Social Media
Social media is a
particular communication platform which has witnessed an exponential growth in
use and influence in recent years, democratizing the communication process, and
offering risk communicators a way of putting into practice those principles
which are advocated to be at the core of risk management and communication.
Thus emergence of new media, especially social media, has altered the way
people access risk information in such a way that they typically do not need to
solely rely on the government or traditional media as their primary information
source during a national crisis. More importantly, the technical features of
user-generated content allow average people to have a say in public affairs. This new open-access information environment,
which coexists with traditional media and other new media channels, poses new
questions about how risk communication is conducted in the social media
era.
Social media
actually stepped on the stage of internet history long before the term
"social media" was coined after the emergence of MySpace (2003) and
Facebook (2004). As summarized by Kaplan
and Haenlein (2010), the first worldwide online discussion system, Usenet, was
created by 1979 at Duke University. Bruce and Susan Abelson's "Open
Diary'', the earliest form of social networking site, appeared two decades ago;
and blogs came into being around the same period of time. However, not until
high-speed Internet was widely accessible, did social media become popular. Building
on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, social media such
as blogs, YouTube, and Facebook "allow the creation and exchange of User
Generated Content". In particular,
social network sites (SNSs) or often known as social networking sites; have
attracted billions of users across the globe (CBS News, 2012). According to
Boyd and Ellison (2008), SNSs enable individuals to;
1. Construct a public or semi-public
profile within a bounded system,
2. Articulate a list of other users with
whom they share a connection,
3. View and traverse their list of
connections and those made by others within the system.
The affordance
and reach of social media have attracted considerable attention from the media
industry and academia alike, as social media hit the mainstream. Placing risk communication as an
interdisciplinary discipline between public health communication and business
communication, an exploration in this field certainly demands a thorough understanding
of the social media use in both health communication and business
communication.
Social Media in Health and Business Communication
The use of social
media for health communication purposes has been an active area, where there
are two major focus areas; the negative
impact of social media, such as the positive association with teenagers' body
dissatisfaction and psychological distress, or as an outlet of young users'
sexual self-disclosure, more scholars applaud social media's potential for supplementing
health services especially for underserved groups of developing healthcare
communication or of providing social support for niche communities etc. Hence,
Rantzan (2011) urges physicians, scientists, government agencies and other
authorities to make use of social media and mobile communication systems to
"counter the amount of misinformation on health issues which exists in
user-generated content".
Keeping abreast
of prosper of social media research in health communication domain, the study
of social media business communication contexts is also flourishing, where extant
literature has examined the use of social media on building public relations
developing strategic crisis communication and marketing products etc. On the
other hand, there is also an underside of social media in business settings.
Davison, Maraist and Bing (2011) question the validity and usefulness of
information obtained on the social networking sites regarding recruiting,
hiring or terminating individuals by Human Resource.
The Concept of Risk
In order to gain
a better understanding of the public health concern examined in the present
context, it is useful to explicate the concept of risk. The conventional
definition of risk refers to the possibility of loss or injury, or someone or
something that creates or suggests a hazard.
This concept is further broken down into two types: risk as a physical
attribute and risk as a social concept. The latter, risk as a social concept,
contains three elements by definition: undesirable outcomes, possibility of
occurrence, and state of reality. The concept of risk as a social concept has
different disciplines, among which three fields have made significant
contribution: risk assessment, cognitive psychology, and communication. The
main focus of risk assessment utilizes scientific and technical methods to
identify the risks to human health and the environment, as well as determine
the level of severity and probability of accidents of those risks. Risk
assessment is often conducted by regulatory agencies such as governmental
institutions. By contrast, cognitive psychology provides a framework to examine
the perception, affective and behavioral responses of the public, particularly
when lay people encounter risks. The public's risk perception is usually, if
not always, different from experts' risk assessment.
In a study
focusing on public perception of food hazards, another risk dimension was
identified is; the extent to which the hazard is considered a natural
occurrence or a product of human interference. In that vein, social factors,
such as social trust, or information source credibility, come into play. Social
distrust is believed to be an eroding factor to efficient risk communication.
Kasperson et al. (1992) claim that ''where prospective risk bearers harbor
suspicions over the fairness ... and doubt the trustworthiness of those
responsible for protecting them, the conditions exist for intense conflict and
impasse". Once social institutions failed in meeting the expectations of
the four dimensions of social trust which are commitment, competence, caring,
and predictability; the public may become cautious about whether to trust any
social institution or not, especially in a negative social climate. A clearer
understanding of these cognitive processes can be gained through an exploration
and review of risk communication models.
