We systematically validated keywords to extract relevant news content and conducted a content analysis of 169 discrete local TV news stories aired between March and June 2020 from 80 broadcast networks within 22 purposefully selected media markets. 

We found that social determinants of COVID-19 related racial disparities have been part of the discussion in local TV news, but racism was rarely mentioned. Coverage of racial disparities focused far more attention on physical health outcomes than broader social impacts. Stories cited more structural factors than individual factors, as causes of these disparities. After the murder of George Floyd, stories were more likely to mention Black and Latinx people than other populations impacted by COVID-19. Only 9% of local news stories referenced racism, and stories referenced politicians more frequently than public health experts.   

Future research should examine media coverage patterns for COVID-19 or other health-related racial disparities from other news sources. We also need to better understand audiences’ interpretations of these causal and solution explanations, and how local news programs and health advocates/practitioners can design effective messages to raise awareness about social determinants and structural explanations of health disparities.

This study is part of our team’s larger body of work to explore media and news coverage on COVID-19 and equity.   

This study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant no. 77645).

The objectives of both sessions were to share research on how media and messaging can build healthy and equitable communities, connect like-minded people from different fields who are interested in these topics, and collectively consider communication challenges and new research ideas.

With the support of expert facilitation from the Metropolitan Group as well as graphic recording by Rio Holaday, the events were successful. Post-webinar evaluations demonstrated that participants found the content useful, and the discussion generated many critical questions that must be tackled to guide a path forward in using communication and mass media to advance health equity.

Specifically, on the topic of Storytelling and the Social Safety Net, key discussion points emerged:

• What messengers are most trusted, in the face of a changing media environment and polarization?
• What are the best ways to tell stories about structural racism – and who are the best messengers to do so, especially considering structural racism within media institutions?
• Future research generation will require changes to the research enterprise – including new training in a policy approach to health communication, and avoiding disciplinary silos.
• Bringing health communication guidance into practice also requires generating new tools to make it useful, actionable, and digestible for communication practitioners and other end-users.

The discussion on Communication about Race, Class, and Health Equity was similarly generative and engaging. Participants discussed current and future challenges in communication about racial equity, including:

• Concerns about whether to communicate explicitly about structural racism, recognizing that it is not yet clear what communication formats or stories are most effective and generate the least resistance;
• A dramatically changing public discourse about racism following George Floyd’s murder, and reactions to this discourse, including backlash among politicians to critical race theory;
• The need to conduct real time tracking and messaging to understand these shifting dynamics around communication about racism;
• Engaging new audiences and messengers and considering what types of values and messaging strategies might bridge the large and growing divides among audiences.

Below are the graphical recordings of the presentations and discussions at both events. The COMM team looks forward to a new year of research and action to tackle these challenges.

Support for these webinars was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.

Trained coders were instructed to identify political campaign ads that mentioned crime using Kantar/CMAG data that included information about 3,767,477 campaign ad airings in the 2015-16 U.S. election cycle. They also coded for the specific crime problems and policy solutions mentioned in the ads. We then matched Kantar/CMAG data about campaign ad airings to Simmons National Consumer Survey (NCS) data about television viewing patterns of 26,703 respondents in the U.S. to estimate the effects of exposure to political campaign ads about crime on crime worry.

We found that political campaign ads were more likely to mention specific and severe crime problems and punitive measures (e.g., incarceration/sentencing) than efforts to prevent crime before it occurs (i.e., preventive policies). As a result, cumulative exposure to political campaign ads about crime was associated with higher levels of crime worry after controlling for demographics, overall TV viewing, and local crime rates. Further analysis stratified by respondents’ political party affiliation showed that exposure to crime-related political campaign ads increased crime worry among Republicans, but not Democrats.

This study, together with another paper published in Social Science & Medicine about the associations between exposure to political campaign ads and psychological distress, reflects the efforts of our research team to understand the effects of political campaign ads on people’s beliefs about social issues and their mental health.

This study was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant no. 73619). 

How do you capture hearts and minds when it comes to increasing public support for policies and programs related to early childhood education?

According to new multi-institution research led by Jeff Niederdeppe, professor in the Department of Communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, that all depends on whose hearts and minds are in the audience.

For turning resisters into supporters, a more subtle narrative approach is most effective, while “inoculation” – messages aimed at keeping opposing viewpoints at bay – was seen as the best approach for those already in favor of such policies and programs.

“A deep understanding of how strategic messages can inform the public about the benefits of investments in early childhood education is really timely,” Niederdeppe said. “It’s critical as we think about what a social safety net looks like in the post-COVID world.”

His group’s paper, “Evidence-Based Message Strategies to Increase Public Support for State Investment in Early Childhood Education,” was published Aug. 17 in Milbank Quarterly. Co-authors include Yiwei Xu, a doctoral student in the field of communication.

Multiple studies have shown that birth to age 5 is a critical time for social, emotional and physical development, with far-reaching consequences over the life course.

“We have a pretty robust evidence base showing that investments in early childhood education are really important,” Niederdeppe said, “not only for social and educational well-being but also for long-term health. Those benefits tend to accumulate over time.”

For this work, the researchers randomly assigned more than 5,300 members of an online research panel to read one of four messages promoting state investment in child care policies and programs; a control group did not read any messaging.

The team tested four different kinds of messaging:

• An argument-based advocacy message (“simple pro-policy”);
• A forewarning that others might try to persuade them with refutations of common oppositional arguments (“inoculation”);
• A story incorporating characters, setting and other elements of narrative to illustrate the structural nature of the problem and solution (“narrative”); and
• Inoculation and narrative messages (“combined”).

Respondents were assigned to one of seven conditions based on the type of message they received. After the messages were read, respondents were asked a series of questions about their preexisting support for child care policies.

Two weeks later, respondents read either an anti-policy message or an additional pro-policy message, followed by an anti-policy message. Respondents were then asked the same set of policy support questions as after the first portion of the study.

Niederdeppe’s group found that the narrative messaging worked best among those who identified as initially being opposed to increased investment in child care policies, while the inoculation messaging strengthened existing positive feelings.

The results weren’t surprising to Niederdeppe and his group, he said, in part because child care is generally not a partisan issue among the public.

“It’s not like abortion, or gun control versus gun rights,” he said, “those clear issues where people just have been exposed to lots of messages, they have their arguments for or against whatever position they take, and it’s really hard to crack that nut on either side.”

The key takeaway for Niederdeppe: As previous research has suggested, a narrative, storytelling approach – “showing rather than telling, in a sense,” he said – is the best way to appeal to folks who might initially be resistant to increased spending on early childhood education. Crafting stories with characters who are relatable to most people, he said, is also critical.

“If I come to you and say, ‘I’m going to try to convince you about x, y and z,’ you might immediately have your guard up,” he said. “You don’t want to be told what to think. But if I can reveal, through another character, these issues in a concrete way, that puts you in a more receptive mindset.”

Other contributors are: Liana Winett, associate professor at the Portland State University of Public Health; Erika Franklin Fowler, professor of government at Wesleyan University; and Sarah Gollust, associate professor of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.

This research was supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.