Understanding the Construction of Journalistic Frames during Crisis Communication : Editorial Coverage of COVID-19 in New York Times

• Main Author: Fatima, Syeda Shehreen
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: Södertörns högskola, Institutionen för samhällsvetenskaper 2020
• Subjects: COVID-19; coronavirus; New York Times; constructive journalism; crisis communication; framing; Social Sciences; Samhällsvetenskap
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-41254

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis with every country being affected. It is one of the widely reported crisis over the past few months. Crisis of such degree and range of influence demands a well-informed reporting with an understanding of the possible impact. As the media coverage is largely influenced by journalistic frames and their interpretations, it is highly important and relevant to study this crisis from a framing perspective. Therefore, this research aims to explore the construction of frames, to what extent they exist in the text in comparison to each other, and how they appear across different time periods by studying the online editorial coverage of the COVID-19 crisis published by New York Times. Eight constructive and seven negative frames have been deductively coded to conduct the research through qualitative content analysis with quantitative elements of the editorials published during three specific periods in January, February, and March of 2020. Constructive frames have been coded with the help of constructive journalism which is used as an analytical concept in this research, while negative frames have been retrieved from literature on the framing of previous crises. The analysis suggests that the editorial coverage of the COVID-19 crisis by New York Times is overall constructive but with focus on few dominant constructive and negative frames. Among constructive frames the most dominant frames are ‘solution-oriented’ and ‘mathematical’. Among negative frames the most dominant frames are ‘blame attribution’, frame of ‘consequences’ and ‘conflict’. Findings revealed that blame attribution is dominant as compared to the frame of solidarity and denial is dominant as compared to the frame of concern. Furthermore, the analysis reveals that the construction and appearance of frames change over different time periods with changed intensity level of crisis. This change requires versatile coverage and shift in attention towards newly emerging challenges.