Homeland Security

ACAD EM I C P A P E R

Social media in disaster communication: A case study of strategies, barriers, and ethical implications

Alessandro Lovari1 | Shannon A. Bowen2

1Department of Pedagogy, Psychology,

Philosophy, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

2School of Journalism and Mass

Communications, University of South Carolina,

Columbia, South Carolina

Correspondence

Alessandro Lovari, Department of Pedagogy,

Psychology, Philosophy, University of Cagliari,

Cagliari, Italy.

Email: [email protected]

Funding information

Mary Caldwell International Grant

The manuscript investigates how social media were used during a flood disaster man-

aged by public affairs officers. We conducted high‐level “elite” interviews with the

state's top emergency managers about their social media policies, practices, and use

in both media relations and citizen communication. We explored the strategies and

communication models implemented, challenges and barriers for effective adoption

of these platforms, and ethical implications in the use social media during natural

disasters. The study investigates gaps between theories and practice, adopting a

multidisciplinary perspective that involves public relations, social media studies,

government/public affairs, and public sector communication. Recommendations are

offered to improve disaster communication via social media including dedicated staff

and resources, evaluation, symmetry, and the use of ethical communication to quell

rumors or misinformation during a disaster.

1 | INTRODUCTION

Social media has reframed communication as rapidly emerging, with-

out geographic boundaries, and interactive on both a societal and indi-

vidual scale. Rapid communication is a challenge to manage, and that

challenge is exacerbated in the most exigent situations: emergencies

and disasters to be managed by public sector organizations (PSOs)

and by public affairs specialists (Bowen, Rawlins, & Martin, 2019).

Social media serves as a powerful tool for emergency management

and disaster relief in many recent emergency situations worldwide, such

as Hurricanes Sandy and Harvey in the United States, the tsunami in

Japan, earthquakes in Italy and Chile, and the Queensland floods in

Australia. We focus on the role of social media as used by government

agencies and PSOs (i.e., public departments, officials, and other

government agencies) as part of their emergency and disaster response.

This case study examines a disaster in which eleven trillion gal-

lons of water fell in South Carolina (SC), United States, causing mas-

sive flooding in residential areas; results included fatalities, massive

infrastructure damage including road and bridge collapses, evacua-

tions, and prolonged loss of energy in October 2015. The death toll

was 17 and property damage totaled $1.2 billion. Social media took a

prominent place during the flood in interactions between PSOs,

media, and citizens. Messages were disseminated on social media

to inform news media and citizens, and to coordinate disaster

operations.

Emergency communication and disaster response is not optional

for elected officials, organizations, and government entities at every

level: national, state, county, and city. In the United States, there were

137 major disasters in 2017 and 79 in 2018's hurricane season (FEMA,

2018). The flood in SC was only one of the major disasters in 2015 but

offers a unique opportunity to examine disaster response and social

media use from the perspective of the communication function in

numerous government entities with high‐level (elite) public affairs offi-

cers (PAOs). We examined social media around this disaster from a

perspective of crisis management (Coombs, 2019) and public relations

(Grunig & Hunt, 1984), in addition to research on digital impact in

PSOs (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019; Falco & Kleinhans, 2018), focusing

on the gaps and misalignments between theory and practice.

2 | PUBLIC RELATIONS AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Crisis management is the implementation of a response to an issue

that has become reality such as a natural disaster, accident, or man‐

made crisis (Coombs, 2014; Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 2003). Crisis

Received: 10 April 2019 Accepted: 24 April 2019

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1967

J Public Affairs. 2020;20:e1967. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1967

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1 of 9

response is best when planned so that contingencies can be

anticipated, response streamlined, and communication can be both

rapid and accurate (Coombs, 2007). Reality has shown that it is

impossible to anticipate all contingencies contained in a crisis scenario

(Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 1998). An additional challenge is that

various types of disasters can create greater problems through

unforeseen consequences and outcomes (Seeger et al., 1998).

Additionally, there is a weighty ethical responsibility for public sector

communicators that is enhanced during crises (Bowen, 2010).

Social media has given emergency managers a tool that can offer

exceptionally rapid and effective response to changing conditions, offering

the opportunity for real‐time updates of situations (Coombs, 2016).

