Risk Communication in the Media

The global impact of the coronavirus pandemic has reshaped societies worldwide, altering human interactions and perceptions of the world and brought unprecedented challenges, not only in terms of public health management but also in communication. Australia experienced low infection and mortality rates during the initial eight months of the pandemic compared to other regions. This success in containment has been attributed to rigorous testing, contact tracing, mandatory quarantine measures, and timely shutdowns, along with the advantageous geographical location of the country.

During this period, Australian news outlets played a crucial role in disseminating information and shaping public perceptions of the pandemic. This examination delves into the linguistic evolution of media coverage, shedding light on how risk communication strategies evolved over time. The linguistic choices in media coverage significantly influenced public response and adherence to health directives during the pandemic. The strategic changes in language helped stabilize public sentiment and enhance cooperation with health guidelines.

I conducted a study on Australian news outlets at Monash University during the peak of the pandemic. Utilizing the vital work of Mark Davies’ international corpus (Davies, 2019-), I created my own corpus, focusing on nationally recognized news outlets in Australia, such as The Age, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), and Channel 9. This resulted in a comprehensive collection from 18 outlets, comprising 5,969 articles and 961,390 words, covering the period from January to September 2020 (Munn, 2021). Articles from these sources were analyzed, focusing on key words used to frame aspects of the virus. The results of this analysis are detailed in this article.

Novel Coronavirus to COVID-19: the Linguistic Evolution

From ‘Deadly’ to ‘Wuhan’: Negative Connotations and Their Impact

When COVID-19 first became acknowledged by Australian news outlets in early January there was a noticeable use of the adjectives ‘deadly’ and ‘mysterious.’ While ‘deadly’ was quite apt in hindsight the use of negative adjectives is something the World Health Organization (WHO) heavily discourages as it can amplify undue fear in the wider public (2015). The changing and evolving information about the virus lead to a familiar pattern of different media sources reporting different and sometimes inflammatory perspectives that happened during the SARS and H1N1 outbreaks (Berry et al., 2007).

‘Wuhan’, the second-most occurring modifier, continues to exhibit a pattern of negative influence. Labelling the virus as the ‘Wuhan coronavirus’ not only implicates a specific geographical region but also inadvertently fosters discrimination against the Chinese community, contributing to a surge in racist incidents globally (Human Rights Watch, 2020).

Drawing from the research of Tang and Rundblad (2015) and WHO (2015), which emphasizes the significance of linguistic framing in risk communication, it becomes apparent that the language used in media reporting can influence public perceptions and behaviours. This observation underscores the importance of employing responsible language to mitigate fear and prevent stigmatization.

Standardization of Terms: The Introduction of ‘COVID-19’

In reaction to the growing negative connotations a new name was introduced by WHO in February 2020. COVID-19 (Corona VIrus Disease 2019) marked a pivotal moment in the risk communication of the virus. The new name was created using the guidelines presented in WHO’s “Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Disease” (2015).

This standardized nomenclature aimed to alleviate the negative connotations associated with ‘coronavirus’, thus promoting a more objective understanding of the disease and the data shows they were successful as ‘COVID-19’ showed no notable examples of the negative modifiers used with coronavirus.

The presence of the two names for the singular virus led to a spike of instances of ‘coronavirus COVID-19’ and ‘COVID-19 coronavirus’ the instances of both names used as modifiers for the other peaks in March after the introduction of ‘COVID-19’ in February. Over half of the instances of these occurrences were in the single month of March. There is a clear sense of interchangeability between the two terms that the Australian media grasped and communications to the wider public that ‘coronavirus’ and ‘COVID-19’ where the same thing, facilitating its widespread adoption.

By June, ‘COVID-19’ emerged as the preferred term, eclipsing ‘coronavirus’ in media discourse. This shift reflects a conscious effort to streamline communication and ensure consistency in messaging. This was not only the case in Australia, but Oxford English Dictionary also report the same result in their worldwide examination of words use relating to COVID-19 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2020).

Crisis Communication Narratives

Linguistic Framing: Proactive vs. Reactive

As the pandemic unfolded, media coverage shifted from solely focusing on the virus to addressing its broader societal impacts. The term ‘COVID-19’ was associated with proactive actions like understanding the cause, prevention efforts, and managing the ongoing challenges (cause, prevention, handling, etc.). In contrast, ‘coronavirus’ narratives often emphasized containment measures, warnings, and identifying hotspots (stop, warn, strain, epicentre, origin, etc.). These differing narratives reflected the multifaceted nature of the pandemic response, highlighting both proactive and reactive approaches to managing the crisis.

