6 ŞUBAT 2023 DEPREMİNDE TÜRKİYE'DE TWITTER'IN KULLANIMI

Öz

Doğal afetler esnasında sosyal medya kullanımının afet yönetimi için sunduğu önemli fırsatlar bulunmaktadır. Doğal afetlerde sosyal medya kullanımının sağladığı olanakları araştıran çalışmalar sosyal medyanın afet durumlarında bilgi akışının sağlanması, iş birliği ve dayanışmanın gerçekleşmesi, duygusal destek sağlanması gibi konularda önemli fırsatlar sunduğunu tespit etmiştir. Türkiye’de 6 Şubat 2023 tarihinde yaşanan Kahramanmaraş depreminde Twitter oldukça aktif bir şekilde kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışmada 6 Şubat tarihli depremlerde Twitter’ın kriz iletişimindeki rolünü analiz etmek amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada afetin ilk 48 saatinde Twitter’ın nasıl kullanıldığı ve afetin gerçekleştiği ilk saatlerde Twitter’ın kullanımının nasıl farklılaştığı, hangi işlevleri yerine getirdiği sorularına yanıt aranmıştır. Bu doğrultuda Twitter’ın sunduğu “Trending Topic” listeleri ele alınmış, afetin ilk iki gününde saatlik listelerdeki etiketler ve sözcükler tematik analiz yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın sonucunda Twitter’ın afetin ilk saatlerinden itibaren bir acil durum platformu işlevi gösterdiği ortaya konmuştur. Özellikle afetin ilk altı saatinde depremin etki alanını işaret eden yer bildirimleri öne çıkmış, “Acil Durum Çağrıları” temasına ilişkin sözcükler listelerde sıklıkla yer almıştır. İlk 24 saatte ise Twitter’daki paylaşımların daha çok “Yardım Çağrısı” ile “Eleştiri ve Tepki” temalarına ait olduğu, ikinci gün ise bu temaların yanında “İş birliği ve Dayanışma” temasına işaret eden sözcüklerin de listelerdeki yerinin belirginleştiği ortaya konmuştur. Listelerde öne çıkan “İş Birliği ve Dayanışma” teması altında yardım çağrıları ve ihtiyaçlara ilişkin bildirimlerin yanında afetzedelere yapılan yardımlara ilişkin geri bildirimlerin de yer aldığı saptanmıştır. Bu bulgu Twitter’ın afet durumlarında kanallar açtığını ve karşılıklı iletişime olanak sağladığını göstermektedir. Araştırma sonuçları afet yönetiminde sosyal medyanın kullanımının önemine ilişkin olarak sunulan kanıtlara katkı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Twitter
• Afet İletişimi
• Sosyal Medya
• 6 Şubat Depremi
• Gündemdeki Konular