Citizens seek information on social media during crisis for information

and checking with family and relatives; yet, they also may be discouraged

by information overload during such situations (Austin, Liu, & Jin, 2012).

The media is also using social media to issue news releases,

offering a valuable resource for media, citizens, and other emergency

managers. The live videos provided on social media show situations

on the ground in detail that reports from law enforcement or the

National Guard often cannot capture. These videos can be extremely

helpful to citizens, but a greater value may be realized in informing

the actual management of the crisis in the emergency operations cen-

ter. Disaster communicators can respond by providing journalists with

statistics, operations updates, and other data that the media will not

have access to independently (Heath & O'Hair, 2009). The symmetri-

cal nature of that relationship makes the communication a two‐way

symmetrical approach of mutual benefit (Grunig & Hunt, 1984).

Although such relationships are ideal, research found that a

counterproductive antagonism exists between communicators and

journalists (Maguire, Phillips, & Hardy, 2001) based upon competing

self‐interests rather than shared community interest. Antagonism

and distrust appear to interfere with communication even in times of

crisis or disaster (Veil, 2012). Bowen (2016) found that greater ethical

expertise and articulation of those analyses by communicators could

help engender more effective working relationships with journalists,

which would in turn enhance crisis response effectiveness. Building

relationships based on ethics, candor, and contextual disclosure can

result in trust, best built before the time pressure of a disaster.

2.1 | Social media environment of disasters

The digital media revolution produced transformations in PSO

communications worldwide (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019; Mergel,

2013, 2015). Capozzi and Ricci (2013) argued “it has become

increasingly critical for organizations … to create an online presence

extending beyond a website into social media. In doing so, they can

reap the benefits of direct access to stakeholders” (p. 3).

Indeed, social media enhances the dialogue between PSOs and citi-

zens (Lovari & Parisi, 2015) instead of adopting a one‐way, public infor-

mation model to simply disseminate information (Falco & Kleinhans,

2018; Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Social media has also enabled innovative

practices for cultivating relationships with journalists (Supa, 2014).

News releases turn into disintermediated communication, aiming at

favoring ethical assets such as authenticity, transparency, and instilling

a sense of trust in institutions (Kent & Taylor, 2014). Further, citizens

now expect to hear directly from organizations (Men & Bowen, 2017).

Scholars have focused attention on the potential benefits of social

media, such as increased transparency, accountability, and access to

services (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010). Other researchers studied

how social media can enhance participation, promote civic engage-

ment, and revitalize forms of democracy (Haro‐de‐Rosario et al.,

2018; Kent, 2013). However, PSOs tend to favor asymmetrical, one‐

way dissemination strategies, despite the opportunity offered for

communicating with citizens in a dialogical way (Grunig, 2009; Lovari

& Parisi, 2015; Waters & Williams, 2011).

Scholars investigated the use of social media by governments and

PSOs in order to strategically manage crisis situations from routine use

to critical events, such as natural disasters (Bruns, Burgess, Crawford,

& Shaw, 2012; Kavanaugh et al., 2012). Social media also allows PSOs

to collect requests for rescue and assistance to enhance public order

during the disaster, to reduce uncertainty, and to raise civic support

(Sutton et al., 2014; White, 2011).

Digital volunteers can offer relevant help for disaster response

(Park and Johnston, 2017), but the presence of official social media

channels directly managed by PSOs can be crucial because it could

counteract the information overload produced during emergencies.

Focusing public attention on verified information can be an ethical

use of social media to avoid the spread of false information, as seen

during the 2010 earthquake in Chile or the tsunami in Japan (Acar &

Muraki, 2011; Mendoza, Poblete, & Castillo, 2010).

There are also barriers for an effective use of social media during

a disaster. Typical resistance to change in bureaucracies makes the

adoption of social media problematic for PSOs, with clear difficulties in

realigning processes, responsibilities, and procedures with the rapidity

and visibility of social media channels (Mergel, 2015). Hilts, Kushma, and

Plotnik (2014) identified three barriers with U.S. public sector emergency

managers: (a) lack of personnel in charge of social media, (b) lack of

policies and guidelines, and (c) concerns about the trustworthiness of

crowdsourced data. Similar barriers where found by Comunello and

Mulargia (2017) as well as the informal nature of social media that collides

with PSO bureaucracy. These barriers influence social media use and

the quality of digital communication between government, citizens,

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and media.

