frequently jumps from issue to issue or story to story (Kingdon, 1995). What the mass media does, or does not, report conveys to the general public the perceived importance, or newsworthiness, that journalists and editors have attached to an issue/event that they feel the public should know (Hetherington, 1985).
In most mass media studies, frequent reference is made to McLuhan's (1967) argument that “the medium is the message.” McLuhan is referring to the influence that different communication formats, such as print media (e.g., newspaper broadsheet, tabloid, magazines, online sources) and audio/visual media (e.g., television broadcast, radio, video clips available online), have played in shaping social discourse. Shifts in communication technology have permitted time and space to be compressed, thereby restructuring patterns of social interdependence and everyday “reality” (Thompson, 1999). For example, video feeds can be beamed “live” via satellite technology, bringing events from one side of the world directly into the living rooms of audiences on the other. This practice can be referred to as the “CNN effect,” and was made possible by the use of satellite technology during the Gulf War. Studies have also assessed the fundamental characteristics that each news format plays in how a person “reads” (to refer to both people who read a story as well as listen and view a story—see Gamson et al., 1992) and makes sense of a media message. Much of the news format debate relates to the different constraints of print and televised formats. Print is constrained by space, while televised video is constrained by time. Overall, due to the flexibility in their format the space constraints of the print media are less problematic than the time constraints of televised media. Televised stories communicate less information and have a high emotional impact compared to the more detailed coverage of print stories that require greater mental effort to decode (Wanta, 1997). Consequently, television reporters are trained to focus on the key story themes and purposively select interviews that will fit with how the story will be constructed (or framed) in order to emphasize the needed emotion within the two to three allotted minutes. Stories also typically start with the ending and work backward (Altheide, 2002). The pressure for ratings (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004) and more dramatic nature of televised stories—“if it bleeds it leads” (see Cooper & Roter, 2000)—means that the emphasis needs to be focused on events and reaction. By contrast, newspapers bring an additional focus on the development of ideas and processes that cannot be easily represented through the use of visuals (Wanta, 1997). The combination of these changes has led to the hypothesis that televised news stories resonate more at an emotional level with a public audience than print stories (Altheide, 2002; Hill, 1985; Sheppard & Bawden, 1997; Wanta, 1997). I argue that this may be particularly true of acute risk events, where the effects or impacts are more immediate, but less likely for chronic risk events for which televised coverage may be little or nonexistent. Consequently, it is important for risk researchers to know if the news media, either print or televised, cover similar content in their presentation of risk events.
Moreover, while the mass media plays a strong role in presenting what constitutes “news” to the public, audience “readers” undergo a complex process of reception and consumption that minimizes the media's potential impact in influencing public opinion. More simply, the audience is not a passive recipient in this process. The audience decides what to pay attention to, thus motivating news agencies to give the audience what editors/producers think the audience wants. Nonetheless, this process does not undermine media power in deciding what to report (Kitzinger, 1999) and how it is reported (Altheide, 2002; Deacon et al., 1999). As Cohen (1963) argues, while the news media may not tell an audience what to think, it successfully tells the audience what to “think about” (see also Singer & Endreny, 1993; Gamson et al., 1992; Slovic, 2000). In fact, “the critical thing to understand is not where the seed [of the idea] comes from, but what makes the soil fertile” (Kingdon, 1995, p. 77). In other words, the media does not provide consensus on opinion (what to believe) as it does on the criteria that will be used to judge the opinions, values, and messages presented (based on what and how it is reported). For these reasons, I argue that the way in which the mass media cover particular news events can provide risk researchers with important cues for how the public may understand a risk issue. Analyzing media messages is an imperfect, but useful and low-cost, technique to understand how the general public may understand risk events when traditional risk perception surveys are not available or are not economically feasible to undertake. Analyzing media messages prior to conducting a risk perception survey may provide useful content for that survey. Similarly, for interview studies, researchers can design their study to explore what role the media might be playing in shaping public discourse by comparing media presentations of risk to what participants may describe in an interview setting.