USE OF TWITTER IN TURKEY DURING THE FEBRUARY 6, 2023 EARTHQUAKE

Öz

Communication opportunities offered by social media in natural disasters are of great importance for disaster management. Studies looking at the potential of social media in disaster situations highlight three general themes: ensuring the flow of information (Hughes & Palen, 2010; Palen vd., 2010; Vieweg vd., 2010), providing collaboration and solidarity (Eisman, 2016; Qu vd., 2016) and providing emotional support (Houston vd., 2015, Qu vd., 2016). This research seeks answers to the questions of how Twitter usage changed in the first hours of the disaster during the Kahramanmaraş earthquake of February 6, 2023, how Twitter was used during the earthquake disaster, and what functions it performed. The hashtags and words in the “Trending Topic” lists offered by Twitter for 48 hours following the earthquake were analyzed by thematic analysis method. The “Trending Topic” lists derived from from the Export Data site (https://www.exportdata.io/). The items in each list, whose number varies between 30-50, were classified according to their subjects by applying thematic coding with the help of the MAXQDA 2020 qualitative data analysis program. The topics have been determined as comprehensive titles as possible and divided into sub-codes. In the research, the thematic analysis stages described by Braun and Clarke (2006/2019) were followed. The data were analysed in detail, and the breakdown of all the hourly lists were examined. During the analysis, six main themes were determined as “Call for Help”, “Spiritual Invocation”, “Information”, “Criticism and Reaction”, “Cooperation and Solidarity”, “Emotional Support”. It has been detected that Twitter has been used as an emergency platform since the first hours after disaster, the information flow about the earthquake is very fast and the information obtained from other media tools can become widespread in Twitter very quickly. In this study, it was determined that Twitter offers a tremendous space for the flow of information from different sources during the disaster. In the first six hours after the earthquake occurred at 04:17, the words “Location Notification” were frequently encountered in the TT lists that changed hourly. Words and hashtags that give details about the earthquake and that there is an earthquake are at the top of the lists in the first six hours, but spiritual invocation, emotional support messages and emergency calls stand out in all of the lists. After the first 6 hours different types of calls for help have been identified and it has been determined that the words related to the “Criticism and Reaction” theme started to appear in the lists. Messages offering emotional support to the victims of the disaster and emphasizing unity and solidarity were published, particularly on the first day of the disaster. It was noted that Twitter was frequently used for support messages. Twitter has also become a platform where people reflect on their spiritual prayers and express their desires and prayers, as well as their physical and spiritual condition. The words and the hashtags related to the information about the disaster area and the names of the experts who provided information about the disaster were in the hourly lists of the first 24 hours. The TT lists of the second day often contained the names of celebrities who provided information about the catastrophe from the earthquake region, but here the sub-topic “Criticism and Politics” was the top priority. Suggestions on what to do in an earthquake, reactions to the measures taken, and emphasis on inadequately evaluated interventions are under the title of “Criticism and Politics”. Words related to emergency calls in the “Call for Help” category are common in the hourly lists on the second day. It can be observed that the reactions to the delay in aid are also increasing. On the second day, the sub-codes related to the theme of “Cooperation and Solidarity” were diversified. In addition to the calls for help, the help announcements have increased and the words related to the feedback about the aids have started to appear in the lists. Words that express the needs of earthquake victims have also started to appear more frequently in the lists. Calls for help are the most prominent theme in the TT lists covering both days. Here it is possible to observe the structure of Twitter that allows two-way dialogue between victims and volunteers. As a matter of fact, the theme of “Cooperation and Solidarity” also hosts the “Help Feedback” messages, especially on the second day. According to the results, it has been revealed that Twitter has a function that allows dialogue between the parties in disasters. Future research should do technical analysis, especially on the use of Twitter, using different methods. In this way, the numerical data obtained should be provided to illuminate the details of the use of social media in disasters.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Twitter
• Disaster Communication
• Social Media
• Kahramanmaraş Earthquake
• Trending Topics

Kaynakça

1. Ata, F. (2023). Afet Haberciliği: Kahramanmaraş Merkezli Depremler Sürecinde Sosyal Medyaya Yönelik Bir Değerlendirme. TRT Akademi, 8 (18), 606-629. DOI: 10.37679/trta.1271366
2. Austin, L., Liu,B.F., & Y. Jin (2012). How audiences seek out crisis information: exploring the social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 40(2). 188–207.
3. B. Ü. KRDAE Bölgesel Deprem-Tsunami İzleme ve Değerlendirme Merkezi. (2023). 6 Şubat- 20 Şubat 2023 Depremlerine Ait Ön Değerlendirme Raporu. ttp://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/sismo/2/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/022023_Kahramanmaras-Gaziantep_Hatay_-BDTIM_On_degerlendirme_raporu.pdf
4. Brachten, F., Mirbabaie, M., Stieglitz, S., Berger, O., Bludau, S., & Schrickel, K. (2018). Threat or opportunity?-examining social bots in social media crisis communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09159.
5. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2019). Psikolojide tematik analizin kullanımı. S. N. Şad, N.Özer ve A. Atli (Çev.). Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(2), 873-898. DOIi: 10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.7c.2s.17m
6. Cheng, J.W., Mitomo, H., Otsuka, T. & Jeon, S.Y. (2015) Media’s effects on people’s perceptions and intentions in post-disaster recovery: a case study of the Great East Japan Earthquake. 26th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS): "What Next for European Telecommunications?", Madrid, Spain, 24th-27th June, 2015, International
7. Eismann, K., Posegga, O., & Fischbach, K. (2016). Collective behaviour, social media, and disasters: a systematic literature review. Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Information Systems içinde. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). https://fis.uni-bamberg.de/handle/uniba/41289
8. Eyüboğlu, E. & Kodak, D. (2023). İnfodemi ve dijital kamusal alan: afet dönemi özelinde bir araştırma. TRT Akademi, 8(18), 528-551. DOI: 10.37679/trta.1277312

