Social Media as a Communication Tool

In the social media era, it is interesting to ponder Kaspersons social amplification theory of risk
(1988), Sandmans interest in media coverage (1987), and Nelkins study of the order and timing
of interviewing spokespeople and experts during an environmental incident (1985). It is also
interesting to ponder the notion that risk is amplified by dramatic news coverage, and experts
disagreeing now that all-news channels predominate along with social media.

It seems many of the terms we have historically used to describe experiences with media are no
longer applicable. In living memory, the term mass media referred to the fact that 80 percent of
television viewers in the United States watched comedian Milton Berle on Tuesday nights
(Williams, n.d.) i. Fifty million people listened to Bing Crosbys radio shows (Biography.com,
n.d.). Richard Nixon drew 60 million viewers (Goodard, 2010) for his famous Checkers
speech in 1952, when 20 per cent of Americans didnt own TV sets. In 1980, more than 52
million Americans watched the three network supper hour newscasts (Pew Research, 2011)ii.
News anchor Walter Cronkite and others referred to this as a shared experience. Today, supper
hour newscasts draw just over 20 million, mainly older viewers (Pew Research, 2011), and thus
are not a widely shared experience. We referred to the electronic hearth or TV as a
metaphorical gathering place, and the public sphere (Daley & ONeill, referencing Habermas,
p 52-3). These terms seem anachronistic when the hearth has 500 fires (channels), and families
are separated via their individual media experiences on different devices, in different rooms. We
now use the questionable term, join the conversation to describe what is often one-way
communication.

So how shall a practitioner view the evolution of crises and communication about them in this
new environment? The author has argued elsewhere that the Exxon Valdez oil spill took on
larger than warranted significance as a result of certain types of amplification (Bonner, 1999 &
2004).iii Exxon was a large, well-respected company. Alaska was perceived as Americas last
physical, pristine frontier, and CNN was a new player in news coverage.iv The Valdez spill was
about the 30th largest oil spill to that date in the world, albeit the worst in America.v Prince
William Sound, while appearing to be pristine in postcards, already had traces of oil from
shipping, and several spills over many decades. Oil is the product of dead organisms, a
significant percentage of which is biodegradable (Keeble, 1991). A large amount of spilled oil
disappears within about six hours as a result of the light ends (toluene, benzene, etc.)
evaporating. The spill happened at a time when it was known that leaving oil on beeches to
allow bioremediation to occur was most likely the best course of action (Keeble, 1991).
However, Exxon officials, probably rightly, felt that communicating this in an emotionally
charged atmosphere was futile. They felt they needed a photo-opportunity for CNN and other
networks, and that involved hosing beaches with high pressure water, and blotting rocks with
absorbent towel. Hosing probably harmed living organisms beneath the surface of the beach,
and blotting accomplished little, or just relocated the problem to waste facilities.vi Is it credible
to assert that certain other spokespeople, alternative ordering and timing of messages, and other
aspects of risk communication theory and practice would have caused events to go better for
Exxon in Alaska?vii Moreover, what might have been the result had social media existed during
the oil spill? If CNN skewed and magnified risk, what might social media have done?

It is beyond the scope of this examination to arbitrate whether there are larger or smaller
challenges when the needs of not only CNN are in responders minds, but also those of several
other cable networks and a half-dozen social media platforms. There are two obvious
approaches though. One is that the fragmentation of media markets means that a news story on
the major broadcast networks lasting less than two minutes, may be missed by much of the
population. People may be watching specialty cable. Moreover, in the US, one may be watching
a left or right-leaning cable network, the electronic equivalent of only reading a particular tabloid
newspaper in the UK. If one is consuming news on Twitter, one may see a good sampling of
mainstream media coverage of an event, reposted by fellow users. But it may also be that the
consumer skips a story that appears uninteresting, or too complexthe digital equivalent of
turning the page in a newspaper. Certainly the data about the timing and ordering of
spokespeoples statements during an evolving event seems less relevant when social media and
specialty TV channels can be accessed by consumers on demand. Timing and ordering is also
affected by news aggregators who choose and assemble stories. The progenitor of this selective
consumption was during the era of partisan newspapers and pamphleteeringone could refuse to
buy a newspaper or take a pamphlet on the street. Today, ones Facebook and Linkedin feeds
and Youtube channel consumption may only reveal what the consumers compatriots view as
newsworthystrengthening existing views. The fragmentation of the news marketplace may
mean that a major story simply does not take on the importance it did before social media and the
all-news networks.

Conversely, it is hard to argue that more communication, instant communication, and

communication vehicles that are portable and constantly accessible have no implications. They

must. The mass and instant blast of information from social media must be heard by many, if
only in a two-step hypothesis in which small numbers of recipients communicate with larger
numbers (Seibert, 1974), or social media influence the content of legacy media. The modern
version of the two-step hypothesis might not only include face to face communication, but also
mechanized re-postings via several social media platformsa powerful new development.
Legacy media also re-transmit the content of social media. But is this more powerful on a daily
basis than the reach of the old broadcast supper hour evening newscasts?

As in the pamphleteering and partisan press era, misinformation exists with social media. The
names of victims in the Virginia Tech shootings were Tweeted before official confirmation
(Palen, 2008). Re-tweeting calls for help in the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and Fukushima
nuclear event surely were a diversion, as was the dissemination of the name of an incorrect
suspect in the Boston marathon bombing (Lee, 2013) viii. But this may just be the technological
and modern equivalent of a person trapped in a building in the San Francisco earthquake of 1906
shouting Im here and the reverberation and echo confusing responders. We may not need
protracted analysis of this phenomenon, other than that it is mechanization of a problem. We
may also see terrorists use social media more, and during an event to cause more damage--a
further mechanization of a problem.