1.2. Aims of the Study
Within the last few years, the number of news stories being catalogued and archived by online and full-text databases has grown. Typically, these databases catalogue national and major city newspaper broadsheets, and some databases will also catalogue transcripts from broadcast/televised news, predominantly at the national level. Depending on the database and the service to which an institution subscribes, many of these databases provide coverage dating back several years (e.g., Lexis/Nexis in the United States, Canadian Business and Current Affairs: Current Events and Canadian Newsstand in Canada, and Factiva, which catalogues major daily newspapers and business publications globally: United States (including some U.S. televised broadcasts), Canada, United Kingdom, Europe, Asia/Pacific, Middle East, etc.). These databases have a number of advantages. As an electronic database, researchers can conduct a series of simple or advanced searches, for different time periods using multiple or single publication sources. These databases may also be cost effective (i.e., free or for nominal fees) to researchers when they work at institutions that pay for a subscription (e.g., a university library). The primary disadvantage is that these databases typically only catalogue the printed transcript; there are no images accompanying the text if images were part of the original story.1 Moreover, institutional subscriptions to these databases vary, and depending on the database itself, local news coverage (in newspapers, television, or radio) may not be catalogued and archived. Since it is the publishers that contribute the electronic text, coverage can be sporadic or nonexistent at varying geographic scales. If the research is being conducted at a community/local level, for which there is no electronic archived media coverage, or there is only archived media coverage of one format (e.g., newspaper), it is important to have confidence that one format (e.g., print) may be used as a proxy measure to represent other formats (e.g., televised). With the exception of some studies that have compared televised and print media coverage (e.g., Holliman, 2004; Anhang et al., 2004; Kiernan, 2003; Moynihan et al., 2000; Sheppard & Bawden, 1997) the majority of mass media and risk studies are typically focused on one news media format: newspaper/magazine (e.g., Blakely, 2003; Brown et al., 2001; Hackman & Moe, 1999; Griffin & Dunwoody, 1997). Moreover, there appears to be no consensus in the literature regarding the use of available news formats (e.g., print) as a surrogate measure for other news formats (e.g., television).
The purpose of this article is to compare the story content coverage between print and televised news coverage; it is beyond the scope of this article to look at which format (print, televised) may have the strongest effect on public perceptions (see, for example, Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004 for initial research into this). If the similarity of story content coverage can be empirically demonstrated by comparing two news formats, it may be possible to use one format as a proxy measure for another format. This is particularly important to know if a risk researcher is interested in a certain scale of analysis (e.g., local/community level), and can only access archived news stories of one format (e.g., print). I make two assumptions in this study that are supported by the literature. First, televised news agencies will more frequently report on stories that are characterized by acute risks than chronic risks because they are more vivid and sensational (Wilkins & Patterson, 1990; Allan et al., 2000; Altheide, 2002). Second, although newspaper stories are likely to be more numerous and cover the issue in much greater detail and depth, the broad story content themes (i.e., elements covered) will be similar to those from televised coverage (Wanta, 1997; Altheide, 2002; Sheppard & Bawden, 1997). To address the research question, this study uses the Walkerton, Ontario E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in local drinking water supplies to compare a 2.5-year Canadian national print and televised media coverage of the event.
