El papel de los medios online en epidemias sanitariasuna comparación de las esferas públicas de México y España

  1. Idoiaga Mondragón, Nahia 1
  1. 1 UPV-EHU
Journal:
MEDICA REVIEW: International Medical Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades Médicas

ISSN: 2660-6801

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 4

Issue: 1

Pages: 17-29

Type: Article

DOI: 10.37467/GKA-REVMEDICA.V4.855 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: MEDICA REVIEW: International Medical Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades Médicas

Abstract

The 2009 swine flu was a pandemic influenza involving H1N1 virus. This paper studies how the mass media have treated this issue by analyzing the largest circulation newspapers in Mexico and Spain. 167 news of the two newspapers from April 2009 to August 2010 were analyzed. First, a positive correlation between the coverage of the outbreak and influenza-infected people was found. Second, a positive correlation between the coverage of the flu in Spain and the representation of health as a problem for the Spanish was also found. Third, an ALCESTE showed five main classes. Implications for research on social representations and media coverage as well as on strategies resulting from media discourse to cope with threatening health crisis are discussed.

Bibliographic References

  • Altheide, D. (2010). Risk communication and the discurse of fear. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 2 (2), pp.145-158.
  • Bartlett (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bauer, M.W. (2000). Science in the media as cultural indicator: Contextualizing surveys with media analysis. En M. Dierkes y C. Von Grote (eds.), Between understanding and trust: the public, science and technology (pp. 157–178). Amsterdam: Routledge.
  • Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft - Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkampl.
  • Davison, J. y Pennebaker, J.W. (1996). Social psychosomatics. En: E.T Higgins y A.W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principies (pp. 102-132). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 41, pp. 51-58.
  • Gilles, I., Bangerter, A., Clemence, A., Green, E.G.T., Krings, F., Mouton, A., Rigaud, D., Staerkle, C. y Wagner-Egger, P. (2011). Collective symbolic coping with disease threat and othering: A case study of avian influenza. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02048.x
  • Gonzalo, J.L. y Farré, J. (2011). Teoría de la comunicación de riesgo . Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
  • Hibino, A. y Nagata, M. (2006). Biotechnology in the Japanese media: Comparative analysis of newspaper articles on genetic engineering between Japan and Europe. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9 , pp. 12–23.
  • Idoyaga, N., Valencia, J., Gil De Montes, L. y Ortiz, G (2012). Framing effects and social representations of health epidemics: The case of influenza A. Escritos de Psicología, 3, pp. 31-42.
  • Joffe, H. (1999). Risk and the “other” . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Klein, O. y Licata, L. (2003). When group representations serve social change: The speeches of Patrice Lumumba during the Congolese decolonization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42 , pp. 571–593.
  • Kronberger, N. y Wagner, W. (2000). Keywords in context: The statistical analysis of text and open-ended responses. En G. Gaskell y M. Bauer (eds.), Methods for qualitative analysis (pp. 299–317). London: Sage.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lazarus, R. S. y Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping . New York: Springer.
  • McCombs, M. E. (1981). The agenda-setting approach. En D. Nimmo y K. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 121–140). Beverly Hills: Sage.
  • McCombs, M., Lopez-Escobar, E. y Llamas, J. P. (2000). Setting the agenda of attributes in the 1996 spanish general election. Journal of Communication, 50 (2), pp.77-92.
  • McCombs, M.E. y Shaw, D.L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 , pp. 176-187.
  • Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18 , pp. 211–250.
  • Orr, E., Sagi, S., y Bar-On, D. (2000). Social representations in use: Israeli and Palestinian high school students´collective coping and defence. Papers on Social Representations-Online, 9, 2.1-2.20 (http://www.swp.unilinz.ac.at/content/psr/index.htm ).
  • Reinert, M. (1996). Alceste (Version 3.0). Toulouse: Images.
  • Rocamora Villena, V. (2012). De la Comunicación de Riesgos a la Comunicación de Crisis. La OMS en el caso de la gripe A (H1N1) . Comunicación presentada al III Congreso Internacional de la AE-IC “Comunicación y Riesgo”. Tarragona, 18-20 enero (paper).
  • Rosenbrock, R., Dubois-Arber, F., Moers, M., Pinell, P., Schaeffer, D., y Setbon, M. (2000). The normalization of AIDS in Western European countries. Social Science and Medicine, 50 , pp. 1607–1629.
  • Setbon, M. (2000). “La normalisation paradoxale du sida [The paradoxical normalization of AIDS]”. Revue Française de Sociologie, 41 , pp.61–78.
  • Sjoberg L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20, pp.1–11.
  • Sperber, D. y Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance-comunication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Wagner, W. (1998). Social representations and beyond-brute facts, symbolic coping and domesticated worlds. Culture and Psychology, 4, pp. 297-329.
  • Wagner, W., Elejebarrieta, F. y Lahnsteiner, I. (1995). How the sperm dominates the ovum- Objectification by metaphor in the social representation conception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, pp. 671-688.
  • Wagner, W. y Hayes, N. (2005). Everyday discourse and common sense: The theory of social representations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Wagner,W., Kronberger, N., y Seifert, F. (2002). Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41 , pp. 323–343.