Risk
communication is ''the process of conveying to interested parties the outputs
of the various stages of risk analysis and risk management". As an
example, risk communication burgeoned as a response to the 1984 Bhopal disaster
in India. During that accident, a leak
of methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals from a pesticide plant located in
Bhopal, India, resulted in a total of 2,259 immediate deaths and thousands of
injuries. This tragedy has been deemed
as one of the worst industrial catastrophes in the world. Drawing upon this
lesson, U.S. federal legislation mandated governmental agencies and industries
to inform the public about hazardous substances located in their communities to
ensure the public's right to know.
There are three
traditions of risk communication have been identified through risk
communication practices:
1) Use "precaution advocacy" to warn the
public; - among the uninterested or unaware population, the goal of risk
communication is designed to arouse concern and precaution.
2) Use "outrage management" to reassure the
public; - particularly aims at excessively concerned people.
3) Help and guide the public to go through the crisis -
aimed at the population who is already aware of the risk.
The task of risk
communication is to provide a solution, where efficient risk communication
should successfully alleviate or eliminate five tensions among the target
audience: distrust, lack of awareness, ignorance, dissatisfaction and
disagreement, and inertia to action.
The standing
practice of risk communicators, including governmental agencies, industrial
institutions, scientists, engineers and other experts, has been criticized for
placing too much emphasis on "risk" but not enough on
"communication". Unfortunately the researches, on the other hand,
fail to provide a consistent theoretical framework to advance our understanding
of this communication phenomenon.
Social Media and Risk Communication
The internet has
been a prominent source of health-related information. According to a Pew Internet survey, overall 80%
of internet users sought health information online; in particular, 29% of
Internet users secured information about food safety or recalls online (Fox,
2011). Another US national survey
indicates that 65% of online adults used social networking sites such as
Facebook. Social media have become a new tool to share health and risk
information.
In the era of Web
1.0, when the "read only'' online content dominated virtual space, the
role of the internet in risk communication was more or less yet another vehicle
to convey risk information in a top-down fashion from authorities to the lay
public. Web 2.0 took a giant leap
forward from Web 1.0 by allowing collaboration and sharing of information among
all internet users. The interactive
environment in social media extends the traditional one-way media communication
model to a two-way communication model in the public domain. Although the affordance of SNS leaves room
for rumors or false information, observers praise the power of collective
knowledge and actions online as they reflect "the wisdom of crowds"
and their ability of "speaking truth to power".
For instance,
during the outbreak ofH1N1 influenza, the Center of Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) employed a variety of social media tools to reach out to communicate
live accurate information to the public.
From April 24 to June 11, 2009; 285 risk messages were generated in
formats including texts, images, and videos about H1N1-related information by
the CDC among which, Facebook pages and Twitter tweets remain the two most
frequently used social media tools. This social media outreach from the CDC
seems to be embraced by the public, judging from their enthusiastic response.
The number of followers of CDC skyrocketed from 2,500 before the H1N1 outbreak
to 370,000 in late June, 2009. As such,
social media also make secondary risk communication easier and more efficient
via allowing the users to re-share or re-tweet the message or leave a message
for the information source. Secondly and more importantly, social media enable
the dissemination of risk information from the grass-roots level and they also
allow users to circumvent censored content in a timely fashion.
Awareness of Risks, Risk Perception and Preventive
Actions
For decades,
exposure to media has been one of the primary means of gaining awareness and
knowledge of societal incidents. In today's multi-media environment, this claim
still remains true. Traditional newspapers, 24-hour cable news channels and
online news outlets-including social media outlets compete for the limited time
and financial resources of the public. Leisure is not the sole purpose of
social media for users; besides the reasons of pastime, affection, fashion,
problem sharing, sociability and social information gaining people use social
media for information gaining purposes as well.
For instance, during the 2008 U. S. presidential campaign, online social
networks provided a new platform to share information about candidates and
political issues. In the case of food-safety issues, the public chiefly relies
on mass media to gain information. At the macro level, social trust is an
individual's "expectation that other persons and institutions in a social
relationship can be relied upon to act in ways that are competent, predictable
and caring". If those expectations of other persons and institutions are
violated, social distrust will occur. Especially in a negative social climate,
such as during a series of severe food-safety crises, the public tends to be
more "cautious in investing trust in any social institution".
Across the series
of recent food safety crises in China, one thing in common is the public's
perception of the missing food-safety regulation that could have prevented
these crises. To make matters even
worse, anecdotal evidence on the exclusive (and safe) food supply system for
the Chinese government officials has been found and exposed online. This "special food supply system"
provides local government officials with organic agricultural products ranging from
eggs to vegetables at below market prices.
