Competing frames and tone in corporate communication versus media coverage during a crisis

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Public

Relations

Review

Competing

frames

and

tone

in

corporate

communication

versus

media

coverage

during

a

crisis

Jos

Nijkrake

a

_,

_Jordy

_F.

_Gosselt

a,∗

_,

_Jan

_M.

_Gutteling

b

a_University_of_Twente,_Department_of_{Communication}_Studies,_The_Netherlands b_University_of_Twente,_Department_of_Conﬂict,_Risk_and_Safety,_The_Netherlands

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received29April2014

Receivedinrevisedform13October2014 Accepted30October2014

Keywords: Competingframes Crisiscommunication Crisisresponsestrategy Framing

Tone Mediacoverage

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Managingcorporatecommunicationthroughacrisisresponsestrategymaylimitnegative mediacoverage,therebyaffectingpublicperceptionsduringcrisissituations.However, becausedifferentstakeholdersarebeinginformedviamultiplechannels,different mes-sagesmay reach thepublic,creatingcompeting frames.Thisstudyexamines howan organization’scrisisresponseaffectsmediacoverage.Usingcontentanalysis,media cover-agemessages(N=128)andcorporatecommunicationmessages(N=24)werecompared regardinganorganizationincrisis. Allmessageswereanalyzedconsideringﬁvenews framesandtone(rangingfromverynegativetoverypositive)towardinternalandexternal stakeholders.Findingsindicatethatthemediareframedcorporatecommunication mes-sages,usingmoreanddifferentnewsframesthantheorganizationincrisis.Furthermore, mediacoveragemessagesandcorporatecommunicationmessagesdifferedinthe men-tionedaspectswithinvariousnewsframes.Allstakeholdersarecoveredsigniﬁcantlymore negativelyinmediacoverage.

InApril2011,a midsizedhospitalinamajorcityintheNetherlandswasconfrontedwithabacteriaoutbreak.The

outbreakwasleadingtohundredsofpatientsbeinginfectedbytheKlebsiellapneumoniaebacteriaandforatleastthree

peoplethebacteriawasthedirectcauseofdeath.Consequently,thehospitalwasputunderstrictersurveillancebythe

DutchHealthCareInspectorate,thehospitalmanagerresigned,andthebacteriaoutbreakwasbeinginvestigatedbyseveral

independentcommissions.Further,forthehospital–thatwasinvolvedina large-scalerelocationtoanewbuilding–

thiswasnottheﬁrstbacteriaoutbreak.Asaresultofalargebacteriaoutbreakin2002andatemporaryclosingduetoa

bacteriaoutbreakin2010,thehospitalalreadyhadacrisishistory.FromlateMay2011,thehospital’sstakeholderswere

proactivelyinformedaboutthecrisissituationbymeansofpressreleases.However,especiallyintimesofcrisis,stakeholders

tendtorelyonmediacoveragebecauseinformationthroughthemediaisbeingperceivedasmorecrediblethandirect

communication(Bond&Kirshenbaum,1998).Althoughexistingliteratureunderlinestheimportanceofa(ny)crisisresponse

(e.g.,reputationaldamagecontrol),therelationbetweenanorganization’scrisisresponseandthecontentsofmediacoverage

isstillunderstudied.Thus,inthisstudy,corporatecommunicationaboutacrisis–intheformofpressreleases–iscompared

tomediacoverageregardingthesamecrisis.

∗ Correspondingauthorat:UniversityofTwente,FacultyofBehavioralSciences,DepartmentofCommunicationStudies,P.O.Box217,7500AEEnschede, TheNetherlands.Tel.:+310534896130;fax:+310534894259.

(2)

1. Theoreticalframework

1.1. Crisiscommunicationfromanorganizationalperspective

Coombs(2007)deﬁnesacrisisas“asuddenandunexpectedeventthatthreatenstodisruptanorganization’soperations

andposesbothaﬁnancialandareputationalthreat.”Becausecrisesarecharacterizedbyhighlevelsofuncertainty,without

timelyinformationdissemination,chancesarethatrumorswilldominatethecrisisdiscourse,increasinguncertaintyand

exacerbatingthesituation(Veil&Ojeda,2010).Therefore,organizationsneedtodeterminehowtocommunicatewiththeir

variousstakeholderstopreservetherelationship(Stephens&Malone,2009),especiallybecauseitisassumedcorporate

communicationduringandafteracrisisisoneofthemostimportantfactorsindeterminingthelong-termeffectsofacrisis

(Coombs,1999).Corporatecommunicationcanlimitnegativemediacoverageandmanageperceptionsbothduringacrisis

andattherecovery/resolutionstage(Ritchie,Dorell,Miller,&Miller,2004).

Crisiscommunicationmanagersmaytrytoframethecrisisissuchawaythatreputationaldamagetotheorganization

shouldbeminimized.Framingreferstohighlightingbitsofinformationaboutanitemthatisthesubjectofacommunication,

therebyelevatingtheminsalience(Entman,1993).Thewayamessageisframedshapeshowpeopledeﬁneproblems,causes

ofproblems,attributionsofresponsibility,andsolutionstoproblems(Cooper,2002),ultimatelyinﬂuencingpublicperception

(Bullock,Wyche,&Williams,2001).Therefore,creatingframesforunderstandingandofferingexplanatorydeﬁnitionsare

bothcrucialforeffectivecommunicationduringacrisis(Coombs,1999),astheyindicatehowstakeholdersshouldinterpret

acrisis(Coombs&Holladay,2002).Bymeansofpressreleasesornewsreleases,producedbyorganizationswishingto

highlightcertaincircumstancesortoprovideagiveninterpretationofevents,theseframesarethendistributedtovarious

mediachannelsinthehopethatthelatterwillrepublishtheinformationtoreachawideaudience(Gilpin,2008).However,

thequestioniswhethertheseframeswillbesupportedornotbyotherstakeholderswithawideaccesstothepublic,namely

thenewsmedia.