1.3. The Walkerton E. Coli Outbreak
In May 2000, the groundwater drinking water supplies of Walkerton, a small town in southwestern Ontario, Canada, became contaminated with E. coli. Heavy rains for a period of five days resulted in the flooding of a swampy area near one of the wells, culminating with a violent storm. Manure from a nearby noncommercial farm was washed into one of the town's three wells as a result of this flooding. The backflow valve, designed to protect the well from any surface water, failed. During this time, residents were consuming insufficiently treated (the contaminant levels exceeded the chlorine levels being added) or untreated water (drawn from a well without a functioning chlorinator). Within days, the local water managers of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in Walkerton received a laboratory result showing elevated levels of E. coli in the drinking water but did not notify the area public health unit. Rather, local managers opted to flush the system with chlorine. Residents began presenting with bloody diarrhea at the hospital. Throughout, local managers maintained that the drinking water was safe. As a precautionary measure while awaiting independent water tests, the Public Health Unit issued a boil water advisory. May 24, 2000 marks the first media story of the event where several hundred residents were reported as ill with four residents dead. The final death toll attributed to the contamination was seven dead and more than 2,300 residents ill in a town of fewer than 5,000 people. Public pressure prompted the Province of Ontario to hold a public inquiry. The Walkerton Inquiry produced two reports (O'Connor, 2002a, 2002b), one of which assessed what happened in Walkerton, and the other provided recommendations for government action. The introduction of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2002 (S.O. 2002, c 32) was one of the ways in which the provincial government responded to the recommendations of the Walkerton Inquiry. One of the regulations for this Act is the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (O-Reg 169/03), establishing the parameters that Ontario drinking water supplies must meet.2 The Walkerton E. coli event is selected as a case study for this analysis because it was extensively covered in Canadian newspapers and on television, and it represents an acute risk event that has a clear starting point in the media: May 24, 2000.
2. STUDY METHODS
Canada has only two national newspapers3 and two4 national broadcast stations (where most Canadian audience members can view these broadcasts without paying for cable). Using FACTIVA and the Canadian Business and Current Affairs (CBCA) databases, print media coverage from The Globe & Mail and The National Post was compared to televised news coverage from The National—CBC News and CTV National News. The broadest keyword possible was used to search these sources: “Walkerton.” The story selection inclusion/exclusion criteria consisted of identifying stories that addressed one of three basic questions:
- 1
Is the story reflective of the Walkerton drinking water tragedy? (If yes, keep story.)
- 2
(If the answer to Q1 is no) Does the story use Walkerton as a primary example of what the community wants to avoid, or use Walkerton as a primary example of the type of concerns it has (i.e., it could happen here)? (If yes, keep story.)
- 3
(If the answer to Q1 and Q2 is no) Is the story about a government response to the Walkerton event in terms of new regulations, rules, or what might need to be done to protect drinking water generally (i.e., government response/(in)action to the event)? (If yes, keep story.)
If a news story only mentioned Walkerton as a passing event but was not really the focus of the story, or if the story made reference to Walkerton in a nondrinking-water-related story (e.g., performance of Ontario schools) then the story was eliminated from analysis. Moreover, with respect to televised coverage, general introductions or previews, aired prior to the actual start time of the national broadcast, were eliminated from this analysis because these were only available for one national news network database.
From 1,436 possible media stories (1,238 print, 198 televised), 819 stories (652 print, 167 televised) were selected for analysis using content analysis. As a method, content analysis allows a researcher to systematically analyze/code a body of texts; typically, though not exclusively, using a predetermined list of thematic or content categories. In this article, manifest content analysis, based on a categorization of the visible or surface meaning of the content, was used (Krippendorff, 2004). The sampling unit of analysis is each individual story, based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria discussed above, and the recording units are the story content categories. Krippendorff (2004, p. 105) defines categorical units “by their membership in a class or category—by their having something in common.” The seven categorical recording units are identified based on story content themes: 1) story references to blame (i.e., based on identification of specific individuals, offices (e.g., public health office), or governments (at municipal, provincial, or federal levels), including where blame is explicitly charged and/or where blame is explicitly accepted); 2) sequence of events or descriptions of what happened story references (i.e., speculations of how the tragedy developed/occurred, descriptions of what is being done); 3) story references to the Inquiry into the tragedy (i.e., any investigation being undertaken by police, medical officer of health, judicial bodies, etc., or calls being made by residents or public officials that a public inquiry is needed); 4) story references to people who became ill or who died as a result of drinking contaminated water (i.e., based on specific numbers or reference to specific words like “deadly bacteria,”“poisoned water,” etc.); 5) specific story references to government responses to the issue (i.e., from the municipal, provincial, or federal levels); 6) general (mis)trust story references (i.e., residents from Walkerton indicating they do or do not trust the government to handle the issue well, resident trust/mistrust of drinking water, or the general public outside of Walkerton expressing concerns (or having no concerns) over drinking water safety overall, etc.); and 7) story references to other drinking water issues not captured by the other categories (e.g., class action suit launched by Walkerton residents, drinking water issues occurring elsewhere, etc.). Even if a sampling unit (i.e., the news story) had multiple references to the same categorical unit (e.g., blame), the content theme was only counted once per story. As a result, the analysis focused on the existence of a theme in each story (yes/no) rather than the number of times a theme was invoked in each.
