The spokesperson matters: evaluating the crisis communication styles of primary spokespersons when presenting COVID-19 modeling data across three jurisdictions in Canada. (Special Issue: COVID-19: feeling and confronting pandemic risk challenges.)

Risk prevention measures are more likely to be accepted if people trust risk managers and their ability to handle the crisis, which often depends on who communicates with the public. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some Canadian officials became the main spokespersons of pandemic response in their jurisdiction, speaking almost daily to the public. We evaluated how the primary official for each jurisdiction chose to communicate about epidemiological modeling with the public and how they used modeling data to support their pandemic decisions. We conducted textual and visual analyses of press conferences held in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. Then, we asked focus group participants who they trusted the most and the least for information on COVID-19. We identified two main communication styles: compassionate-informative and condescending-evasive. Spokespersons following the former demonstrate a trust-building effort by providing straightforward answers, demonstrating expertise, while showing empathy and risk management competence. Those who followed the latter style predominantly offered superficial and defensive responses, engaging in blame-shifting and politicizing risk. Focus group participants trusted most the spokespersons who follow a compassionate-informative style are considered trustworthy, which could increase compliance with public health measures. However, those who use the condescending-evasive style were seen as less trustworthy. Our results underscore, first, the importance of disassociating political agendas from risk communication and emergency response during public health crises. Second, spokespersons should be trained in risk and crisis communication to engage with reporters and the public positively. Finally, crisis communication should emphasize the scientific evidence behind guidelines, while acknowledging scientific uncertainty.

Drawing from the ‘bank of credibility’: perspectives of health officials and the public on media handling of the H1N1 pandemic

The H1N1 global pandemic of 2009–10 was moderate in its severity, which led many members of the public to denounce news organizations for ‘hyping’ the threat posed by the virus. This outcome was troubling as it portended a potentially cynical public audience in the event of a future emerging infectious disease. As we face a new Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) with COVID-19, public trust in public health information and mediated messaging is more important than ever. Health authorities aim to inform the public through various avenues, particularly by engaging news media as a bridge to deliver pertinent information. We draw on the Trust, Confidence, and Cooperation (TCC) Model to examine how citizens and health officers evaluated news coverage of the H1N1 pandemic in Canada and the impact it had on public trust in public health recommendations. Following the H1N1 pandemic, we conducted interviews (n = 28) with senior health officials in Canadian federal and provincial jurisdictions and focus groups with general population Canadians (n = 130) in three provinces. Findings showed that many health officials and members of the public considered that the pandemic H1N1 was hyped in news coverage and that the immunization campaign was portrayed as chaotic, potentially affecting trust in pandemic messaging and response activities. Our results highlight the key role of news coverage in pandemic communication. Further, we recommend that health authorities complement their media engagement with direct communication with citizens;and increased training for public health officers to engage with news media and promote public trust. The lessons of this study remain crucially relevant given that legacy news media continue to be important sources of health information as the world fights to control the COVID-19 pandemic. © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Stories about risk: Media narratives of known, emerging, and novel health threats

Purpose – The authors examine framing and narrativization in news coverage of health threats to assess variations in news discourse for known, emerging and novel health risks. Methodology/Approach – Using the analytical categories of known, emerging, and novel risks the authors discuss media analyses of anti-vaccination, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and Covid-19. Findings – Known risks are framed within a biomedical discourse in which scientific evidence underpins public health guidelines, and following these directives prevent risk exposure while non-compliance is characterized as immoral and risky. News coverage of emerging risks highlights public health guidelines but fails to convey their importance as the risks seem too distant or abstract. Media coverage of novel risks is characterized by the ubiquity of uncertainty, which emerges as a “master frame” under which all incidents and events are subsumed. Stories about novel risks highlight the fluid and changing nature of scientific knowledge, which has the unintended effect of fueling uncertainty as studies and experts contradict each other. Originality/Value – This chapter introduces a new analytical framework for examining how media stories represent public health risks, along with previously unpublished analysis of media coverage about AMR and Covid-19. This chapter provides insight about the nature of risk discourses involving media, public health officials, activists, and citizens. © 2021 by Emerald Publishing Limited.