1.2. Crisiscommunicationfromamediacoverageperspective

Mostoftheinformationtostakeholdersisprovidedbythenewsmedia,notbycorporatecommunication(Coombs,

2007),makingthemediatheﬁnalarbiterofcrisisframesinmostcases.Whereorganizationswanttoreduceuncertainty

andrepairtheirreputationintimesofcrisis(e.g.,Coombs,2007),overtgoalsofmassmediaareprimarilytoinformand

entertain(McCombs,1977).Althoughthemediadonotcreateacrisis,theycanmovethemtocenterstageorkeepthem

outofpublicview(Nelkin,1988),andthroughdeliberatecoverageofeventsandissues,themediahavetheabilitytoset

theagendaforpublicdiscussion(Barnes,Hanson,Novilla,Meacham,&McIntyre,2008).Thus,journalists’dailydecisionsdo

signiﬁcantlyinﬂuencetheiraudience’spicturesoftheworld(Carroll&McCombs,2003).Giventhedifferentgoalsandstakes

foranorganizationincrisisandjournalists,itislikelytoassumethatmediacoverageandcorporatecommunicationdifferin

thewaytheycommunicateaboutacrisis(i.e.,intermsofthetonetowardstakeholders,andfactsincludedoremphasized;

McCombs&Ghanem,2001).

Ingeneral,tonecanbepositive,neutralornegativeandinﬂuencesaudiencememberstothinkinacertainwayabouta

particularissue(Brunken,2006).Similarly,Deephouse(2000)statesthatanorganizationcanbesubjecttomediacoverage

thatisfavorable(i.e.,anorganizationispraisedforitsactions),unfavorable(i.e.,anorganizationiscriticizedforitsactions),

orneutral (i.e.,noevaluativemodiﬁerisincludedinthemediacoverage).Severalstudieshavefoundthatthetonein

mediacoveragehasasigniﬁcanteffectonpublicopinion(seeforexample:Gunther,1998;Kim,Carvalho,&Cooksey,2007).

Furthermore,andnotsurprisingly,toneinmediacoverageconcerningpartiesinvolvedinacrisis(e.g.,employees,investors,

management,governments)tendstobemainlynegativeorneutral.However,becausethesepartiesmaydifferintheir

levelsofresponsibility,blame,and/orinvolvement,tonetowardthesepartiesmayvary(Valentini&Romenti,2011).For

example,althoughtoneinmediacoverageofHurricaneKatrinavarieddependingonthedifferentlevelsofgovernmentin

thecoverage,thegeneraltonewasrelativelyneutral(Brunken,2006).Regardingtheexplosionsataﬁreworksfacilityinthe

Netherlandsin2000,thetonewasmildlynegativetowardlocalandnationalgovernments(Kuttschreuter,Gutteling,&de

Hond,2011).Insum:veryfewnewsstoriesinvolvingacrisisarepositivelycovered.However,intermsoftone,differences

doexistconcerningthevariouspartiesinvolvedinacrisis.

Inadditiontotone,thecontentofmediacoverageisalsocharacterizedbythepresenceofcertainnewsframes.News

framescanaffectperceptionsofissuesandofpeopleinthenews(Price,Tewksbury,&Powers,1997).Bypromptingthe

activationofcertainconstructsattheexpenseofothers, newsframescandirectlyinﬂuencewhatentersthemindsof

audiencemembers.ConcerningNeuman,Just, andCrigler’s(1992)fourdominantnewsframes(i.e.,conﬂict,economic

consequences,morality,andhumanimpact),SemetkoandValkenburg(2000)addedtheresponsibilityframeandrenamed

thehuman-impactframeintohuman-interestframe.Thehuman-interestframebringsanemotional,personalangletothe

presentationofanevent,andtheresponsibilityframeispresentwhensomeactor(e.g.,anindividualororganization)isheld

responsibleforthecausesofanevent.Boththesenewsframesmightstimulatetheformationofmorenegativeattitudes

towardthecrisisandperhapsalsotheorganizationthatisblamedforthecrisis(An&Gower,2009).Newsstorieswith

aconflictframeemphasizeconflictsbetweenindividuals,groupsororganizations.Theconflictframeisverycommonin

newspapersandothernewsmedia(Semetko&Valkenburg,2000;Neumanetal.,1992)anditistobeexpectedthatitmight

(3)

termsofconsequencesitwillﬁnanciallyhaveonanindividual,group,organization,orregion.Whencrisesinvolvelarger

economicconsequences,thisframewillbemorepresentinthenews.Newsstoriesputinthecontextofmoralprescriptions

areframedintermsofmorality.Ratherthanbecauseofthejournalisticnormofobjectivity,themoralityframeiscommonly

usedbyjournalistindirectlythroughquotationsorinference(Neumanetal.,1992).

Thepresenceoftheseﬁvedominantnewsframesactivatesexplicitthoughtsandresponsesamongthepublic(Cappella

&Jamieson,1997;Cho&Gower,2006;deVreese,2004;Iyengar,1987;Valkenburg,Semetko,&deVreese,1999).Choand Gower(2006)suggestthatahuman-interestframecanstimulatetheemotionalresponsesbyexaggeratingtheevaluationor

perceptionofcrises.Bypresentingwinnersandlosers,astoryframedintermsofconﬂictcanactivatethecynicalreactions

amongmembersofthepublic(Cappella&Jamieson,1997),oftenincludingmoreandopposingpointsofviewintheir

thoughts(deVreese,2004).Anewsstoryframedintermsofeconomicconsequenceswillactivatethoughtsandresponses

concerningthecosts,beneﬁtsandﬁnancialimplicationsofinvolvedparties(Valkenburgetal.,1999;deVreese,2004).Finally,

Iyengar(1987)suggeststhatanewsstoryframedintermsofattributionofresponsibilityprovidesthepublicwithmore

understandingregardingwhichpartyisresponsibleforcausingproblems.