These food producers, in turn, obtain Governmental subsidies for their
agricultural production. Observers even
claim that the existence of this exclusive food supply system is the culprit
behind the poor regulation of food safety, since these government officials do
not need to take food safety into consideration for their own health
concerns. Once the public realized the
lack of government commitment to protect them, the distrustful atmosphere
became rampant both online and offline.
This was especially true during the series of crises, as both food
industry and regulatory institutions had a hard time regaining the public
trust.
But layering social media on top of such a
crisis today would reveal a much more complex communications environment,
demanding a smarter, faster and more vigorous response. External threats from
customers, critics and the media would be more amplified and immediate, but a
company similarly situated today also would have far more opportunities and
tools at its disposal.
Advantages of Social Media
Consumer confidence
Bold yet very human
advertisements portrayed a company that knew the Reputation building, marketing
and consumer advocacy
Providing insight
into consumer perceptions
Identifying
advocates and idea starters
Disseminating
warnings and benefits through food safety education
Tracking and
tracing issues more easily
Spotting or
reporting issues sooner across the supply chain
It might seem like obvious advice, but
every business that cares about reaching customers has little choice but to
establish an active presence on social media, with more than 1 billion people
on Facebook and more than 500 million Twitter users, anyone who wants to remain
competitive or to have their messages brought notice within far wider
community.
As a regulatory body, the International
Food Information Council (IFIC) is one organization that is steeped in risk
communications and crisis communications. With a mission to ensure that sound,
credible science is central to discussions about food, it follows time-tested
principles of rapid response, which are constantly being refined as new
technologies and modes of communication change where and how people interact.
IFIC constantly monitors both traditional and social media across a wide array
of nutrition and food safety topics. It coordinates and participates in
stakeholder groups that facilitate information exchange and often serve as
early warning systems for emerging issues. It produces, in cooperation with
independent experts, a variety of materials such as publications, FAQs, media
backgrounders and standby statements, for use with audiences including health
professionals, industry, journalists and the public.
Emotions and Food Safety Risk Communication
Affective
reactions, i.e. emotions, always accompany the receipt of risk
communication. Emotion is defined as
"organized cognitive-motivational-relational configurations whose status
changes with changes in the person-environment relationships as this is
perceived and evaluated (appraisal)".
In particular, "affect" is believed to be a critical stimulus
in eliciting cognitive and behavioral changes based on the developmental inter-actionist
theory.
Risk and crisis
communication scholars have identified a range of negative emotions under the
guidance of different theoretical frameworks. From the perspective of attribution
theory, three emotions, which are sympathy, anger, and schadenfreude (taking
joy from others' pain) were found to be salient factors in crisis management.
In times of crises, stakeholders make attributions of the cause of risk or
crisis. The stronger the public believe the industries, public officials or
government agencies are responsible for the crisis, the more negative public
affective response would be. As such, the feeling of sympathy toward an
organization negatively accompanies that organization's crisis responsibility,
while anger and schadenfreude are positively associated with crisis
responsibility.
Current Trends
Not too long ago,
the daily news cycle was largely dictated by The New York Times. The Big Four
news networks; ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, followed its lead. Now, information is
24/7 and it is digital and “social.” News increasingly breaks on social media
platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube; whether by traditional
reporters, bloggers, or eyewitnesses. Nonetheless, Today, YouTube has about 50
percent more viewers than the three major network newscasts combined. A recent
example of YouTube shaping conversations about food was an animated film
depicting a dejected scarecrow wandering around a contrived, large-scale food
production facility. One restaurant’s attempt to sell more of its “better”
products, the video conjured strong negative views of certain other segments of
the food industry. Not only did the video receive 12.6 million views as of May
2014, but it was also covered extensively in the mainstream media, driving up
subscribership to the creator’s YouTube channel and receiving more than 32,000
shares. Imagine how much more extensive the impact of Oprah’s boycott of
hamburgers (out of fear of BSE, better known as “mad cow” disease) would have
been if YouTube had existed at the time.
Aside from TV,
millions of people are “cutting the cable,” streaming 100 percent of their
video on the internet. Many newsmakers now take their messages directly to
their audiences on Facebook and Instagram. In recent years, celebrities, the
British Royal family, and even the White House have bypassed traditional news
photographers to capture some of their most significant media moments, instead
distributing their own photos and “selfies” on social media.
