Pandemi Sürecinde Yabancı Medya Ajanslarının Twitter Paylaşımlarının İçerik Analizi: BBC Türkçe, DW Türkçe ve Independent Türkçe Örnekleri

Yıl 2021, , 87 - 112, 29.01.2021

Turgay Yerlikaya , İbrahim Efe , Kevser Hülya Akdemir

https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.788251

Cited By: 1

Öz

COVID-19 salgın hastalığı 2020 yılında tüm dünyayı etkisi altına almıştır. Ülkelerin farklı stratejilerle mücadele ederek en az zararla atlatmayı amaçladığı bu süreç global ölçekte kamuoyunun yakın ilgisine mazhar olmuştur. Türkiye aldığı erken tedbirler ve sıkı kamu politikaları sayesinde Almanya ve Güney Kore gibi salgınla başarılı şekilde savaşan ülkelerden olmuştur. Salgının oluşturduğu tehdit ve buna bağlı risk unsurlarının iletişiminde medya şüphesiz önemli bir rol üstlenmiştir. Bunların arasında sosyal medya giderek artan kullanıcı sayısı, toplumu ve siyaseti etkileme gücü nedeniyle risk iletişimi açısından da çalışılmaya değer bir veri kaynağı sağlamaktadır. Bu nedenle mevcut çalışma BBC, Deutsche Welle ve Independent’ın Türkiye temsilciliklerinin Türkçe Twitter hesaplarından 15 Mart-10 Nisan 2020 tarihleri arasında yapılan Koronavirüs paylaşımlarını incelemektedir. İlgili hesaplardan elde edilen veri önceki risk iletişimi çalışmalarında elde edilen ve COVID-19 salgınına özgü etkenlerin yer aldığı bir kodlama tablosuna göre kodlanmış ve bulgular içerik analizi yöntemi ile tahlil edilmiştir. Salgının erken safhalarında ilgili hesaplardan yapılan paylaşımların önemli bir kısmının topluma bilgi verme işlevini taşırken dikkate değer bir bölümünün de siyasi eleştiri amacıyla yapıldığının gösterilmesi çalışmanın en önemli bulgularındandır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Koronavirüs, Sosyal Medya, BBC Türkçe, Independent Türkçe, DW Türkçe, İçerik Analizi

Content Analysis of Foreign Media Agencies’ Social Media Shares in the Pandemic Process: BBC Turkish, DW Turkish, and Independent Turkish Examples

Öz

COVID-19 pandemic disease has affected the whole world in 2020. This process, which countries aim to overcome with the least damage by struggling with different strategies, has received the attention of public opinion on a global scale. Through early measures and its robust public policy, Turkey has been one of the most successful countries in fighting the epidemic, such as Germany and South Korea. The media undoubtedly has played an important role in communicating the threat posed by the pandemic and the associated risk factors. Among these, social media provides a data source worth studying in terms of risk communication due to its increasing number of users and its power to influence society and politics. Therefore, the present study investigates Twitter messages of the Turkish accounts of the BBC, the Deutsche Welle, and the Independent shared between March-10 April 2020. The data obtained from the relevant accounts were coded according to a coding table obtained in previous risk communication studies and containing factors specific to the COVID-19 outbreak, and the findings were analyzed by content analysis method. It is one of the most important findings of the study that while a significant part of the messages shared by the relevant accounts in the early stages of the pandemic has the function of informing the society, a remarkable part of them is for political criticism.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Coronavirus, Social Media, BBC Türkçe, DW Türkçe, Independent Türkçe, Content Analysis