2.2 | Inequities, problematics, and ethics

During a disaster, connectivity is imperfect and cannot be relied upon,

especially in areas such as subway systems. Large‐scale weather disasters

can render utilities inoperative for a matter of days or weeks. Further

problematics include the fragility of the technology, the requirement of

manual dexterity, digital literacy, and actual literacy to use the technology.

Thus, the infirm, elderly, and those with physical challenges or linguistic

barriers can be left out by the digital divide (Madianou, 2015). Additionally,

electronic devices can be destroyed during disasters, making the

technology unreliable in numerous types of such events.

2 of 9 LOVARI AND BOWEN

More troubling from an ethical perspective: affluence and educa-

tion divide those who have access to the Internet and those who do

not. This concept, termed the “digital divide” (Gunkel, 2003), is appar-

ent even in the heavily wired United States, but is especially prevalent

in lesser‐developed nations. Lower‐income individuals, rural adults,

young children, the physically challenged, and senior citizens may

not have access to a smart device or even Internet technology

(International Telecommunication Union, 2015). Therefore, social

media cannot be reliably expected to meet the information needs of

these populations; thus, PSOs must rely on a multichannel strategy

to spread information in more accessible ways.

Moreover, ethical concerns extend beyond the concerns of the

digital divide to include the veracity of information itself. Veracity is

maintained in through contextual full disclosure, frankness, authentic-

ity, and honest communication that maintains respect for rights,

fairness, and dignity (Bowen, 2016). During a disaster, we know that

individuals frame communication in terms of uncertainty and have a

high demand for knowledge of both the risk and of emergency

response. Credibility and trust influence publics' “ability to communi-

cate knowledgeably on the facts and issues surrounding any specific

risk” (Palenchar, 2005, p. 754).

Further complicating these matters of credibility, trust, and veracity

are the factors associated with how quickly rumors and misinformation

(Jack, 2017) spread via social media due to their lack of editorial gate-

keeping (Hung‐Baesecke & Bowen, 2017). Misinformation represents

a potential threat for citizens and media. Ethical guidelines for social

media use exist (Bowen, 2013) and codes of ethics for professional

communicators routinely deal with ethics for social media. Seeger

et al. (2003) argued, “truthfulness, honesty, deception, and even lying

become even more complex moral issues during a crisis” (p. 234).

Further, because of rapid dissemination and few credibility checks,

misleading, inaccurate, or otherwise damaging information can spread

quickly on social media in emergency situations. It is difficult for PAOs

to quell the spread of inaccurate information during a crisis. Scholars

find that rumors can be persistent and transmitted in a viral

manner that is exceptionally difficult to correct (Kimmel, 2004; Vraga

& Bode, 2018). Ethics is a vital consideration in crisis and disaster

communications.

3 | RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Little research has been conducted in the area of disaster response in

relation to the effective use of social media by PSOs using a qualita-

tive approach for deep understanding. Cheng and Cameron (2017)

reported that the majority of articles published in public relations

and communication journals (70%) investigated the diffusion of

patterns of information in emergency situations using quantitative

methods, and only 3% of those used interviews. Although some guide-

lines for disaster media relations have been published (Veil, Buehner,

& Palenchar, 2011), few studies have been developed from the

PAO/emergency manager perspective (Hiltz & Gonzales, 2012; Hiltz,

Kushma, & Plotnick, 2014). Little research has been conducted from

public affairs' point of view, focusing on the relationships with citizens,

media, and other departments outside the organization or on their use

of social media during disasters (Comunello & Mulargia, 2017).

We do not know the extent to which emergency managers feel

equipped to handle communication via social media, how they use cit-

izen generated material, or what perceived problems exist with the

use of social media during an emergency. Due to the lack of a robust

body of knowledge, we do not know if emergency communication

specialists use social media in a one‐way or two‐way model of com-

munication (Grunig, 2009; Grunig & Hunt, 1984) and to what extent

ethics enters their considerations. Therefore, we pose the following

research questions:

RQ1: How did PSOs use social media during the South Carolina

flood? (Probe: Was the use of social media primarily one‐way or

two‐way communication?)