Giventherelianceonmediaduringacrisis(Brunken,2006),aframeanalysisconcerningmediacoverageintimesof

crisisisdeemedimportant.Consequently,morerecentframingresearchfocusedonnewsframesduringcrisissituations

(e.g.,An&Gower,2009;Brunken,2006;Kuttschreuteretal.,2011;Valentini&Romenti,2011).Brunken(2006)foundthat

thehuman-interestframewastheonemostusedinmediacoverageaboutHurricaneKatrina,followedbytheconﬂict

frame,theresponsibilityframe,theeconomic-consequencesframe,andthemoralityframe.Furthermore,thepresence

ofthehuman-interestframedroppedconsiderablyaftertheﬁrstthreeweeksofcoverage.ValentiniandRomenti(2011)

foundthattheeconomic-consequencesframewastheonemostusedinmediacoverageaboutAlitalia’scrisisbeforeits

privatization,followedbytheconﬂictframe,theresponsibilityframe,thehuman-interestframe,andthemoralityframe.In

mediacoverageconcerningexplosionsataﬁreworksfacilityintheNetherlandskilling23people,Kuttschreuteretal.(2011)

foundthattheresponsibilityframewastheonemostused,followedbytheconﬂictframe,thehuman-interestframe,and

theeconomic-consequencesframe.Themoralityframewasnotpresentinthemediacoverageoftheexplosions.Anand

Gower(2009)foundthattheresponsibilityframewastheonemostusedinmediacoverageconcerning25organizationsthat

facedcrisesin2006,followedbytheeconomic-consequencesframe,thehuman-interestframe,theconﬂictframe,andthe

moralityframe.IntheAnandGower’sstudy,however,thelevelofresponsibilitywasalsotakenintoaccount,showingthat

ifacrisiswasseenaspreventable,newsstoriesweremorelikelytousetheresponsibilityframe,conﬂictframeandmorality

frame.Further,accidentalcriseswerepredominantlyframedintermsofeconomic-consequencesandthehuman-interest

framewasusedmoreoftenwhenthecrisistypewasinthevictimcluster.

Toconclude,thesestudiesonmediacoverageofcrisessituationsrevealthatthemoralityframeislesslikelytobeused

asanewsframe,whereastheconﬂictframeandtheresponsibilityframeappeartobeusedmoreoften,followedbythe

human-interestframeandtheeconomic-consequencesframe.Anotherconclusionthatcanbedrawnisthatframeuseis

dependentonthelevelofresponsibilityattributedtotheorganization.

1.3. Competingframes

By presenting their own interpretation of an issue, organizations frame their communications while news

media participate in the process by accepting and modifying the frames presented to them (Miller & Riechert,

2000).

Inordertokeepastoryaliveandfresh,mediaoftenreframeaneventbyemphasizingdifferentattributes(McCombs,

2004).Forexample,becauseofinsufﬁcientknowledgeaboutthematter,intheirinitialcoverage,ajournalistmayheavily

relyonthesourcesthatprovideinformation,includingtheorganizationathand.However,intheirsubsequentsearchfor

facts,journalistsmaypreferspeakingtoeyewitnesses,orexperts,whilestatementsfromspokespersonsmaybetreatedwith

skepticism(Miller&Riechert,2000).Consequently,asnotedabove,theaudiencecanbeexposedtomultiplenewsframes

foroneparticularissue(Edy&Meirick,2007),leadingtoasituationinwhichpeoplearecontinuouslyexposedtovarious

competingarguments(Hansen,2007).Coombs(2007)deﬁnesthisprocessascompetingframes.Confrontedwithcompeting

frames,theaudiencewillcombinethesetobuildstoriesoftheirown(Edy&Meirick,2007).Inpresentingtheirsideofthe

story,crisismanagersmaytakeadvantagefromthisbyestablishingaframeorreinforcinganexistingone.Ontheother

hand,newsmediamayrejectthecrisismanager’sframeandcontinuewithadifferentframe(Coombs,2007).Whereearly

studies(e.g.,Iyengar,1987)haveexploredtheimpactofonesingleframeonaudienceopinion,counter-framing(i.e.,where

analternativeframeisoffered)andheterogeneousdiscussionslimitframingeffectsbypromptingdeliberateprocessingand

offeringreformulationsoftheproblems(Druckman,2004).Inanexperimentalstudy,Druckman(2004)foundthatwhen

presentingdifferentframestoaudiences(i.e.,aframewiththeoriginalproblem,butalsoareframingoftheproblemthat

usestheoppositeframe),framingeffectsappeartobeneitherrobustnotparticularlypervasive.

Inthisstudy,basedonthetheoreticalconceptofcompetingframes,wewillexaminethepresenceofcompetingframes

incorporatecommunication(i.e.,pressreleases)versusmediacoverageregardingonespeciﬁccrisissituation.Furthermore,

wewillexplorewhetherdifferencesexistconcerningrelevantstakeholderswithregardtoframeuseandtone.Weexpect

thatthehospitalincrisiswillfocusonarebuildstrategyinordertogeneratenewreputationalassets.Adoptingthisstrategy

maybeanattempttochangeperceptionsoftheorganizationincrisisbypresentingnew,positiveinformationaboutthe

(4)

adjustinformationbyexpressingconcernforthevictimsandthatsolutionstothecrisiswillbeoffered.Regardingframe

use,weexpectthatthehospitalframesitscorporatecommunicationmainlyintermsofhuman-interestandresponsibility.

Takingthemediacoverageperspective,incaseofapreventablecrisis,weexpectthatnewsstoriesarelikelytobeframed

intermsofresponsibility,conﬂictandmorality.Tosummarizethepreviousdiscussions,thesearetheresearchquestions

thatwillbeanalyzed:RQ1:Towhatextenddoesanorganization’scrisisresponseaffectmediacoverageintermsofnews

frames?RQ2:Towhatextentdoesanorganization’scrisisresponseaffectmediacoverageintermsoftonetowardconcerned

parties?

2. Method

Bymeansofacontentanalysis,thecorporatecommunicationofanorganizationincrisis(i.e.,thehospitalwherethe

bacteriaoutbreaktookplace)iscomparedwithmediacoverageonthissubject,focusingontoneaswellasthenewsframes

thatwereused.

2.1. Corpusofpressreleasesandnewsarticles

Fromthehospital’swebsite,allpressreleasesrelatedtothebacteriaoutbreak(N=24)wereretrievedandanalyzed.