To ensure validity and reliability, the principal investigator and another coder independently evaluated the selection of the sampling units, achieving a 97% reliability rate. Similarly, the principal investigator and another coder independently evaluated a sample of story category recording units, achieving a 90% reliability rate. Both of these reliability tests exceed the preferred levels identified by Miles and Huberman (1994). To ensure greater coder consistency overall, the principal investigator coded the newspaper stories and another coder was responsible for televised stories. In all cases, the principal investigator resolved any coding disagreements and was the deciding factor whenever a coder was uncertain about how to code a particular passage.
The contamination of Walkerton's drinking water supplies by E. coli O157:H7 is characterized by three major events during the 2.5-year media coverage. The first event period—the Pre-Inquiry phase—consists of the immediate fallout from the first media story on the contamination until the Walkerton Inquiry began. The second event period—the Inquiry phase—consists of the media coverage of testimony given during the Walkerton Inquiry and any public reaction to the testimony being presented. The third event period—the Post-Inquiry phase—consists of media coverage following the official adjournment of the inquiry. Given these three event periods in the media coverage of the Walkerton E. coli contamination, the news stories were analyzed and study results presented accordingly: the Pre-Inquiry phase from May 24, 2000 to October 15, 2000; the Inquiry phase from October 16, 2000 to August 27, 2001; and the Post-Inquiry phase from August 28, 2001 to December 31, 2002.5
3. RESULTS
Fig. 1 shows the total number of stories used in this analysis, by news format, for each event period for the Walkerton risk issue.
Total stories used for analysis, by news media, by inquiry phase (pre, during, post).
Overall, while Fig. 1 demonstrates the substantially greater number of stories being presented in newspapers compared to televised broadcasts, the actual story content covered by these two formats is roughly similar. 2-4 show the story content coverage for the Pre-Inquiry (Fig. 2), the Inquiry (Fig. 3), and the Post-Inquiry (Fig. 4).
Print versus televised media stories, pre-Walkerton inquiry (May 24–October 15, 2000).
Print versus televised media stories, Walkerton inquiry (October 16, 2000–August 27, 2001).
Print versus televised media stories, post-Walkerton inquiry (August 28, 2001–December 31, 2002).
Note: For televised stories—Blame, Govt. Response, General (mis)trust stories, and Other—there are fewer than 10 observations in each of these content categories.
The Pre-Inquiry phase of the Walkerton event (Fig. 2) covers the period immediately following the first news story on May 24, 2000 until the Walkerton inquiry begins. Day 1 of media reporting mentioned that hundreds of community residents in Walkerton were being treated at the hospital. On Day 2, the news media reported the first four deaths, and indicated that many more people were expected to die due to the consumption of “tainted water.” That people died only served to fuel media interest in the risk event. During this roughly six-month time period, many members of the Walkerton public demanded a detailed investigation into the issue. Early in the risk event, largely due to public and political pressure, the government of Ontario announced that a judicial public inquiry would be formed.
The story content of the print and televised media stories during the Pre-Inquiry phase are largely similar. There are two notable exceptions: 1) general (mis)trust stories (largely referring to sentiments of being stigmatized by living in a tainted water community where no one wants to visit; e.g., “would you drink the water here?”); and 2) other drinking water stories (largely, a class action suit being mounted by residents against the government for compensation). Overall, the televised news media included many more statements reflecting public distrust of drinking water than the print news media. This was often presented by short asides by the broadcast reporter seeking comment from a Walkerton resident regarding their thoughts on water or their reaction to the unfolding of events. By contrast, with respect to “other” drinking water stories, it is only the print news media that covered the class action suit mounted by affected residents (reflecting half the stories covered in that time period). Both the print and televised news media reported on “other” drinking water concerns elsewhere in Ontario. Such stories referred to public concern that a similar contamination could (or could not) happen “here”—in a community outside of Walkerton, as well as to other communities reporting on the safety of their drinking water supplies based on recent test results.
