Researchers Who Have Studied Crises See Certain Trends ✓ Solved

Researchers Who Have Studied Crises See Certain Trends And Tend

Researchers who have studied crises see certain trends and tendencies because crises are, in part, a form of social dynamics. Researchers have offered a number of models on how crises proceed. In Units II and III, we will explore Jordan-Meier’s (2011) four stages of media reporting as applied to crisis communications. Jordan-Meier is not suggesting that the mainstream media dictates what organizations will or will not do as a reaction to events; rather, she suggests that the media is involved in crises as a collective actor in society. In effect, the media forms a broad channel of communication that can neither be ignored nor completely dominated.

In the public forum, including social media, some individuals are highly disdainful of the media and its flaws. On the other hand, the media serves a public purpose and deserves an equal amount of praise and appreciation. If we accept this idea, then it may serve the crisis communicator best to neither despise the media nor adore it. It is perhaps best just to acknowledge that the media is (i.e., it exists). With these reflections as groundwork, we will now examine Jordan-Meier’s (2011) model more closely.

For Unit II, we will discuss her first two stages: fact-finding and unfolding drama. Fact-Finding Stage 1 begins the crisis model. Here, the normalcy and the business as usual routines give way to a crisis condition. It can be sudden, as in the case of a tornado landing and striking a town. It can also be a slow-rolling chain or buildup of conditions that persists or grows, irritating those involved because reality has obviously departed from their expectations. Perhaps it is a one-year string of unsolved murders in a town that appear to be connected and possibly committed by a perpetrator on a crime spree; perhaps it is growing understanding that lowering water tables in a region will make most community wells go dry.

These are examples of slow-rolling crises. Stage 1 is aptly named as fact-finding because of the public’s reaction to crises. To get an initial understanding of a crisis, people want facts. What is happening? When, where, and how did it occur? Who might be involved or affected? Facts are reported, recorded, or sought until there is some measure of widespread agreement to them. For example, when the National Weather Service reports on when and where a hurricane has made landfall, the information is not disputed once verification and follow-on reporting has been accomplished.

In this first stage and all following ones, leaders are astonished at how fast tentative and provisional facts move around the region or the world due to the influence of media—especially social media. Now, leaders and listeners start focusing on the unfolding crisis in successive time zones, including the social reaction. Since this is so, leaders and crisis communicators have to monitor crisis communications virtually 24/7 as the related dialogue takes on an increasing tempo. Media editors, columnists, and journalists must work diligently, quickly, and with sustained effort to keep up with the collective pursuit of the facts.

The media has an ethic of reporting facts and correcting the reported record as more information indicates the need to do so or in order to clarify matters. The truth in the form of accurate information can be murky and difficult for even professional journalists to discern; indeed, no one may really know exactly what is going on at first. For leaders, crisis spokespeople, and journalists alike, this is not an enviable condition. Publishers, and some editors, set the political lean and agenda of most media, which may hamper a balanced discernment of the facts in a crisis. The how did it happen questions that shape the quest for facts form the social transition to the unfolding drama of Stage 2, which looks at the who of the crisis.

Unfolding Drama There is rarely a definable and clear change from one stage to the next in Jordan-Meier’s media reporting model. Fact-finding elements of Stage 1 are often still evident when the social shift occurs to what Jordan-Meier describes as the unfolding drama. Dynamics are now shifting away from repeating crisis facts to determining who is affected by the crisis. Now, conjecture, subjective assessment, and emotion start to emerge as descriptions and judgments are formed about who is being harmed by the crisis. Rarely does anyone benefit from a crisis, though some people do, and that side phenomenon from the main crisis often becomes an interesting narrative.

Consider the hardware store manager who quintuples the price of snow shovels and salt during a record snowstorm season. What will be the effect on the store’s reputation when the media files the story? The other major focus of the unfolding drama stage, which still addresses the who, is on the crisis response. Our society has an extensive overlay of layers, including government leaders and representative councils, government assets, large and small businesses, and local and national nongovernmental organizations. Journalists write follow-up stories to show if any of these actors are doing anything. Assuming something is being done, the what is the big question to be answered in filed stories.

Additions to the storyline that feed the unfolding drama include: what is working to mitigate the crisis and prevent a reoccurrence; whether the crisis should have been foreseen and planned for; whether there is a questionable practice by any individual, group of individuals, or organization that may have caused the crisis, raising the issue of whether the triggering practice should have been done in the first place; and finally, whether anyone knew something and should have informed others.

Fundamentals of Media Reporting and Trends of Change We will round out the background of crisis communications in this unit by looking briefly at what the media does in journalism. What is important to a free society’s Fourth Estate, as the media has been referred to since the 18th century? What is competing with journalism as an institution? Journalism is studied in high schools, colleges, and universities; often, it complements courses in video and audio media recording and production. Journalists and reporters write for publication, and, most often, the final product will be in the form of an article, whether it is printed, posted online, or communicated via radio or television broadcasting.

A journalist has a promising lead to a story if the story is relevant, factual, straightforward, and interesting. There are several angles that, if approached, may result in such a promising story. Issues regarding politics, as so much of politics is grounded in the public trust, are always likely candidates for stories, especially if the public trust is under a violation of some note. Stories contributing to current or recent social dialogues are similarly of interest. Then, there are the unexpected stories, sometimes termed as “man bites dog,” where the events are not what a reader usually expects.