Regardingthecorporatecommunicationcoverage,theunitofanalysiswasonepressrelease.Forthemediacoverage,the

unitofanalysiswasonenewspaperarticle.Priortodeterminingaﬁnalsample,nationalandregionalnewspaperswiththe

largestcirculationintheNetherlandswereselected(DePersgroepAdvertising,2013;HOI,InstituutvoorMediaAuditing,

2011).Nationalnewspaperswereselectedbasedsolelyonthefocusandonthecirculationinthecrisisarea.Regarding

theregionalnewspapers,themostimportantinclusioncriterionwasthegeographicalcirculationinthecrisisarea.We

selectedtworegionalnewspapers:thenewspaperwiththelargestcirculationinthecrisisregionandanewspaperwithout

circulationinthecrisisareatoportraymediacoverageinDutchnewspapersascompletelyaspossible(Cebuco,2012;

DePersgroepAdvertising,2013).Regardingbothnationalandregionalpapers,inordertorevealthepresenceofframes,

newspaperscoveringbackgroundnewswereselectedovernewspaperscoveringshallownews.Asexpected,thesequality

newspaperscovernewsstoriesmoreextensivelyandassuch,returnedthelargestnumbersofhitsintheelectronicdatabases.

AllnewsarticleswereretrievedfromtheLexis-Nexisdatabaseandofallrelevantarticles,duplicateswereexcluded.The

ﬁnalsample(N=128)consistedoftwonationalnewspapers(NRCHandelsblad,N=27;Trouw,N=25)andtworegional

newspapers(RotterdamsDagblad,N=57;BrabantsDagblad,N=19)withcirculationinthecrisisareaandoutsidethecrisis

area,respectively.

2.2. Codingprocedureandreliability

Thecodingprocedureconsistedoftwoparts.Theﬁrstpartconcernedtonetowardinternalstakeholders(i.e.,the

organi-zationingeneral,employees[e.g.,microbiologists,hygienists,nurses],andmanagement[e.g.,theboard,themanagement,

the(interim)director]),and externalstakeholders(includinglocalgovernment[e.g.,themayor,thecitycouncillor,the

municipality] andnationalgovernment). Athird stakeholdergroupthatwasincorporatedconcerned–independent–

researchcouncils(includingorganizationssuchasTheNationalInstituteforPublicHealth,CommunityHealthServices,

TheHealthCareInspectorateandotherspeciallyequippedcommissionsofinquiry).Tonewascodedseparatelyforthese

subgroups,onﬁve-pointscales(rangingfromverynegativetoverypositive).BasedonMeijerandKleinnijenhuis(2006),

tonecouldtakeoneofthefollowingvalues:−2,−1,0,+1and+2.Thevalues“−1”and“+1”wereusedwhena

reﬁne-mentwasmadetothetext(suchas“maybe,”“slightly,”and“perhaps”).Thecontextunitconsistedofthearticleasa

whole.

Thesecondpartofthecodingprocedureassessedthepresenceofframesinboththecorporatecommunicationandthe

newscoverage.ThiswascodedaccordingtoSemetkoandValkenburg’s(2000)framework.Thisframeworkinvolvesthe

followingframes:thehuman-interestframe(i.e.,thisframebringsanemotional,personalangletothepresentationofan

event),theresponsibilityframe(i.e.,thisframeholdssomeactorresponsibleforthecausesofanevent),theconﬂictframe

(i.e.,thisframeemphasizesconﬂictsbetweenindividuals,groups,ororganizations),theeconomic-consequencesframe(i.e.,

thisframereportsanissueintermsofeconomicconsequencesonanindividual,group,organization,orregion),andthe

moralityframe(i.e.,thisframeputsstoriesinthecontextofmoralprescriptions).Foreacharticle,thepresenceandcontents

oftheprecedingframeswereanalyzedbyansweringthreeormorestatements,whichcharacterizeaparticularnewsframe

(yes,no),somultipleframescouldbepresentwithinonearticle.

Priortocodingtheﬁnalcorpus,severalsamplesweredrawntoachieveaminimumCohen’skappascoreof

approxi-mately.7.Topreventeventualbiases,thesamplesvaried.Fortheintercoderreliabilitytest,twocodersweresubjectedto

a codinginstructionandcoded48randomlyselectednewspaperarticles.Theserepresentedapproximately10%ofthe

total publicationspernewspaper.Afterthreecompletedsamples,allvariablesshoweda sufﬁcientCohen’skappa(see

(5)

Table1

Cohen’skappaandinterrateragreementscores.

Variable Cohen’skappa Interrateragreement

Tone Organizationingeneral .865 93% Employees .871 92% Management .682 79% Localgovernment .707 83% Nationalgovernment .716 90% Researchcouncil .755 85% Newsframes Humaninterest 1.00 100% Conﬂict .837 100% Responsibility 1.00 100% Economicconsequences .705 85% Morality 1.00 79% 3. Results 3.1. Newsframes

Thenewsframes usedwithinthecorpusareshown inTable2.In mediacoverage, thetotal number ofdistinctive

newsframesperarticle(M=2.02,SD=.887)ishigherthanincorporatecommunicationcoverage(M=1.13,SD=.448);t

(63.01)=7.39,p<01.Corporatecommunicationwasframedmostfrequentlyintermsofhumaninterest(96%;ofwhich65%

providedahumanexampleontheissueand61%toldhowindividualsandgroupsareaffected),followedbytheconﬂictframe

(13%;ofwhich67%reﬂectedondisagreementsbetweenpartiesand33%emphasizedonepartythatreproachesanother),

andtheeconomicconsequencesframe(4%;inallthesecasesthecostswerementioned).Noneofthepressreleaseswere

framedintermsofresponsibilityormorality.Alsomediacoveragewasframedmostfrequentlyintermsofhumaninterest

Table2

Useofnewsframesinmediacoverageandcorporatecommunication.

I.Media coverage II.Corporate communication Ivs.II Human-interestframe 96% 96% n.s.

Thestoryprovidesahumanexampleor‘humanface’ontheissue 75% 65% n.s. Thestoryemploysadjectivesorpersonalvignettesthatgeneratefeelingsofoutrage 2% 0% n.s. Thestoryemphasizeshowindividualsandgroupsareaffectedbytheissue/problem 84% 61% 5.10* Thestorygoesintotheprivateorpersonallivesoftheactors 11% 0% n.s.