Handling Death

The differences in language usage between ‘coronavirus’ and ‘COVID-19’ regarding reporting on deaths attributed to the virus reveal contrasting narratives in media coverage. While ‘coronavirus’ often precedes mentions of ‘new cases’ and ‘more deaths’, emphasizing the novelty and severity of the virus. ‘COVID-19 ‘conveyed a sense of familiarity and normalization, omitting the need for such qualifiers. This distinction suggests that media outlets may unintentionally amplify fear and uncertainty when using ‘coronavirus’, while portraying ‘COVID-19’ as a manageable entity. Understanding these linguistic nuances is crucial for crafting effective risk communication strategies that promote informed decision-making and resilience among the public in navigating the ongoing challenges posed by the pandemic.

‘Fight’ against coronavirus vs ‘Battle’ against COVID-19

There were distinct linguistic nuances were observed in the portrayal of efforts to combat the virus. While both ‘fight’ and ‘battle’ were employed, ‘battle’ was exclusively associated with ‘COVID-19’, suggesting a more protracted struggle with no definitive endpoint in sight. The media viewed ‘coronavirus’ and ‘COVID-19’ as a fight, while only ‘COVID-19’ was a battle. Fighting coronavirus suggests a victory is possible, but the battle against COVID-19 has no clear victory in mind but just to struggle against the virus.

Linguistic Framing of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs)

Testing

The testing regime for COVID-19 emerged as a crucial strategy employed by the Australian government to curb the spread of the virus. Throughout the analyzed period, there was a discernible uptick in mentions of testing within the corpus, reflecting its increasing importance in public health discourse. Notably, spikes in discussions around testing coincided with the onset of the first and second waves of infections in Australia, underscoring its pivotal role in outbreak management.

While ‘positive tests’ remained consistently prominent, there was a notable anomaly in June, just preceding the second wave, where the frequency of ‘negative tests’ momentarily surpassed that of ‘positive tests.’ This anomaly highlights the dynamic nature of testing trends and suggests potential shifts in public health priorities or testing strategies during specific phases of the pandemic.

Lockdowns

The implementation of restrictions on the Australian public emerged as a crucial measure in controlling the spread of the virus, serving as the second major factor in virus containment. However, the timing and intensity of these restrictions displayed unexpected patterns, both preceding and following the two significant waves of COVID-19 cases in Australia, with ‘lockdown’ being most prevalent during infection peaks. During periods of easing restrictions, language referring to these measures became vaguer, reflecting a gradual relaxation of stringent policies, while during phases of enforcing restrictions, more specific terminology like ‘lockdown’ was employed, indicating a heightened urgency in response to escalating transmission rates.

Conclusion

The linguistic choices made by the Australian media in their coverage of COVID-19 significantly shaped public perceptions and actions in response to the pandemic. By moving from initial, fear-inducing language to more neutral and consistent terminology like ‘COVID-19,’ the media played a pivotal role in stabilizing public sentiment and enhancing adherence to health directives. This strategic linguistic transition underscores the profound impact of media language on public behavior during a health crisis. This observation sets the stage for further research and development of effective communication strategies. By optimizing the linguistic approach in media communication, the aim is to enhance public understanding and cooperation in emergency responses, ensuring that the gap between expert recommendations and public behavior is effectively bridged.

References

Anastasia Tsirtsakis. (2020, July 10). Australia’s COVID-19 response may have saved more than 16,000 lives. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/australia-s-covid-19-response-may-have-saved-more

Berry, T. R., Wharf-Higgins, J., & Naylor, P. J. (2007). SARS Wars: An Examination of the Quantity and Construction of Health Information in the News Media. Health Communication, 21(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701283322

Davies, M. (2019-). The Coronavirus Corpus. https://www.english-corpora.org/corona/

Gabriella Rundblad, & Chris Tang. (2015). When Safe Means ‘Dangerous’: A Corpus Investigation of Risk Communication in the Media. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 666–687. https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/38/5/666/2952207?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Human Rights Watch. (2020, May 12). Covid-19 Fueling Anti-Asian Racism and Xenophobia Worldwide | Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/12/covid-19-fueling-anti-asian-racism-and-xenophobia-worldwide

Munn, C. (2021). What’s In a Name: A Corpus Analysis of Australian Media’s Naming Conventions and Risk Communication During the Coronavirus Pandemic [Masters]. Monash University.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2020, July 15). Using Corpora to Track the Language of Covid-19. Https://Public.Oed.Com/Blog/Using-Corpora-To-Track-The-Language-Of-Covid-19-Update-2/

Stanaway, F., Irwig, L. M., Teixeira‐Pinto, A., & Bell, K. J. (2021). COVID‐19: estimated number of deaths if Australia had experienced a similar outbreak to England and Wales. Medical Journal of Australia, 214(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50909

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2015). World Health Organization best practices for the naming of new human infectious diseases (World Health Organization, Ed.). World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HSE-FOS-15.1