9. Feldman, D., Contreras, S., Karlin, B., Basolo, V., Matthew, R., Sanders, B., Houstana, D., Cheunga, W., Goodrichb, K., Reyesd, A., Serranod, K., Schubertc, J., Lukec, A., & Luke, A. (2016). Communicating flood risk: Looking back and forward at traditional and social media outlets. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 15, 43-51.
10. Fraustino, J. D., Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2012). Social Media Use During Disasters: A Review of the Knowledge Base and Gaps. Technical Report, Science and Technology Directorate; U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https:// reliefweb.int/report/world/social-media-use-during-disasters-review-knowledge-base-and-gaps
11. Houston, J. B., Hawthorne, J., Perreault, M. F., Park, E. H., Goldstein Hode, M., Halliwell, M. R., McGowen S.E.T, Davis R., Vaid S., McElderry J.A., Griffith, S. (2015). Social media and disasters: a functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39(1), 1-22.
12. Houston, J.B. (2012). Public disaster mental/behavioral health communication: intervention across disaster phases. Journal of Emergency Management, 10(4), 283–292.
13. Jung, J. Y., & Moro, M. (2014). Multi‐level functionality of social media in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Disasters, 38(2), 123-143.
14. Jurgens, M., & Helsloot, I. (2018). The effect of social media on the dynamics of (self) resilience during disasters: A literature review. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1), 79-88.
15. Kaewkitipong, L., Chen, C. C., & Ractham, P. (2016). A community-based approach to sharing knowledge before, during, and after crisis events: A case study from Thailand. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 653-666.
16. Kavanaugh, A., Yang, S., and Li, L. T. (2011) Microblogging in Crisis Situations: Mass Protests in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems içinde, Vancouver, Canada.
17. Keim, M. E., & Noji, E. (2011). Emergent use of social media: a new age of opportunity for disaster resilience. American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 6, 47–54.
18. Kodrich, K. and Laituri, M (2011). Making a Connection: Social Medias Key Role in the Haiti Earthquake. In: Journal of Communication and Computer, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 624-627.
19. Lifang, L. I., Zhiqiang, W. A. N. G., Zhang, Q., & Hong, W. E. N. (2020). Effect of anger, anxiety, and sadness on the propagation scale of social media posts after natural disasters. Information Processing & Management, 57(6), 102313.
20. Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., & Castillo, C. (2010, July). Twitter under crisis: Can we trust what we RT? Proceedings of the first workshop on social media analytics içinde, 71-79.
21. Mills, A., Chen, R., Lee, J., & Raghav Rao, H. (2009) Web 2.0 emergency applications: How useful can Twitter be for emergency response? Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 5(3), 3–26.
22. Neubaum, G., Rösner, L., Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M., & Krämer, N. C. (2014). Psychosocial functions of social media usage in a disaster situation: A multi-methodological approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 28-38.
23. Number of Twitter Users by Country (2023). Oberlo https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/number-of-twitter-usersby-country
24. Oh, O., Agrawal, M., & Rao, H. R. (2013). Community intelligence and social media services: A rumor theoretic analysis of tweets during social crises. MIS Quarterly, 407-426.
25. Öztürk, M. & Demir, Y. (2023). Bilgilendirme ve kaos Arasında: afet yönetiminde medyanın rolüne yönelik bibliyometrik bir analiz. TRT Akademi, 8(18), 506-527. DOI: 10.37679/trta.1270615
26. Peary, B. D., Shaw, R., & Takeuchi, Y. (2012). Utilization of social media in the east Japan earthquake and tsunami and its effectiveness. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 34(1), 3-18.