Thestoryreferstonon-directvictimsoftheissue 3% 0% n.s.

Conﬂictframe 67% 13% 24.91**

Thestoryreﬂectsdisagreementsbetweenparties-individuals-groups-countries 16% 67% n.s. Oneparty-individual-group-countrydoesreproachanother 95% 33% 26.10** Thestoryreferstotwoormoresidesoftheproblemorissue 0% 0%

Thestoryreferstowinnersandlosers 0% 0%

Thestoryreferstopartieswhichdefendthemselvesagainstcriticism 7% 0% n.s.

Responsibilityframe 16% 0% 4.32*

Thestorysuggeststhatsomelevelofgovernmenthastheabilitytoalleviatetheproblem 0% 0%

Thestorysuggeststhatsomelevelofthegovernmentisresponsiblefortheissue/problem 5% 0% n.s.

Thestorysuggestssolution(s)totheproblem/issue 10% 0% n.s.

Thestorysuggeststhatanindividual(orgroupofpeopleinsociety)isresponsiblefortheissue/problem 95% 0% 4.07* Thestorysuggeststheproblemrequiresurgentaction 0% 0%

Thestoryreferstopotentialproblems 0% 0%

Economic-consequencesframe 22% 4% 4.12*

Thereisamentionofﬁnanciallossesorgainsnoworinthefuture 36% 0% n.s. Thereisamentionofcosts/degreeofexpensesinvolved 96% 100% 3.85* Thereisareferencetoeconomicconsequencesofpursuingornotpursuingacourseofaction 7% 0% n.s.

Moralityframe 1% 0% n.s.

Thestorydoescontainamoralmessage 0% 0%

Thestorydoesmakeareferencetomorality,Godandotherreligioustenets 0% 0%

Thestoryoffersspeciﬁcsocialprescriptionsabouthowtobehave 100% 0% n.s.

Thestoryreferstointentionalbadbehavior 0% 0%

Totalnumberofnewsframes 258 27 7.39**

Numberofnewsframesperarticle 2.0 1.1

* _p_<_.05. ** _p_<_01.

(6)

Table3

Averagetonetowardrelevantstakeholdersinmediacoverageandcorporatecommunication.

I.Mediacoverage II.Corporatecommunication Ivs.II(t-tests)

M SD M SD Internalstakeholders −.43 .476 .04 .204 −7.94** Externalstakeholders .00 .000 Organizationingeneral −.44 .637 .00 .000 −7.77** Employees −.56 .585 .00 .000 −7.78** Management −.48 .623 .25 .707 −3.11** Localgovernment .00 .000 Nationalgovernment .00 .000 Researchcouncil −.06 .241 .00 .000 −2.29* Overalltone −.32 .372 .03 .136 −8.16** *_p_<_.05. **_p_<_01.

(96%;84%ofwhichfocusedonhowindividualsandgroupsareaffectedbytheissueand75%providedahumanexample

ontheissue),conﬂict(67%;ofwhich95%emphasizedonepartythatreproachesanother),andeconomicconsequences

(22%;ofwhich96%involvedmentioningcosts/degreeofexpenses).Furthermore,differentfromcorporate

communica-tion,inmediacoveragealsotheresponsibilityframe(16%;ofwhich95%becauseanindividualorgroupissuggestedtobe

responsiblefortheissue),andthemoralityframe(1%;allbecauseofspeciﬁcsocialprescriptionsabouthowtobehave)were

present.

Frameuseappearedtodifferbycommunicationtype.Forexample,theuseoftheconﬂictframedifferedsigniﬁcantly

bycommunicationtype(2_(1,_N₌₁₅₂₎₌_24.91,_p_<_.001),_indicating_that_media_coverage_was_framed_{signiﬁcantly}_more

oftenintermsofconﬂict(67%)thanwascorporatecommunication(13%).Furthermore,Fisher’sexacttestsrevealedthat

theuseoftheresponsibilityframe(p=.044)andtheeconomic-consequencesframe(p=.048)signiﬁcantlydifferedper

communicationtype,showingthatmediacoveragecomparedtocorporatecommunicationwasframedsigniﬁcantlymore

oftenintermsofresponsibility(16%vs.0%)andeconomicconsequences(22%vs.4%).Nodifferenceswerefoundintheuse

ofthehuman-interestframeandthemoralityframe.

Additionally,Chi-squaredtestsandFisher’sexacttestswereperformedtogiveinsightintothedifferencesbetween

thecontents oftheframespercommunicationtype.First,althoughwefoundnodifferencesinthefrequencyofuseof

thehuman-interestframeingeneralwhencomparingcorporatecommunicationwithmediacoverage,thecontentsofthe

humaninterestframediddifferbycommunicationtype(2_(1,_N₌₁₅₂₎₌_5.10,_p_<_.05),_indicating_that_media_coverage_was

framedsigniﬁcantlymoreoftenintermsofhowindividualsandgroupsareaffectedbytheissue(84%)thanwascorporate

communication(61%).Second,regardingtheconﬂictframe,mediacoveragewasframedsigniﬁcantlymoreofteninterms

ofonepartyorgroupreproachinganother(95%)ascomparedtocorporatecommunication(33%;2_(1,_N₌₁₅₂₎₌_26.10,

p<.001).Third,Fisher’sexacttestrevealedthattheresponsibilityframe(p=.04)signiﬁcantlydifferedpercommunication

type,showingthatmediacoveragecomparedtocorporatecommunicationwasframedsigniﬁcantlymoreoftenintermsof

suggestingthatanindividual(orgroupofpeopleinsociety)isresponsiblefortheissuecomparedcorporatecommunication

(95%vs.0%).Fourth,Fisher’sexacttestrevealedthattheeconomic-consequencesframe(p=.08)signiﬁcantlydifferedper

communicationtype,showingthatcorporatecommunicationcomparedtomediacoveragewasframedsigniﬁcantlymore

oftenintermsofmentioningcosts/degreesofexpenses(100%vs.96%).Nodifferenceswerefoundregardingthecontentsof

themoralityframe.

