Search

As scholars in fields such as media studies, crisis studies and public policy studies have argued, there exists a fundamental link between crises and the media. Once an event has been interpreted as a crisis, questions of accountability inevitably appear on the media agenda, and the struggle to attribute blame and responsibility to a specific entity or entities— the blame game—thus becomes an inexorable part of the crisis process. Focusing on three liberal Western newspapers with an international, primarily Western elite readership and a reputation for in-depth analysis of global events, The Economist, the Financial Times and the International Herald Tribune, this article employs Iyengar's and Valkenburg's notions of responsibility frames to examine whether initial coverage of the 2003 SARS crisis in these accounts held any particular entity accountable for the crisis, looks at three key themes used to communicate to the reader a particular way of thinking about responsibility for SARS and examines some of the consequences of the kind of responsibility frame constructed around the SARS crisis in these accounts. As our findings show, there is an entity that the early news accounts studied consistently held responsible for the 2003 SARS crisis, the Chinese system, and the corresponding responsibility frame at operation in these accounts is thematic rather than episodic in nature, since it consistently places the SARS crisis within a broader context (a product of “China” itself and/or of societal-governmental forces in China) rather than in relation to a specific episode or as the result of the particular actions of individuals. The SARS crisis narrative therefore presented in these accounts tells the story of an anachronistic Chinese system faced with a contemporary health threat that, by its very nature, it is incapable of assessing accurately or managing responsibly. By way of conclusion, we argue that, while the use of such a thematic frame to explain China's role in the 2003 SARS crisis may be accurate in certain respects, this frame falls short in other respects and proves particularly inadequate to the challenge of capturing the economic complexities of China's role during the crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]