Abstracts:

This article aims to approach and demonstrate the interaction of mass communication and in particular the role of media in the public communications field in times of crisis. By examining the role of media in times of crisis we consider the ability of a democratic society to meet and solve emergencies situations. The field of study that I am developed to my article is that the media are not satisfied only in the description, but participate actively in the construction of the event itself and the ways of reaction and the ways of response and face of the crisis situation.

Research of the European Civil Protection Mechanism shows that the media is by far the most reliable source of information on the European Union countries, far more than governments, NGOs (non-government organizations), church and so cannot be ignored in a crisis . The Media pay special attention and emphasis in two general categories crisis which covering intensively:

a)Major disasters 

 b) Statements that cause panic and collective anxiety.

Crisis is the response to a dangerous experience, that mental equilibrium which is put to a test the existence and operation of an entity to the four basic levels. SOCIETY, ORGANIZATIONS, GROUPS and PEOPLE (INDIVIDUAL). Usually is an unpleasant event, which goes beyond the everyday levels due to high intensity and cannot be controlled. Their characteristics  are that: they are serious disorders of the function of a society, causing widespread human material, social and environmental losses. They create major problems that cannot be solved with the existing sources of help.

The development of the media decisively influenced the way of communication and information in modern societies. Media inserted between citizens and political institutions through their two key features[1]:

a) The exclusive ability to offer to the representatives of the political power of an audience.

b) The ‘reliability’ and confidence, which have succeeded to developing between Mass media and audience 

Media reports should not be treated simply as channels through which symbolic forms diffuse but as main mechanisms that contribute decisively to social relationships and interactions. Thus the main emphasis should be given to their role as mediators, and channels of communication with a bi-layered and therefore ambiguous flow of information policy, which is particularly important in times of crisis. As crisis set an extraordinary event (natural events, statements etc.) which reverses the normal operating procedures, creating an ambiguous and constantly changing situation which is difficult to calculate and predict the results of the impact and consequences. The elements which characterize a crisis[2] are:

a) The surprise due to the fact unexpected,

b) The lack of information

 c) The escalation of events, as the crisis extends

d) An increased need for multiple and diverse information in different kinds audience

e) create panic sentiment.

A central element of the characteristics of a crisis is the need for information in order to assess the exact impact and risk assessment. The publicity and the correspondingly of the public interest in ensuring that nature events, making the media, key actors during a crisis. What characterizes the relationship between the media and the various stakeholders (government, NGOs, etc.) involved and manage a crisis, they are interdependent.

Interdependence which is the result of necessities that creates a crisis both in the media, in terms of gathering the necessary information, and the various agencies intended to enhance public confidence in the way they manage a crisis. During a crisis, the nowadays the agencies are more receptive to the media, as media coverage influences and tactics that follow. The impact of a crisis may in this way to reduce the immediate design and implementation of population relief measures. The experience of the genocide that occurred in Rwanda in 1994, has shown that populations that are informed they have the possibility of better response and consequence management of a crisis[3].  Clearly, the foreign policy realists have a point when they argue that news content offers an uncertain guide to international events. But this fails to address the question of whether media content of any kind has the capacity to affect foreign affairs decision-making.

Critics and policymakers alike assume that it does. Critics who favor robust international responses to humanitarian crises tend to fault the news media for not paying more attention to Rwanda in the early weeks and months of the crisis, implicitly suggesting that, had more attention been given by the news media, Western policymakers might have responded differently. It is indeed true that most of the attention was paid to the Hutu refugees in the camps around

Source: Livingston and Stephen 1998. CNN coverage of the Rwanda genocide and refugee crisis 1994

The Rwanda massacre received relatively little attention, it wasn't until later, when events in the Great Lakes region of Africa shifted, did the news media pay significant attention. By July and August, the crisis in Rwanda centered on the hundreds of thousands of Hutu refugees in camps such as in Goma, Zaire. In short, during the crucial spring months of 1994, the American broadcast television networks devoted relatively little attention to the systematic extermination of nearly a million people.  highlights aggregate news coverage of Rwanda by the (then) three major American broadcast network newscasts. O.J. Simpson's trial received more American network[4] news coverage than the systematic murder of over 800,000 people.

MEDIA AND CRISIS COVERAGE

The theory of the phenomenon of the CNN effect was the dominant approach particularly in the 1990s., on the ability of the media to impose the need for action to the public and politicians in times of crisis. But the relationship of the media and society is more complex, in times of crisis, than describing in the theory of the phenomenon of the influence of CNN [5]. The difference between the coverage of a crisis in the media in relation to other events, is that crises are events 'impose' public disclosure and partly the 'agenda' of them. They are issues that by ‘definition’/headline attract the media interest because they contain the elements that make them attractive and interesting both in public opinion and the needs of its own means. As crises are themselves ‘news’ their coverage therefore is not a priori from the media but the events 'imposed' on the media agenda. This has multiple effects on the function of the media as an organization, and upsets the 'routine' which characterizes the collection and manufacture of news. Even in this case, the mode of transmission and coverage of a crisis is influenced by those factors that determine the overall functioning of the media and the complex and multi-codes message that they emit. These factors are:

• Financial, such as competition, increase profitability, etc.

• Politicians, as the ideological opposition, political preferences, etc.

• Technical, having to do with the specifics of each media, newspaper, television, etc.