3.2. Tone

Independent-samplest-testswereconductedtocomparetonetowardrelevantstakeholdersforeachcrisisresponse

type(seeTable3).Overall,tonewassigniﬁcantlymorenegativeinmediacoverage(M=−.32,SD=.372)whencompared

tocorporatecommunication(M=.03,SD=.136);t(97.84)=_−8.16,p<.01.Theexternalstakeholderslocalgovernmentand

nationalgovernmentwerenotcoveredincorporatecommunication.Inmediacoverage,localgovernment(M=.00,SD=.000),

andnationalgovernment(M=.00,SD=.000)wereonaveragecoveredinaneutraltone.Theinternalstakeholderswere

coveredsigniﬁcantlymorenegativelyinmediacoverage(M=−.43,SD=.476)thanincorporatecommunicationcoverage

(M=.04,SD=.204);t(79.03)=−7.94,p<.01.Whenconsideringtheinternalstakeholdersseparately,allinternalstakeholders

werecoveredsigniﬁcantlymorenegativelyinmediacoverage,ascomparedtocorporatecommunication(organizationin

general:M=−.44,SD=.637versusM=.00,SD=000;t(127)=−7.77,p<.01);employees:M=−.56,SD=.585versusM=.00,

SD=.000;t(65)=−7.78,p<.01;management:M=−.48,SD=.623versusM=25, SD=.707;t(81)=−3.11,p<.01).Further,

theresearchcouncilwascoveredsigniﬁcantlymorenegativelyinmediacoverage(M=−.06,SD=.241)thanincorporate

(7)

Table4

Averagetonepernewsframeandcorrelationsbetweentoneandnewsframesinmediacoverageandcorporatecommunication. Organizationin

general

Employees Management Localgovernment National government Researchcouncil Mediacoverage Humaninterest −.44 −.57 −.48 .00 .00 −.06 Conﬂict −.65** _−.69** _−.56** _.00 _.00 _−.07 Responsibility −.75* _−.89** _−.68 _.00 _.00 _−.11 Economicconsequences −.25 −.50 −.60 .00 .00 −.07 Morality .00 −1.00 .00 .00

Totalnumberofarticles 128 66 75 2 12 82

Corporatecommunication Humaninterest .00 .00 .29 .00 Conﬂict .00 .00 .00 .00 Responsibility Economicconsequences .00 2.00** _.00 Morality

Totalnumberofarticles 24 6 8 22

Note:Tonerangesfrom−2(verynegative)to+2(verypositive).

* _p_<_05. ** _p_<_01.

3.3. Correlationnewsframesandtone

Incorporatecommunication,theeconomicconsequencesframeissigniﬁcantlycorrelatedwithtonetoward

manage-ment(r(6)=1.00):tonetowardmanagementismorepositivewhenthepressreleasesareframedintermsofeconomic

consequences,seeTable4.

Inmediacoverage,toneissigniﬁcantlycorrelatedwiththeconﬂictframetowardinternalstakeholders:whenmedia

coverageisframedintermsofconﬂict,tonetowardinternalstakeholdersbecomesmorenegative.Theresponsibilityframe

issigniﬁcantlycorrelatedwiththeorganizationingeneralandwithemployees:whenmediacoverageisframedintermsof

responsibility,tonetowardthesestakeholdersbecomesmorenegative.Theeconomic-consequencesframewassigniﬁcantly

correlatedwithtonetowardmanagement:Whencorporatecommunicationisframedintermsofeconomicconsequences,

tonetowardmanagementbecomesmorepositive.

3.4. Timelines,newsframesandtone

Togatherinsightinthedevelopmentofnewsframesandaveragetonetowardrelevantstakeholders,chronological

timelineswerecreated.Onthesetimelines,keyeventsduringthecrisisweremarked.Inbothmediacoverageand

corpo-ratecommunication,messagesintheﬁrstmonthwerepredominantlyframedintermsofhumaninterest.Further,both

communicationtypesarecharacterizedbyseveralpeaksovertime.Thesepeaksoccurapproximatelyatthesametime.

Theusednewsframesintheseﬂuctuations,however,differ.Corporatecommunicationcoverageisonlyframedintermsof

humaninterest,conﬂictandeconomicconsequences,andafterthreemonths,theonlyframethatpersistsisthe

human-interestframe.Furthermore,theeconomic-consequencesframeisusedinmediacoveragebeforeitisusedincorporate

communication.

Regardingtoneinmediacoverage,despiteaslightpeakin August2011,which ischaracterizedbyapositivetone,

internalstakeholderswereonlycoveredneutrallyincorporatecommunicationcoverageandexternalstakeholderswere

notmentionedatall.Inmediacoverage,externalstakeholderswereonlycoveredneutrally.ExceptforthemonthsJune

2012andAugust2012,internalstakeholderswerecoverednegatively.Whencomparingtheaveragetonetowardrelevant

stakeholdersincorporatecommunicationcoverageandinmediacoverage,severalstatementscanbemade.Theﬁrstsix

monthsofthecrisis(i.e.,June2011–November2011),werecharacterizedbycorporatecommunication,whichwasmainly

neutraltowardinternalstakeholders.Afterthisperiod,pressreleaseswerepurelyneutralandpublishedinJanuary2012,

March2012andAugust2012.However,themediadidfocusonthecrisisforﬁvemonthsinarow.Furthermore,themedia

publishednewsstoriesinmoremonths(i.e.,12)thantheorganizationincrisis(i.e.,9)duringtheentirecrisis.

4. Discussion

Theprimarygoalofthisresearchwastoexamineinwhatwayacorporatecrisisresponsestrategyaffectsmediacoverage.

Usingcontentanalysis,mediacoveragemessagesandcorporatecommunicationmessageswerecompared.Theorganization

incrisiswasamidsizedhospitalinamajorcityintheNetherlandsthatwasconfrontedwithabacteriaoutbreakleadingto

hundredsofpatientsbeinginfectedbytheK.pneumoniaebacteria,resultinginthreefatalities.Althoughpreviousstudies

(8)

haveinﬂuenceonthosemedia,resultinginpro-organizationmediacoverage,wedidnotﬁndevidencesupportingthisclaim.