The Inquiry phase of the Walkerton event (Fig. 3), beginning October 16, 2000, roughly covers a 10-month period during which time testimony was heard to assess the contributing factors that led to the E. coli contamination of the drinking water supplies. During this period almost all of the media attention is derived from testimony given during the Inquiry hearings by many individuals, including most notably: the region's Chief Medical Officer of Health; the two local managers from the PUC, both largely responsible for treatment of the municipal water supply in Walkerton; and the premier of Ontario. During this period the predominant story focus was to determine the sequence of events that led up to the tragedy. The news coverage by both the televised and print media concentrates on a number of key issues: 1) the fact that one of the three primary wells in the community did not have a functioning chlorinator to disinfect the water supplies; 2) that the months of April and early May 2000 had been characterized by a series of heavy rains, which contributed to animal fecal matter being washed into the groundwater supplies of the community from a nearby (and uphill) noncommercial farm; 3) speculations that ministry budget cutbacks by the government of Ontario (e.g., elimination of provincial water investigators) contributed to the tragedy as there was no outside system to check on municipally provided reports; and 4) a series of provocative admissions made by the local PUC managers during their testimony at the inquiry. Specifically, these managers admitted to repeatedly falsifying reports as well as falsifying the chlorine levels being used to treat the water supplies. These managers admitted to not installing a new chlorinator to disinfect the groundwater of one of the three wells after the old machine broke down. Lastly, these managers also admitted to not responding quickly enough to the presence of E. coli in the drinking water when reported by the laboratory the PUC used to analyze submitted water supplies.6
While there are a number of similarities in the print and televised story content pattern of the Inquiry phase as during the Pre-Inquiry phase, the differences between the two news formats widen. With the notable exception of stories that include some reference to a government response to the issue under discussion (almost 50% more print stories than televised were coded in this manner), there is a greater percentage of televised coverage for the majority of the story content themes. Of considerable note is the widening gap between televised (49%) and print (7%) media coverage of general (mis)trust stories. Specifically, there is a greater percentage of televised stories than print media stories referring to residents of Walkerton still distrusting their water supplies. This public distrust remained despite the fact that by December 6, 2000, the residents were informed by public health and government officials that the water was safe to drink, following a seven-month boil water advisory. Moreover, there was greater televised coverage of “other” drinking water stories than from the print media (35% and 22%, respectively). The specific focus during this period was on the microbiological contamination of drinking water supplies from cryptosporidium in North Battleford, a small community in Saskatchewan, in May 2001. While many people became ill from this contamination, there were no attributable deaths (Health Canada, 2001). News stories that focused on North Battleford made frequent and detailed references to the Walkerton event. The “other” drinking water stories also made a number of references to drinking water problems in other communities. Lastly, the gap widens between story content themes related to “blame” and “sequence of events/what happened” type stories. Televised stories more often provided a synopsis of “what happened” in Walkerton and more frequently included public comment about blame than did print stories. This pattern is not surprising given the few minutes televised stories have to summarize what the issues are before providing a new emotional twist to the story. In the case of print coverage, typically more than one story was published on a given day regarding the most recent inquiry testimony being covered in the news. Therefore, newspaper editors and journalists did not have to repeat the same elements in each story. Rather, they could rely on an interested reader scanning the multiple stories for any missing information.
The Post-Inquiry phase (Fig. 4), beginning August 28, 2001 and “ending” December 31, 2002, broadly covers stories related to the aftermath of the public inquiry. There are two parts to the Inquiry recommendation reports submitted to the Ontario Attorney General: Part I was submitted January 14, 2002, and covered issues related to the events leading up to and following the May 2000 E. coli outbreak with a specific emphasis on the role that different parties played (or did not play) in the management of the event (O'Connor, 2002a); and Part II was submitted May 23, 2002 (a full two years after the outbreak) with a specific emphasis on recommendations for the future safety of Ontario drinking water supplies (O'Connor, 2002b).
