Risk Perceptions of Outrage and Explanation Content in Terrorism News Coverage

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis: A proposed framework explores how factual explanations in news coverage of crises mitigate public outrage responses to risk. This framework is rooted in social amplification of risk theory and Slovic’s risk perception model. The present study specifically examines media framing of terrorism, since it provokes high public outrage and its impact on public reaction largely depends on the news framing of the risk. Through a national survey of journalists, this study explores attitudes about news coverage of terrorism and the potential use of explanatory content in news stories to mitigate potential outrage. 

Methods and Results (informing the conceptual analysis): A self-administered national survey of 147 U.S. media professionals, journalism students and journalism educators examined attitudes, experiences and risk perceptions about terrorism events, reactions to hypothetical stories about biological attacks, news routines in terrorism coverage, and terrorism reporting strategies. Journalists rated characteristics of four hypothetical stories containing uncertain/confusing content including speculation, off-record sourcing, conflicting reports, false alarms, and vague advice for avoiding exposure. Explanatory content included risk comparisons, practical advice, and definitions of unfamiliar concepts, and explanations of processes and relative risk. Five hypotheses examined the relationship between explanatory and outrage content in news coverage of terrorism. H1: Stories that contained uncertainty or vague/confusing content will be perceived as more frightening than stories without this content (outrage-only stories). H2: Stories that contained uncertain/vague/confusing content will be perceived as less credible, authoritative, and trustworthy than stories without this content (outrage-only). H3: Stories that contained uncertainty or vague/confusing content will be perceived as more reassuring and credible than outrage-only stories, if they also contain factual explanations. H4: Stories that contained both conflicting reports and factual explanations will be perceived as more credible/authoritative than stories that contained only conflicting reports. H5: Stories that contained no uncertain/vague/confusing content will be perceived as more reassuring and credible if they also contain factual explanations. The stories containing mitigating content, such as risk comparisons, explanation of relative risk, risk assessments and other testing processes, specific/practical advice or translation of unfamiliar language were seen as more reassuring and just as engaging as those without it. However, mitigating content did not improve story perceptions when it contained conflicting reports. The most credible, least confusing stories were those containing mitigating content but that contained no outrage rhetoric.

Conclusions: The proposed outrage mitigation model was strongly supported by these findings. Stories containing uncertain or confusing content were seen as more frightening, uncertain, vague and confusing than stories without these characteristics, as well as less authoritative, reassuring, explanatory, ethical, credible and trustworthy. 

Implications for research and/or practice: The findings suggest that certain journalistic routines in terrorism coverage and crisis message design might help mitigate public responses to terrorism and ultimately weaken the impact of attacks. Although terrorism stories are inherently sensational, when journalists and crisis managers strive to provide more factual explanation about risk and less confusing and frightening content, this could promote news coverage that is more engaging, trustworthy, helpful, and reassuring. Terrorism coverage that provokes less outrage could mitigate social and economic consequences of future attacks.