Instead,itappearedthatanorganization’scrisisresponseisconstantlybeingreframedbythenewsmedia.

Toillustrate,ourresultsshowthatthemediaframeacrisissigniﬁcantlymoreoftenintermsofconﬂict,responsibility

andeconomicconsequencescomparedtocommunicationsissuedbytheorganization.Furthermore,signiﬁcantdifferences

werefoundwithinthenewsframes used.In ordertogeneratenewreputationalassets,theorganizationincrisiswas

expectedtooffersolutions(i.e.,whichisanaspectoftheresponsibilityframe).Asthis newsframegotnoattentionin

thepressreleases,themediaintroducedtheirownstoriesaboutwhichpartycanbeheldresponsible.Furthermore,in

absenceofprovidedsolutionsand/ornew,positivenewsbytheorganizationincrisis,thenewsmediaalsofocusedonthe

partiesthatreproachedanotherandreflecteddisagreements(i.e.,conflictframe)significantlymorethantheorganization

incrisisdid.Also,concerningthehuman-interestframe,themediaemphasizedhowindividualsandgroupsareaffected

bythecrisissigniﬁcantlymorethancorporatecommunications.Theaveragenumberofnewsframesperarticleishigher

inmediacoverage(i.e.,2)thanincorporatecommunicationcoverage(i.e.,1.1).Further,achronologicaltimelineanalysis

showedthatcorporate communicationinapproximatelytheﬁrst threemonthsisframedmostfrequentlyintermsof

humaninterest,conﬂict,andeconomicconsequences.Afterthisperiod,corporatecommunicationisonlycoveredinterms

ofhumaninterest.However,inmediacoverage,avarietyofnewsframesisusedduringtheentireperiodofcrisis.Also,the

economic-consequencesframeisusedinmediacoveragebeforeitisusedincorporatecommunication.

Thereframingcharacterofnewsmediaisalsoillustratedbysigniﬁcantdifferencesintermsoftone,comparedtocorporate

communication.Ritchieetal.(2004)suggestmanagingcorporatecommunicationthroughacrisisresponsestrategytolimit

negativemediacoverage.However,thepresentresultsshowthatallstakeholders(thatappearincorporatecommunication)

arecoveredsigniﬁcantlymorenegativelyinmediacoveragecomparedtocorporatecommunication.Furthermore,inthe

media,morestakeholdersarecoveredthanincorporatecommunication(e.g.,thelocalgovernmentandnationalgovernment

wereaddressedinmediacoverageandnotincorporatecommunication).Therefore,itcanbestatedthatnotcoveringcertain

stakeholdersincorporatecommunicationisnoguaranteethatthemediawillnotdosoeither.Insum,despiteproactively

framingacrisisthroughcorporatecommunicationcoverage,theorganizationincrisishasnotbeenabletopreventnegative

mediacoverageofinternalstakeholders.

Onemightwonderhowcrisismanagersshoulddealwiththereframingnatureofnewsmedia?Proactivelyrespondingto

acrisisisbynomeansaguaranteethatthemediawilladoptyourframe.Themostimportantpracticalimplicationforcrisis

managersisthatmainlyframingthecrisisintermsofhumaninterestisnotenoughtopositivelyaffectmediacoverage,

asresultsfromthisstudysuggestthatthemediawillreframetheorganization’scrisisresponsepredominantlyintermsof

conﬂict,responsibilityandeconomicconsequences.Doesthisimplythatcorporatecrisiscommunicationisbeingignored

bythemedia(andtherestoftheworld)becauseitapparentlyisignoringreality?Whenthisisavalidargument,whatwould

theutilityofcorporatecrisiscommunicationbe?

Somelimitationsofthisstudymustbenoted.Theﬁrstisthatthisstudy’sorganizationincrisisusedonlyonenews

frametoaddressalimitedsetofstakeholdersneutrally.So,itremainsunclearwhathappenstomediareframingwhenthe

organizationincrisisframesthecrisisinmorethanonenewsframeandwhenitwilladdressrelevantstakeholdersmore

negatively.Additionalresearchisneededtotestthis.Asecondlimitationconcernsthetypeofmediacoverage,whichisused

forthisstudy.Thisresearchonlyincludedmediacoveragefromnewspapers.Giventherisingpopularityofdigitalmedia

andsocialmedia,itisrecommendedtoincludenewswebsites,orweblogs,orsocialmediachannelsinfutureresearch.

References

An,S.-K.,&Gower,K.K.(2009).Howdothenewsmediaframecrises?Acontentanalysisofcrisisnewscoverage.PublicRelationsReview,35,107–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.010

Barnes, M.D., Hanson,L.,Novilla, L.M., Meacham, A.T., &McIntyre, E.(2008). Analysisof mediaagendasetting during and after Hurricane Katrina: Implicationsfor emergencypreparedness,disaster response, anddisaster policy. AmericanJournalof PublicHealth, 98(4), 604–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.112235

Bond,J.,&Kirshenbaum,R.(1998).Undertheradar:Talkingtotoday’scynicalconsumer.NewYork:JohnWiley&SonsInc.

Brunken,B.L.(2006).HurricaneKatrina:Acontentanalysisofmediaframing,attributeagendasetting,andtoneofgovernmentresponse.LouisianaState University.Retrievedfromhttp://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07102006-130303/

Bullock, H. E., Wyche, K. F., & Williams, W. R. (2001). Media images of the poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2), 229–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00210

Cappella,J.N.,&Jamieson,K.H.(1997).Spiralofcynicism:Thepressandthepublicgood.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Carroll,C.E.,&McCombs,M.(2003).Agenda-settingeffectsofbusinessnewsonthepublic’simagesandopinionsaboutmajorcorporations.Corporate ReputationReview,6(1),36–46.http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540188

Cebuco.(2012).Verspreideoplagepertitelperprovincie2012.Amsterdam:NDPNieuwsmedia.Retrievedfromhttp://www.oplagen-dagbladen.nl/ Cho,H.S.,&Gower,K.K.(2006).Framingeffectonthepublic’sresponsetocrisis:Humaninterestframeandcrisistypeinﬂuencingresponsibilityand

blame.PublicRelationsReview,32,420–422.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.09.011 Coombs,W.T.(1999).Ongoingcrisiscommunication.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublications.