Social media is easy to dismiss. Much content seems trivial. Yet when one describes content as
angry denunciations, pictures of kittens, and error filled coverage of the trivial, one is also
describing much newspaper, radio, and TV content. As George Bernard Shaw may have noted,
...newspapers are unable, seemingly to distinguish between a bicycle accident and the collapse

of civilization.ix In the competition for the lead news story on a given day, it often appears that
none actually win. Langer (1998) describes this as non-news about non-events. All
media contain trivial features, backgrounders, and fillers. In risk or crisis coverage, these
elements dwindle, and the coverage of the serious issue fills the space and time. But traditional
print and electronic coverage is still general, speaking in broad terms about the number of city
blocks affected, for example. Social media gets serious, but also becomes more specific with
users Tweeting and geo-tagging exact addresses on those affected blocks. This specificity holds
promise for emergency responders.

Recent academic study of social media confirms that it may have much to offer in risk and crisis
situations. Public health officials may be able to track the outbreak of regular flu, SARS or a
pandemic via Tweets from users indicating they dont feel well or are taking the day off work.
Large numbers of certain key words will be a good situation analysis. Tweets may work faster in
alerting a population to a seismic event than scientific instruments. Instead of hours, 75% of
Tweets are sent within two minutes of a perceived event. A Northeastern University study
indicates social media users are potential suppliers of massive data sets which can be used for
study (Mislove, 2007)x.

Newspapers and TV have a finite space and time for the dramatic pictures that risk theory says
increase our trepidation. But Instagram and Twitter have an infinite capacity to accept such
pictures from citizen journalists. Research has not yet been definitive on how these new forms
of communication fit into the social amplification of risk, and whether they have diminished the

role of mainstream media in this process. Intuitively, media that is not consumed cannot have an
effect on those who are not consumers, but media which is consumed may have an effect.

What is not in doubt when it comes to social media is its prevalence and power among users.
The Pew Research Center found in 2012 that 33% of adults under age 30 obtain their news from
social media (Sonderman, 2012). Ninety per cent of 18-29 year olds say they sleep with their
phones in or right next to their beds (Blodget, 2012). According to Google (2013), 56% of
Canadian adults were using smart phones in 2013, up from 33% the previous year. During the
2013 Calgary, Alberta flood, Twitter logged more than 850,000 tweets (Yablonski, 2013).
Official tweets from the city and police seemed to garner the most attention, meaning they were
sought out by the general public, and credible. The Canadian Red Cross indicates that 33% of
the population would call for help using social media (Canadian Red Cross, 2012). Palen (2008)
confirms high usage of social media, especially during brush fires. These numbers are out of
date when cited because of the speed with which social media is gaining acceptance, and are
probably now larger than reported above.xi

Given the high usage of social media, and even misuse as a method of calling for help, it is likely
that social media will become a more official medium for emergency communication. The
Canadian Red Cross reports that 33% of respondents would use social media to call for help, and
63% think that emergency response officials should respond to these calls (2012). The US
Federal Communications Commission may consider using social media for emergency alerts,
much like existing reverse 911 calls.

Comedian Milton Berle was the host of Texaco Star Theatre.

Statistical analysis provided by Nielsen Media Research, used under licence by Pew Research.
iii
See Keeble (1991), p. 23 on the various previous spills in the area, p. 55 & 57 on dispersants and p. 205 on
bioremediation.
iv
See Peaks (1990), p. 14.
v
McAlpine (1990), p. 17.
vi
See also Busch (1991), p. 773, Clarke (1993), p. 296 for other spills in Alaska, Daley (1991), p. 45 on the apparent
slow reaction, Davidson (1990), p. 44 - 52 on burning and dispersants, The Economist (1990), p. 100 on impact and
cost.
vii
Exxons Manager of Communication at the time, Ken Kansas, when interviewed for the authors 1999
dissertation on the topic, was adamant that these contextualizing messages would not have been heard or understood
in the frenzy of negative news stories about the spill. Mr. Kansas personally signed checks in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars to media consulting firms during the spill and has an overall annual budget of US$60 million
and thus could have attempted other solutions, one supposes. Mr. Kansas tried to involve the Disney characters and
organization, having a long personal association with Walt Disney and his company as a graphic artist, and a
professional association, having funded the energy pavilion at EPCOT Center, Disneyworld. Mr. Kansas reported to
the author that his Disney contacts said any association with Exxon at the time of the spill might have sunk the
Disney organization. Mr. Kansas was well-educated, with a Masters in Communication, well-funded, and
thoughtful. The author spent many dozens of hours discussing this topic with Mr. Kansas both socially and as they
worked together in Toronto, Ottawa, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Washington.
viii
Sunil Tripathi was incorrectly named by users of social media as the suspect for the Boston bombing in 2013.
ix
Usually attributed but unverifiable.
x
Alan Mislove is an Associate Professor in the College of Computer and Information Science at Northeastern
ii

University. Currently the University is undertaking in-depth studies in social networking data mining.
xi

The authors research into social media was originally conducted for essays submitted to the MSc (Pl) programme
at the University of Toronto and later more widely published in syndicated columns through Troy media and in the
book Safer Cities of the Future, p. 106-9.