ISSN: 2476-213X

Enfermedades infecciosas clínicas y práctica

Acceso abierto

Nuestro grupo organiza más de 3000 Series de conferencias Eventos cada año en EE. UU., Europa y América. Asia con el apoyo de 1.000 sociedades científicas más y publica más de 700 Acceso abierto Revistas que contienen más de 50.000 personalidades eminentes, científicos de renombre como miembros del consejo editorial.

Revistas de acceso abierto que ganan más lectores y citas
700 revistas y 15 000 000 de lectores Cada revista obtiene más de 25 000 lectores

Abstracto

Impact of Media Messages on Public Opinion: A Case Study of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

John Nwangwu* , Mita Saksena, and Nwanyieze Jiakponnah N

Objective: To determine the effects of agenda-setting and framing on the public’s evaluation of different frames relevant to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The volume and issues mentioned in the media messages were examined to understand the public’s perception and awareness of the disease. Methods: A content analysis of newspaper reports on SARS was performed. Analyses of public opinion data collected by the Harvard School of Public Health, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Pew Research Foundation were also performed. We then performed a correlation analysis of media coverage about SARS with the survey data. Results: The results of the analysis substantiate the hypothesis that frames represented predominantly in the media will influence public opinion. The correlation analysis revealed a correlation between the economic frame and the percentage of positive responses expressing worry about being exposed to SARS. A very small negative correlation was found between the biomedical frame and overall worry about the disease. Conclusion: Framing and agenda-setting are essential in bringing the public’s attention to issues and in creating an initial awareness of the issue. However, it was observed that perceptions of relevance mediated the public’s response. Thus, successful efforts to limit the spread of SARS in the United States may have reduced Americans’ perceptions that the biomedical frame was relevant, compared with the economic frame.