Another promising approach is describing “Joe Everyman/Jane Everywoman.” This person, once known as just “Joe Everyman,” is someone who has little to no exceptional abilities in the community but has had experiences that could have happened to anyone, so we empathize. Empathy is a major implied goal of journalistic writing. Related to several of these approaches is media’s social role as watchdog. Journalists continue to research, write, and publish to keep the public informed and do their part to ensure malefactors do not stay hidden from public view. We can easily admire journalists as professionals, even if we do not like their effect on an issue.

What may compete with “conventional” journalism as a result of societal or technological changes? Even the introduction of an Internet edition of a formerly exclusively print periodical causes dramatic changes in the media firm. Where there was once a daily or weekly print edition, supported by a steady rhythm of checklist events leading to publication, now websites are accessed all day, every day. The universal access of personal computers and video cameras has increased the players in the journalism field. It is as if the spectators have left the bleachers and come down onto the field to join the team!

Bloggers, tweeters, and Facebook and Snapchat users publish their ideas—yes, this is publishing—and not just in our time zone, but in every time zone where people live. These private idea-sharers have no editors, publishers, or, generally speaking, anyone at all who tells them what to or what not to write. Indeed, this goes a long way toward explaining what we see on the Internet! Journalists have to take this new dynamic into account, but so do crisis communicators. In the next unit, we will see the final steps of Jordan-Meier’s model and better understand how all of these voices fit into the bigger crisis picture.

Paper For Above Instructions

The study of crises and their impact on society has garnered significant attention from researchers, providing valuable insights into the dynamics surrounding crises. One noteworthy contribution to this field is the model presented by Jordan-Meier (2011), which outlines four stages of media reporting in crisis communications. Her work highlights the important role of media as a collective actor in crises, rather than merely a conduit for information dissemination.

The initial phase, Fact-Finding, marks the transition from normalcy to a crisis condition. Crises can arise suddenly, such as natural disasters, or evolve over time, leading to public frustration as normal expectations are disrupted. This phase emphasizes the urgent need for facts as the public seeks to understand the nature of the crisis. For example, during a hurricane, the National Weather Service provides critical information that plays a crucial role in shaping public awareness and response (Jordan-Meier, 2011).

The immediacy of social media has transformed how information is communicated during a crisis, requiring leaders and crisis communicators to engage in continuous monitoring of public discourse. The fast-paced nature of social media amplifies the spread of information—often tentative and provisional—creating an environment where accurate facts must be prioritized to quell public anxiety and misinformation. Therefore, media professionals face the challenge of rapid reporting while adhering to ethical standards in journalism.

Moving into the second phase, the Unfolding Drama, the focus shifts from reporting mere facts to examining the implications of the crisis and who is affected. This stage is characterized by heightened emotional responses and subjective assessments. Media narratives may diverge as they explore the personal impacts of the crisis on various stakeholders. Moreover, it poses ethical questions regarding opportunistic behavior during crises, such as price gouging by businesses (Jordan-Meier, 2011).

Throughout history, journalism has served as a watchdog in society, protecting the interests of the public by scrutinizing the actions of individuals and institutions during crises. This role is essential, especially in an era where conventional journalism faces competition from an increasing number of amateur content creators utilizing platforms such as blogs and social media.

The evolution of journalism in the digital age has resulted in constant access to information and a democratization of content creation. On one hand, this revolution allows for diverse voices to enter the conversation; on the other hand, it raises concerns about misinformation and the reliability of reporting from unverified sources. Thus, professional journalists must adapt to an environment where the traditional check and balance system is disrupted.

As we further explore journalism's role and its competitive landscape, we also recognize the continuing importance of established ethical frameworks in reporting. Ethical journalism promotes transparency, accuracy, and accountability, which remain vital in fostering trust within the public. Overall, understanding these dynamics is crucial for effective crisis communication.

To conclude, the study of crisis communication, particularly through the lens of Jordan-Meier’s model, reveals the complexities involved in managing information and maintaining public trust during crises. The shift from factual reporting to addressing the nuances in the unfolding drama emphasizes the evolving nature of journalism and its implications for crisis management. As society continues to grapple with challenges and crises, the need for responsive and responsible journalism is more critical than ever.

References

• Jordan-Meier, J. (2011). Crisis management. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 28(8). Retrieved from ?direct=true&db=bth&AN=&site=ehost-live&scope=site
• Richardson, C. (2011, July). 110720-F-NJ [Photograph]. Retrieved from ez9oBNoW-dG7X44-e8AUjF-e8AUjB-asAgVN-fGnaSr-g5LVAk-fGn9Ua-aSr57g-f8kfkN-fGn8J8-aBTuQC-asxARV-asxMKz-asAniA-asxEYv-asAv6j-asxJbP-asxHZv-asAtqS-9gJCtk-asxgf2-asxAARasxMzn
• Shavers, S. (2012, May). The SECNAV interviews with MSNBC broadcast journalists on the set of the weekday morning talk show "Morning Joe" in New York [Photograph]. Retrieved from Ce8Yfsu-dY93Gm-f2ntB9-847RyR-bGSL9R-edKwXM-e8Yfp1-biUvpR-dcgmpE-dcgjdS-dVYdP4-f28nz8-e8SAtn-e8YfDN-9EPCYx-dcueT8-dcgndc-dBSqCr-dcgiw3-dcuf1F-eqVCrH-dcgih8-cRAN