• Institutional, such as necessities and priorities of media as autonomous agencies, their dependence on political elites for more information, etc.

 THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN A CRISIS

The importance of Media in times of crisis it is especially important because of the need for information and awareness of the entire society. Fear, general unrest, and the tension that causes a crisis are factors that dramatically increase the interest around a topic and the consequent use of the media. However, the management of the media in this case cannot be seen as isolated mediated by social political conditions in which the media operate. Unlike their intervention transforms and modifies the interpretative framework within which a crisis is seen.  Under this approach, one of the factors (economic, political, etc.) or the equal influence of all simultaneously affects the roles undertaken by the media in a crisis. These roles could be described as:

a) Leading

b) Cargo- commercial

c) Cooperating

   The effect and the role of Medias is 'Leading' or 'starring' in those cases where there is weakness handling the situation and clear policy direction by the responsible political leadership[6]. As the political elites are unable to 'fix' the situation by taking the relevant initiatives, what is observed is the growth pressures through dramatized media discourse, which tends to increase in inverse proportion to the 'silence-weakness' of the political leadership. The consequences of this intervention reported to enlarge performing against media, with direct consequence the 'reason' produced in association with the inability of the political leadership, exacerbate the insecurity of public opinion. The media create a dynamic autonomous operating in a relational field of social relations and function which acquires its own dynamic stimulating the flow of events. In this case the political leadership intervention takes place at another level largely been shaped by the media.

In the second case, the role of Media’s is characterized as “commercial”, as their intervention is affected predominantly by commercial imperatives resulting in coverage of events prescribing spectacle versus renovation. Their intervention is characterized by drama and exaggeration. Effect of selective focus on part of the crisis is the excessive emotional appeal and no understanding. This kind of approach a crisis media multiplies the effect of the combination of information with entertainment (infotainment model). This model qualifier in the approach television news, in the case of ' commercial ' role of the media in a crisis, refers to the alteration in the characteristics of a crisis as the reason journalistic focuses more on sensationalism and less to information. Dramatization is selected as a method of attracting the public and increase commercial profits[7]. This option fails to convey the complex social reality by resorting to logical communication black and white. A crisis is in fact a complex reality significant part of which escapes to the constituent elements are ignored[8]. The events are compressed to be adapted to the needs of journalist’s alleged time as events with an impressive top and a conclusive end. The cover is made in such a way that the public opinion identifies the end of the crisis by the end of the coverage given to it by the media. The focus and perseverance of media in coverage of events and not the detached cover a crisis conceal significant this impact as emphasis on the growth of the sense of threat through dramatization where the reassuring function should be the first logo.

As evidenced by the 'cooperative' role, other factors also affect the attitude of the media. The latter refers to the way the coverage of the crisis, which contributes towards restoring public confidence. The media in this case drawn up by the 'obligations' arising from their role as institutional factors of modern societies[9]. As a result of this we should enhance a cooperative between the media and the crisis management structures for uninterrupted, reliable and responsible information flow. Such update prevents uncertainty reducing the sense of danger. In the case of collaborative or reassuring attitude, the media turned into a mechanism with multiple functions to those of the main information which helps to reduce the pressure of public opinion, and give confidence to the agencies that manage the situation. This way coverage tends to reinforce a sense of community between the people and the leadership. The communication to disseminate collaborative event media takes into account equally the other actors, recognizing the complexity of communication in such cases[10].

Source: Edelman. The inversion of influence, 2016

A crisis is a period which brings accumulated publicity. The management of major events or crises has become more complex as they have multiplied the sources of information and are simultaneously changed requirements of the public for information. The size of the audience of media and the importance of their participation in shaping the dominant perceptions in the public sphere, are factors that highlight the intervention possibilities of a crisis. They used to saying that:  journalists simply broadcast events are now “old story”.

Source: U.S. public relations firm Edelman polled 33,000 people in 28 countries

Whenever a broadcast news adds a new parameter to how conceived and manufactured a fact. The news practices and mode of operation of media in general is a complex process, which affect several factors. Through this first of 'roles approach' taken by the media in a crisis, and given the differences that exist between them, an attempt was made to identify and highlight those factors which at given times affecting predominantly the role of SMEs a crisis. The role of SMEs is particularly important in the assessment of risk and the dimensions of a crisis, as a primary aim in such cases is the anticipation of the whole society for reliable, accurate and objective information. In this context, the media, as parts and expressions of a set, it is necessary to operate as a responsible media player actively contributing to tackling a crisis.

The media have a good record of getting facts correct during crises.  Unfortunately, sometimes media reports can get facts wrong, report rumors, or perpetuate misrepresentations. Blog posts and social media status updates are unfiltered and often include inaccurate information. These mistakes may not only harm the public, they can undermine the credibility of your organization. While media rumors, myths, and errors in press reports are usually self-correcting, sometimes the correction does not happen fast enough.

CONCLUSIONS

Disasters are media events. Despite changes in the media and the fact that social media continue to expand, print, television, and radio serve a pivotal role during disasters. The media typically serve two broad functions[11]:

 ­- They monitor and inform the public of risks. ­

- They serve a watchdog function for public agencies and government.

Although working with the media during a crisis is almost always very challenging, some strategies and techniques can enhance the flow of accurate and timely information. In addition, it is important not to develop an adversarial relationship with journalists. Instead, recognize that reporters are professionals who have an important role to play during a crisis[12].

References