# Infectious diseases risk framing in Bulgarian media during early COVID-19 pandemic and the Ebola crisis

## TL;DR

The study compares how Bulgarian media framed the risks of the early COVID-19 pandemic and the Ebola crisis, finding significant differences in the focus of coverage.

## Contribution

The study introduces a comparative analysis of media framing during two distinct infectious disease outbreaks using interdisciplinary methods.

## Key findings

- During the Ebola crisis, 92% of media coverage used medical frames, while 97% of the COVID-19 coverage used socio-political frames.
- The cumulative duration of news items during outbreak periods was nearly two-fold higher than during non-emergency periods.
- Pathogen novelty influenced the choice of speakers in media, with administrative and authoritative figures being prioritized during health crises.

## Abstract

Social forces, in conjunction with biological variables, play a crucial role in shaping the overall health of a community, particularly in the context of infectious disease outbreaks. Mass media calibrates risk perception among the public. The present study's aims are to review risk framings in the Bulgarian National Television in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare results with the communication strategies employed when Ebola was exported outside of Africa. The research seeks to provide a quantitative and qualitative understanding of how the media communicated risk during the two crises. It also aims to determine the extent to which messages altered based on the distinct epidemiological characteristics of the two epidemics.

We used interdisciplinary analysis, combining methods from the social sciences and epidemiology. It is based on a controlled study of media content comparing the share and presentation of information on infections during two different outbreaks caused by newly emerging pathogens (in 2014 and 2020), as well as during periods with no specific concern for novel public health threats (JAN 2019 and OCT-NOV 2019). A content analysis was carried out.

The findings of the study indicate that during the Ebola crisis, medical frames were used in 92 % of the cases, whereas the majority of the analyzed media coverage of COVID-19 focused on the socio-political frame (97 %). During control periods, the extent of coverage using a medical framework varies between 100 and 86 %. In terms of geographic coverage, the presentation of content followed the principle of proximity. In non-emergency circumstances, clinical practitioners are often preferred candidates for interviews. However, during health crises, the media tends to highlight individuals holding administrative positions and authoritative functions.

The present research confirms the hypothesis that public health emergencies increase the volume of infectious disease content on the news. The most frequently selected speaker categories should be briefed timely on outbreak developments in order to feed the media with accurate information.

•Cumulative duration of news items in outbreak periods is nearly two-fold higher.•97 % of the COVID-19 coverage involved socio-political framings.•Framings during the Ebola PHEIC referred predominantly to the medical focus.•Pathogen novelty is a determining factor for the choice of speakers in the media.

Cumulative duration of news items in outbreak periods is nearly two-fold higher.

97 % of the COVID-19 coverage involved socio-political framings.

Framings during the Ebola PHEIC referred predominantly to the medical focus.

Pathogen novelty is a determining factor for the choice of speakers in the media.