The roles of news media as democratic fora, agenda setters, and strategic instruments in risk governance

Figures & data

Table 1. Codes for analyzing media roles.

Concept	Codes for media role
Democratic fora	Actors publicly discuss risk issues in media and obtain their democratic information from media
	Citizens’ ability to ‘check’ risk governance processes and their performance through media
	Misbehavior or unfavorable decisions are translated into media attention. The media function as watchdog
	Critical media attention helps the governance network to function better
Agenda setter	Media put risk issues on the decision makers’ agenda. Media select and frame risk issues that are relevant (for groups) in society
	The way media select and frame a risk issue influences perception and acceptance of the risk
	Risk issues that attract a lot of attention become a prominent concern for society
	A shift in media attention (amount and content) can disrupt the decision-making process
Strategic instrument	Media are used to transmit risk information between the risk governance network and others in society
	Actors within the risk governance network use media as transmitting station for information
	Media messages impact decisions
	Media messages are used as instruments to influence individual risk behavior

Table 2. Comparison earthquake risks and media’s democratic fora role.

Democratic fora	Dutch case; gradually emerging earthquake risk induced by human activities	Italian case; disruptive earthquake risk caused by natural processes
	Manifestations: Citizens’ voices are represented Critical reflection on decision making facilitated after serious risk event Local newspapers give space for critical essays on risk governance	Manifestations: Citizens can check risk governance process because media place spotlight on reconstruction process Reports by media facilitate actors’ own decision making and actions
	Limitations: Dissatisfaction about media focus, based on their own values and logic Media logic often overrides factual accounts, causing:   – Complexity of the policy issue, making it hard for citizens to enter the media agenda   – Distrust in network governance, affecting public discussion	Limitations: Watchdog function and transparency only directly after a physical risk event and not in the long term, with limited opportunities for social deliberation Sensational framing focuses on citizens’ negative stories, leading to unrealistic images and stories with biased problem definitions

Table 3. Comparison earthquake events and media’s agenda setter role.

Agenda setter	Dutch case; gradually emerging earthquake risk induced by human activities	Italian case; disruptive earthquake risk caused by natural processes
	Manifestation: Media enhance policy attention and influence the political agenda for a short period	Manifestation: Information provided about emergency phase, thus helping determine policy priorities Local visibility generated for problem and solutions stimulated (e.g. financial support)
	Limitations: No influence on agenda setting before serious earthquake happen Agenda setting often results in short political (over) reaction, rarely in direct management decisions Agenda setting leads to simplification and short-sighted views and stimulates goal displacement Weak agenda setting effects at national level; the issue remains a local problem	Limitations Incorrect information by media results in errors in national and local governance actors’ agenda Limited effects in terms of concrete reconstruction actions Visibility is used for politicians’ own goals, i.e. political promotion Agenda setting is prominent in emergency phase Sensationalism and negative images cause negative effects on risk perception and regional tourism economy

Table 4. Comparison earthquake events and media’s strategic instrument role.

Strategic instrument	Dutch case; gradually emerging earthquake risk induced by human activities	Italian case; disruptive earthquake risk caused by natural processes
	Manifestation: Promotion of actors’ own values and interests Used for transparency about decision-making process Used to explain decisions to the broader public Help in the simulation of individual risk behavior Used to clarify actors’ roles Used for showing commitment from the network towards citizens	Manifestation: Used for sharing knowledge Used for influencing resource allocation Used for transparency about the decision-making process Help in promoting the region
	Limitations: Simple transmission of messages is difficult Sensationalism is required to attract media attention Goal displacement can occur as a consequence of the call for more transparency All the actors have their own media strategy, making a collective communication strategy challenging	Limitations: Focus on negative stories makes it hard to report positive and nuanced stories

Table

	Respondent Organization Dutch Case	Respondent Organization Italian Case
1	Ministry Economic Affairs	National Reconstruction Commission
2	Ministry Economic Affairs	Marche Region Communication Center
3	Ministry Economic Affairs	Regional Reconstruction Group
4	Groningen Province	Assisi Municipality
5	Middle Groningen Municipality	Norcia Municipality
6	Middle Groningen Municipality	Local Community Preci
7	Groningen Safety Region	Local Group Hospitality Displaced Citizens
8	Groningen Safety Region	Local group I Love Nortica
9	National Coordinator Groningen	Local group We are Norcia
10	National Coordinator Groningen	Geology Camerino
11	Local Group Gasberaad	Association of young farmers in Marche
12	Local Group Gasberaad	Campi di Norcia
13	Local (Action) Group Groninger Bodum beweging	Sviluppumbria Umbria
14	Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI)	University of Perugia Cultural and Communication Processes
15	Dutch Petroleum Company (NAM)	Geology University of Perugia
16	Dutch Petroleum Company (NAM)
17	State Supervision of Mines
	State Supervision of Mines