Compared to the Pre-Inquiry and Inquiry phases of the Walkerton event, the number of stories during the Post-Inquiry phase is substantially fewer, despite the greater timeframe included for analysis. In fact, for televised coverage of the issue, the stories occurred immediately prior to and following the release of each subsequent report with few stories throughout the 1.5-year timeframe. By contrast, while there are still a greater number of stories immediately before and after the release of each part of the inquiry report, there is a more consistent coverage throughout this period by the print media. This is consistent with findings from the literature that newspaper stories provide a better format to present process-oriented stories than televised broadcasts. Much of the story content during this period makes predominant reference to the number of people who died or were made ill from the contamination—most notably by televised reporting than print media reporting—with several stories providing a brief recap of events that contributed to the outbreak. Moreover, the percentage of stories dedicated to government response is at its highest over the 2.5-year period for both print and televised coverage. As is consistent with the previous time periods, there is a greater emphasis on government response stories in the print as compared to the televised coverage of the issue. Having more government response stories following the Inquiry is not surprising, where the vast majority of stories discussed what steps the government planned to take to implement recommendations made by inquiry reports (O'Connor, 2002a, 2002b). By contrast, televised stories only reported on actual government decisions (e.g., the introduction of the Safe Drinking Water Act). The biggest difference between the two news formats occurs with respect to the “blame” story content category (37% for print vs. 28% for televised coverage). The print stories emphasized instances when the roles and responsibilities of different individuals and organizations failed to protect the public health of the citizens of Walkerton, much more so than broadcast coverage. It was often opposition government party members charging blame against the government for the handling of the event. During the Inquiry, elected government members were more reluctant to comment on the testimony of an ongoing investigation. Similarly, as is the case across all three time periods, there is greater print coverage that included a government response to the issue under discussion (38% for print vs. 32% for televised), but there is still a greater emphasis in televised coverage with respect to general (mis)trust stories (28% for televised vs. 14% for print coverage).
4. DISCUSSION
Broadly speaking, during all three event periods, there was a greater percentage of televised coverage of story content themes than in print, particularly for those themes that struck emotional tones (e.g., illness/death, blame, (mis)trust). Similarly, across all event periods, there was greater print coverage of government response stories. While a story theme was only counted for its presence or absence (yes/no) in this analysis, it was primarily the print stories that included detailed coverage of the Inquiry and the development of ideas. These findings are generally consistent with the televised emphasis on simple description and emotion (Sheppard & Bawden, 1997; Wanta, 1997; Altheide, 2002; Singer, 1980) and print story emphasis on detailed commentary, analysis, and process (Wilkins & Patterson, 1990; Allan et al., 2000; Major & Atwood, 2004; Freedman & Karsh, 1993).
The most frequently mentioned story content category covered by the media over the 2.5-year period is the reference to the number of people who were made ill or who died as a result of the contamination. This particular story frame (ill/dead) is a typical reporting technique used to grab a person's attention to read the full story, over other stories that might be in competition in the newspaper; or similarly to ensure that a person does not change the channel in the lead-up to a televised newscast (Best, 1995; Cooper & Roter, 2000). This is followed by blame and mistrust stories. In broadcast reporting, there are frequently certain news clips that are aired earlier in the evening or just prior to the newscast itself, highlighting key stories of the day, to entice viewers to watch a certain newscast team over another news team or, alternatively, to keep viewer attention on the news as opposed to another televised program (e.g., a sitcom). In a related fashion, because televised stories are more constrained in terms of length of time and under greater pressure for ratings, broadcast reporters are required, by necessity, to convey only the most vivid elements of a story (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004). This is particularly the case when it is necessary to remind viewers of the broader story context—that is, the seven people who died and the more than 2,000 people who were made ill due to the E. coli contamination of drinking water supplies—before introducing new elements to the story's development in the two to three allotted minutes. Although televised reporting was proportionally higher for the more emotional story content themes than print media coverage, there were many more stories overall reported in newspapers. On any given day, there could be upward of three to eight stories highlighting different components of the risk event. Newspaper broadsheets provide a much more detailed analysis and commentary; a finding confirmed in Sheppard and Bawden's study of the Gulf War (1997). In addition to covering the emotional stories of illness/death, blame and mistrust, the newspaper broadsheets provided a thorough overview of less sensationalized items (i.e., those focusing on process).