Coombs,W.T.(2007).Protectingorganizationreputationsduringacrisis:Thedevelopmentandapplicationofsituationalcrisiscommunicationtheory. CorporateReputationReview,10,163–176.http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(2002).Helpingcrisismanagersprotectreputationalassets:Initialtestsofthesituationalcrisiscommunicationtheory. ManagementCommunicationQuarterly,16(165),165–186.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089331802237233

Cooper,A.H.(2002).Mediaframingandsocialmovementmobilization:GermanpeaceprotestagainstINFmissiles,theGulfWar,andNATOpeace enforcementinBosnia.EuropeanJournalofPoliticalResearch,41,37–80.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00003

DePersgroepAdvertising.(2013).RegionaalVerspreidingsgebied.Retrievedfromhttp://www.persgroepadvertising.nl/regionaal

deVreese,C.H.(2004).Theeffectsofframesinpoliticaltelevisionnewsonissueinterpretationandframesalience.Journalism&MassCommunication Quarterly,81(1),36–52.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100104

(9)

Deephouse,D.L.(2000).Mediareputationasastrategicresource:Anintegrationofmasscommunicationandresource-basedtheories.Journalof Manage-ment,26(6),1091–1112.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600602

Druckman,J.N.(2004).Politicalpreferenceformation:Competition,deliberation,andthe(ir)relevanceofframingeffects.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview, 98(4),671–686.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404041413

Edy,J.A.,&Meirick,P.C.(2007).Wanted,deadoralive:Mediaframes,frameadoption,andsupportforthewarinAfghanistan.JournalofCommunication, 57,119–141.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00332.x

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clariﬁcation of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

Gilpin,D.R.(2008).Narratingtheorganizationalself:Reframingtheroleofthenewsrelease.PublicRelationsReview,34(1),9–18.

Gunther,A.C.(1998).Thepersuasivepressinference:Effectsofmassmediaonperceivedpublicopinion.CommunicationResearch,25(5),486–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365098025005002

Hansen,K. (2007).The sophisticated public: Theeffect of competingframes onpublic opinion. Scandinavian Political Studies,30(3), 377–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00185.x

HOI,InstituutvoorMediaAuditing.(2011).HOIRapportage2011.Retrievedfromhttp://hoi-ofﬂine.staging.modernmedia.nl/798/Opvraagmodule.html Iyengar,S.(1987).Televisionnewsandcitizens’explanationsofnationalaffairs.TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview,81(3),815–832.Retrievedfrom

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1962678

Kim,S.-H.,Carvalho,J.P.,&Cooksey,C.E.(2007).Exploringtheeffectsofnegativepublicity:Newscoverageandpublicperceptionsofauniversity.Public RelationsReview,33,233–235.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.018

Kuttschreuter,M.,Gutteling,J.M.,&deHond,M.(2011).Framingandtone-of-voiceofdisastermediacoverage:TheaftermathoftheEnschedeﬁreworks disasterintheNetherlands.Health,Risk&Society,13(3),201–220.

McCombs,M.(1977).Agendasettingfunctionofmassmedia.PublicRelationsReview,3(4),89–95.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(77)80008-8 McCombs,M.(2004).Settingtheagenda:Themassmediaandpublicopinion.Cambridge:PolityPress.

McCombs,M.,&Ghanem,S.I.(2001).Theconvergenceofagendasettingandframing.InS.D.Reese,O.H.GandyJr.,&A.E.Grant(Eds.),Framingpubliclife: Perspectivesonmediaandourunderstandingofthesocialworld(pp.67–81).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

Meijer,M.M.,&Kleinnijenhuis,J.(2006).Newsandcorporatereputation:EmpiricalﬁndingsfromtheNetherlands.PublicRelationsReview,32(4),341–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.08.002

Miller,M.M.,&Riechert,B.P.(2000).Interestgroupstrategiesandjournalisticnorms:newsmediaframingofenvironmentalissues.InS.Allan,B.Adam, &C.Carter(Eds.),Environmentalrisksandthemedia.London:Routledge.

Nelkin, D. (1988). Risk reporting and the management of industrial crises. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 341–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.192960

Neuman,W.R.,Just,M.R.,&Crigler,A.N.(1992).Commonknowledge:Newsandtheconstructionofpoliticalmeaning.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicago Press.

Price,V.,Tewksbury,D.,&Powers,E.(1997).Switchingtrainsofthought:Theimpactofnewsframesonreaders’cognitiveresponses.Communication Research,24(5),481–506.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365097024005002

Ritchie,B.W.,Dorell,H.,Miller,D.,&Miller,G.A.(2004).Crisiscommunicationandrecoveryforthetourismindustry.JournalofTravel&TourismMarketing, 15(2–3),199–216.http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v15n0211

Semetko,H.A.,&Valkenburg,P.M.(2000).FramingEuropeanpolitics:Acontentanalysisofpressandtelevisionnews.JournalofCommunication,50(2), 93–109.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x

Stephens,K.K.,&Malone,P.C.(2009).Iftheorganizationswon’tgiveusinformation...:Theuseofmultiplenewmediaforcrisistechnicaltranslationand dialogue.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,21(2),229–239.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627260802557605

Ulmer,R.R.,Sellnow,T.L.,&Seeger,M.W.(2007).Effectivecrisiscommunication:Movingfromcrisistoopportunity.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublications. Valentini,C., &Romenti, S. (2011).Thepress and Alitalia’s 2008 crisis: Issues,tones, and frames. PublicRelations Review,37(2011),360–365.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.07.002

Valkenburg,P.M.,Semetko,H.A.,&deVreese,C.H.(1999).Theeffectsofnewsframesonreaders’thoughtsandrecall.CommunicationResearch,26(5), 550–569.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365099026005002

Veil, S. R., & Ojeda, F. (2010). Establishing media partnerships in crisis response. Communication Studies, 61(4), 412–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2010.491336