How organizations framed the 2009 H1N1 pandemic via social and traditional media: Implications for U.S. health communicators

Through a quantitative content analysis, this study reveals how 13 organizations differently framed the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic crisis via their traditional (n = 211) and social media (n = 534) responses. When framing the crisis as a disaster, a health crisis, or a general health issue organizations relied more on traditional than social media. However, they tended to use social media as much as traditional media when framing the pandemic as a general crisis. In addition, organizations relied more on traditional media to address emotions than on social media. Together, the study's findings provide applied and theoretical insights for scholars and crisis managers.

► Only when framing the pandemic as a general crisis did organizations tend to equally rely on social and traditional media. Also, organizations employed a much greater variety of frames via traditional than social media. These findings indicate that organizations relied on traditional media to provide a more comprehensive response.
► The majority of traditional media responses did not include information about social media responses activities whereas the majority of social media linked to traditional media. These findings indicate a lack of synergy between traditional and social media, indicating that organizations relied more heavily on traditional media.
► Overall organizations more fully incorporated emotions into their traditional than into their social media responses, despite that existing research demonstrates that publics seek out social media because they uniquely provide emotional support during crises.