One argument in this article is that while television broadcasts may be more vivid to a public audience, and hence may provide more public comment/reaction to an event, researchers may find newspaper broadsheets a better measure of media coverage of an acute risk event. This is particularly useful for research studies that look at chronic risk events, for which televised coverage may be little or nonexistent, and/or if there are no archived televised news stories at the desired scale of analysis (local vs. national). Hence, for chronic risk events that play out over a much longer period of time, media presentations from newspaper broadsheets may provide a better indicator for how the public may understand a risk than televised broadcasts because such risks are unlikely to be covered on television. Two important distinctions with respect to this argument must be made. First, the news media does not reflect public risk perception as much as it is one source that drives public perception. In other words, the media may influence the way in which people understand and/or interpret information about an event, by how it presents media messages and media content for the public to “think about” (Cohen, 1963; see also Singer & Endreny, 1993; Gamson et al., 1992; Slovic, 2000). This relationship is not just one directional. Editors and producers may decide what the public should know, but this too is culturally determined by societal (i.e., public) interest in some topics over others (for example, the higher salience the public attaches to human health risks over environmental risks without a human health connection; see Burger, 1990). Second, while editors and producers play an important role in deciding what stories are to be made “important” by virtue of what is, and is not, reported, the public plays an equally important role in to what it chooses, or does not choose, to pay attention.
5. CONCLUSION
This study has sought to determine empirically if the story content of an issue event is similar in both print and televised news coverage, in order to arrive at a larger conclusion as to the merits of using one format alone in a media analysis for a given risk issue. While a media analysis is strengthened by using at least two media formats, it is useful to know under which circumstances one format may be used in the place of another. At a much larger level, what this case study demonstrates is that it is predominantly the televised news coverage that provides more sensationalized statements than print media, as evident in the general (mis)trust story content category. This category helped capture the typical televised reporting style: provide “on-the-ground” commentary or reaction to a new development in an ongoing story. The time constraints of televised news dictate that only some features can be highlighted. Consequently, more emotionally charged statements are likely to appear in this format than in the print media. Given the televised media's greater predisposition toward sensationalism, newspaper broadsheets may serve as a better measure of media coverage of a risk event because they include greater breadth in coverage, balancing the description of events with commentary on process. Moreover, if there is little televised coverage because the risk issue of interest is chronic (i.e., develops more slowly), or there is no database cataloguing and archiving televised stories of the risk issue beyond the national level, then the print media may be a useful surrogate measure of televised coverage to ascertain how the public may understand the risk event at a community/local level. For this to work, the appropriate scale of analysis is required; a risk researcher could not use a national newspaper (as was the case in this study) to understand local perceptions of a risk issue.
While the media may not be a perfect substitute for conducting detailed risk perception surveys or focus group interviews with the general public, media analyses can provide important cues for how risk issues are being framed and presented overall within a public domain. One study limitation is that it was not possible to study which format may have the strongest effect on public perceptions. However, as part of a larger project, another stage of this research is underway: exploring how public perceptions of drinking water risk have changed through focus groups in 10 different communities in Ontario. In that portion of the study, it is anticipated that some initial comments can be made with respect to the question of which format may be more salient for public audience members.
Footnotes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful for the assistance of my graduate student Bhavnita Mistry (University of Ottawa) for conducting interrater reliability tests, for coding the televised stories, and for her help with the figures used in this article. I am also indebted to the useful comments from Theresa Garvin (University of Alberta) and three anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft. This research was funded through a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (410-2004-2025) and, in part, through funding from the Canada Research Chairs program. These national research councils operate at arms length from government and researchers; there is no conflict of interest.