27. Perng, S. Y., Büscher, M., Wood, L., Halvorsrud, R., Stiso, M., Ramirez, L., & Al-Akkad, A. (2013). Peripheral response: Microblogging during the 22/7/2011 Norway attacks. International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (IJISCRAM), 5(1), 41-57.
28. Pourebrahim, N., Sultana, S., Edwards, J., Gochanour, A., & Mohanty, S. (2019). Understanding communication dynamics on Twitter during natural disasters: A case study of Hurricane Sandy. International journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 37, 101176.
29. Qu, Y., Huang, C., Zhang, P., & J. Zhang (2011). Microblogging after a Major Disaster in China: A Case Study of the 2010 Yushu Earthquake. Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work içinde, 25–34.
30. Recuero, R., & Araújo, R. (2012, June). On the rise of artificial trending topics in twitter. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM conference on Hypertext and social media. (305-306).
31. Reuter, C., & Kaufhold, M. A. (2018). Fifteen years of social media in emergencies: a retrospective review and future directions for crisis informatics. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 26(1), 41-57.
32. Reuter, C., Marx, A., & Pipek, V. (2012). Crisis management 2.0: Towards a systematization of social software use in crisis situations. International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (IJISCRAM), 4(1), 1–16.
33. Seddighi, H., Salmani, I., & Seddighi, S. (2020). Saving lives and changing minds with Twitter in disasters and pandemics: a literature review. Journalism and Media, 1(1), 59-77.
34. Shklovski, I., Burke, M., Kiesler S., & Kraut R. (2010). Technology adoption and use in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8). 1228–1246.
35. Shklovski, I., Palen, L., & Sutton, J. (2008). Finding community through information and communication technology in disaster response. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work içinde, 127-136.
36. Sreenivasan, N., Lee, C.S., & Goh, D. H. (2011) Tweet Me Home: Exploring Information Use on Twitter in Crisis Situations. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction içinde, 1-10.
37. Starbird, K., & Palen, L. (2010). “Pass It On? Retweeting in Mass Emergency,”. Proceedings of the 7th International ISCRAM Conference içinde.
38. Starbird, K., Palen, L., Hughes, A. L., & Vieweg, S. (2010). Chatter on the red: what hazards threat reveals about the social life of microblogged information. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work içinde, 241-250.
39. Stieglitz, S., Bunker, D., Mirbabaie, M., & Ehnis, C. (2018). Sense‐making in social media during extreme events. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1), 4-15.
40. Sutton, J. (2010). Twittering Tennessee: Distributed networks and collaboration following a technological disaster. In Proceedings of the7th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management.
41. Tang, Z., Zhang, L., Xu, F., & Vo, H. (2015). Examining the role of social media in California’s drought risk management in 2014. Natural Hazards, 79, 171-193.
42. Twitter Deprem Bölgesinin Sesi Oldu (2023, Şubat 9). Habertürk Gazetesi. https://www.haberturk.com/twitter-deprem-bolgesinin-sesi-oldu-3564115-teknoloji
43. Twitter Trends in Turkey (2023, Şubat 6). Export Data. https://www.exportdata.io/trends/turkey/2023-02-06/9
44. Valenzuela, S., Puente, S., & Flores, P. M. (2017). Comparing disaster news on Twitter and television: An intermedia agenda setting perspective. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(4), 615-637. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2017.1344673
45. Vieweg, S., Hughes, A. L., Starbird, K., & Palen, L. (2010, April). Microblogging during two natural hazards events: what twitter may contribute to situational awareness. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems içinde, 1079-1088.
46. Yan, L., & Pedraza‐Martinez, A. J. (2019). Social media for disaster management: Operational value of the Social conversation. Production and Operations Management, 28(10), 2514-2532.