This form of media
doesn’t come without its challenges. Social media has spurred an environment of
skepticism and unbridled criticism of everything ranging from reality TV to
modern food production. Every food-related development becomes an opportunity
for anyone with a Twitter account to declare the End of Days, their alarm-
inspiring sound bites taken as fact by their millions of followers. For some
inexplicable reason, when negative information is shared on social media, no
matter how unrealistic it may sound, the inclination is to panic instead of
question the information and seek out the facts. Preeminent risk communicator
Peter Sandman explained this contradiction between perception and reality by
saying, “The risks that kill people and the risks that upset people are completely
different.”
Then there’s what
is best described as “pseudo-news.” Some websites purporting to offer health
and nutrition news, published and promoted by non-experts, gain huge followings
as they churn out fringe science and outlandish claims. One news site,
BuzzFeed, has built a massive audience, curating content from other websites
and serving it up in the form of “listicles” that most anyone can create and
post in true “news” form. These include pseudo news, but also some legitimate
news articles. To the average person, however, it would be very difficult to
tell the difference.
However as a
skeptic view of the social media for food safety, we evolved from a time of
scavenging for food where lethal toxins masqueraded as nourishment, making us somewhat
paranoid as prehistoric cavemen. We don’t have those concerns now, but the fear
has been programmed, to a degree, into our DNA. But if we heeded every single
warning from the “tweeters of doom,” what would we have left to eat or drink
(other than water; and some would question the safety of that, too)?
Reference
Yi
Mou, 2012, Social Media and Risk Communication, The Role of Social Networking
Sites in Food-safety Communication, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut.
Áine Regan, Monique Raats, Liran
Christine Shan, Patrick G. Wall & Áine McConnon, 2014: Risk communication
and social media during food safety crises: a study of stakeholders’ opinions
in Ireland, Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2014.961517
The Tweeters of Doom_ How Social
Media Impacts Food Safety and Risk Communication - Food Safety Magazine
Communications in
a food safety crisis should be timely, reassuring, transparent, inclusive of
all stakeholders, with an attempt to control stigma while using appropriate
sources and channels to communicate a risk message. To date, risk communicators
have relied heavily on traditional media channels; i.e. newspaper, radio and
television to convey their messages to the public in times of a emergency. However,
the offline versions of these channels offer little opportunity for
interactivity or public engagement and primarily serve a one-way, dissemination
function. On the other hand, social media is an inherently interactive, two-way
platform, which presents a valuable opportunity to risk communicators. Social
media has been defined as ‘a group of Internet-based applications that build on
the ideological and technological foundations of web 2.0, and that allow the creation
and exchange of user generated content’ (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). 
During times of a
public health crisis, social media platforms, such as Twitter or Facebook,
increasingly tend to act as both a place for the public to search for
information and a space where people make sense of the risk and deliberate on
the situation, and contribute to the conversation. Features of social media may
be particularly appealing to risk communicators in a crisis; messages can be
delivered instantly to broad audiences, where the prevalent writing style is
conversational and personal in tone which allows for expressions of empathy and
reassurance and there is the invaluable opportunity for interaction and
engagement with the public. Whilst this suggests a promising role for social
media in a food safety crisis, there is less understanding on the willingness
of stakeholders within the food sector to adopt and embrace social media. Some
organisations may hold reservations; during the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009,
World Health Organisation officials viewed social media as useful in
disseminating important information, but had concerns about the role of this
platform played in spreading speculation, criticism and rumours. These are
legitimate concerns; social media allows anonymity of the user and unrestricted
and unregulated sharing of information, thus providing ample opportunities for
spreading inaccurate, unverified or biased information. It is vital to
investigate the views of those holding key positions and responsibilities in
risk debates and in policy and decision-making, particularly as a food safety
crisis does occur, who have a responsibility to communicate with the public and
can choose to engage or not in this online space. 
In contrast, it
is possible for anybody to communicate false risk information and unduly
accelerate the intensity and spread of societal risk attention, alarmism, and
confusion. The potential for inaccurate information to be spread through social
media appeared to reinforce the belief amongst public that they ought to have
an online presence to counteract falsities in a crisis. However, simply
increasing the amount of reputable information online is not sufficient as the
basis upon which internet users judge the credibility of online sites and
information is problematic. Furthermore, whilst risk rumours may spread quickly
online, the interactive nature of social media also presents a unique
opportunity for inaccuracies to be challenged and corrected (Mythen 2010). The
interactive nature of social media enables consumers to actively engage with,
deliberate upon and challenge information presented with an ultimate aim of a
resolution that all sides are satisfied with.