Kaynakça

• Alhabash, & Mcalister. (2014). Redefining virality in less broad strokes: Predicting viral behavioral intentions from motivations and uses of Facebook and Twitter. New Media & Society.
• B. J. Reynolds. (2009). Building trust through social media. CDC’s experience during the H1N1 influenza response. Marketing Health Services, 18-21.
• Bortree, & Seltzer. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review.
• Covello. (1998). Risk perception, Risk communication, and EMF exposure: Tools and techniques for communicating risk information. Risk perception, risk communication, and ıts application to EMF exposure: Proceedings of the world health organization/ ICNRP International Conference (pp. 179-214). Vienna: Internatonal Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.
• Covello, & McCallum and Pavlova. (1989). Principles and guidelines for improving risk communication. In Covello, McCallum, & a. Pavlova, Effective Risk Communication: the Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations (pp. 3-16). New York: Plenum Press.
• Covello, & Sandman. (2001). Risk Communication: Evolution and revolution. In A. Wolbarst, Solutions to an Environment in Peril (pp. 164-178). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
• Covello, Peters, & Wojtecki. (2001). Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the commnication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health, 382-391.
• G.Cairns, Andrade, M. d., & MacDonald, L. (2013). Reputation, relationships, risk communication, and the role of trust in the prevention and control of communicable disease: A review. Journal of Health Communication, 1550-1565.
• Glik, D. C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health, 33-54.
• Guidry, Jin, Y., Caroline, A. O., Messner, M., & Meganck, S. (2017). Guidry, Yan Jin, A. Orr CarolinEbola on Instagram and Twitter: How health organizations address the health crisis in their social media engagement. Public Relations Review, 477-486.
• Habermas, J. (2020). Dans cette crise, il nous faut agir dans le savoir explicite de notre non-savoir. Le Monde.
• Hanioğlu, Ş. (2020). COVID-19 Sonrası küresel düzen: İki seçenek. In COVID-19 Sonrası Küresel Sistem: Eski Sorunlar, Yeni Trendler (pp. 24-28). Ankara: SAM Yayınları.
• J.Baron, C.Hershey, J., & Kunreuther, H. (2000). Determinants of priority for risk reduction: The role of worry”. Risk Analysis, 413-428.
• Kissenger, H. (2020). The coronavirus pandemic will forever alter the world order. Wall Street Journal.
• Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 337-353.
• Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
• McAllister, & Spooner. (2009). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: A ten-year reflective survey of dialogic Internet principles. Public Relations Review, 320-322.
• Neiger, B. L., Thackeray, Burton, Thackeray, & Reese, &. (2013). Use of Twitter among local health departments: An analysis of information sharing, engagement, and action. Journal of Medical Internet Research.
• P. Slovic, “. e.-a. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk assessment battlefield. Risk Anal, 689-701.
• Park, Reber, & Chon. (2016). Tweeting as health communication: Health organizations’ use of Twitter for health promotion and public engagement. Journal of Health Communication, 188-198.
• Park, Rodgers, & Stemmle. (2013). Analyzing health organizations’ use of Twitter for promoting health literacy. Journal of Health Communication, 410-425.
• Peters, R., Covello, V., & McCallum, D. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal, 43-54.
• Pew Research Center (2015). Social media update 2014. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/ Erişim tarihi: 24.04.2020
• TranslateMedia (2020). Turkey Social Media. Erişim adresi: https://www.translatemedia. com/translation-services/social-media/turkey-social-media/ Erişim tarihi: 24.04.2020
• Renn, O., Bums, W., Kasperson, J., Kasperson, R., & Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical applications. J Soc Sci Issues, 137-160.
• Reynolds, B. J. (2009). Building trust through social media. CDC’s experience during the H1N1 influenza response”. Marketing Health Services, 18-21.
• Rogers, G. (1997). The dynamics of risk perception: how does perceived risk respond to risk events. Risk Anal, 745-757.
• Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 280-285.
• Sommerfeldt, Kent, & Taylor. (2012). Activist practitioner perspectives of website public relations: Why aren’t activist websites fulfilling the dialogic promise? Public Relations Review, 303-312.
• Veil, Buehner, & Palenchar. (2011). A work-in-process literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 110-122.
• Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why. Daedalus, 41-60.