RQ2: What challenges and barriers did communicators face in using

social media in this disaster response?

RQ3: To what extent were concerns of ethics, rumors, or misinforma-

tion prevalent on social media in this emergency response?

4 | METHOD

Government officials' disaster responses are explored through

interviews with PAOs/emergency response officials. These were crisis

communicators, risk managers, PAOs, and other top‐level or elite

(Hertz & Imber, 1995) specialists who managed disaster response

efforts via social media during the flood.

We conducted in‐depth interviews with 10 professionals leading

their organization's emergency response for state agencies, military

or law enforcement, and local or city government. Participants were

recruited from a list of all state agencies involved in the Governor's

Emergency Management Division (EMD). In‐depth interviews were

conducted in person with each participant and were digitally audio

recorded and transcribed. In‐depth interviews were chosen as a

research method to study one particular event in all of the rich detail

participants could offer (Johnson, 2001).

Participants include five who were the head of public information for

state governmental departments, threewhowere the chief communicator

of the city or county level, one as the chief communicator of a large

university in the disaster zone, and one who was a regional head for a

national NGO for disaster relief. The high level of information provided

by these elite communication professionals was crucial in our study (Hertz

& Imber, 1995). Most of those interviewed were present in the EMD's

emergency operations center. To protect the identity of respondents,

we do not identify them by agency name. The emergency response group

in South Carolina is publicly available information, sowe used a code sheet

to categorize comments by type of PSO.

Each semistructured interview lasted an hour, with a range of 40 to

120 minutes; notes were taken by two researchers. Field notes and

preliminary conclusions were discussed among the researchers who

solved alternate explanations to resolve discordant conclusions and

LOVARI AND BOWEN 3 of 9

conducted member checks by following up to clarify interpretations

with the participants. Several participants supplemented their inter-

views by providing additional documentation. A textual analysis was

conducted for main themes.

Qualitative data analysis was conducted by pattern matching

(Strauss, 1987) of both the interview transcripts and the field notes

and theoretical memos recorded by the researchers. Data reduction

and display matrices were created to validate or collapse emergent

themes. Once patterns emerged from the data, the most salient points

were grouped as main findings after discussion of their potential

theoretical significance as standalone concepts or in support of larger

themes. To maintain validity of the data, each researcher drew inde-

pendent preliminary conclusions from both text and interviews. These

independent conclusions were discussed, collapsed, and discordant

items rectified.

5 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

An overview of the manner in which this event unfolded can help to

understand the organization of emergency response and how each

PAO was involved. When the combination of Hurricane Joaquin meet-

ing two other storms led to weather forecasts of unprecedented levels

of rain, Governor Haley declared a state of emergency, at which time

she became the head of disaster management for the state, along with

the Adjutant General of the SC National Guard, Major General

Livingston.

This operation was headed by the SC EMD, who operated the

Emergency Operations Center, including representatives and chief

communication officers from the Department of Transportation,

Department of Administration, State Law Enforcement Division, Fed-

eral Emergency Management Agency, the National Guard, the Depart-

ment of Health and Environmental Control, and other state agencies.

5.1 | Communication strategies toward citizens and media

Social media was used extensively across various government agen-

cies. For example, one head of an SC department's emergency com-

munications offered that the location of a collapsed bridge reported

by SC Highway Patrol would be retweeted by the Department of

Transportation, and normally would be further disseminated by media

members and citizens. Dissemination of messages across agencies was

an important part of a rapidly unfolding situation in which evacuations

and emergency rescues were dominating the crisis. Dissemination of

messages across multiple agencies allowed for a rapid and flexible

approach that was adapted to real‐time situations, focusing efforts

on the communities that held the most risk at any given time.

On the other hand, dissemination across departments and levels of

government was not seamless. Other important officials seemed to be

excluded from the operation center, so they autonomously decided to

use social media to convey information, without coordinating with the

state departments. However, they also used those sources for official

information to share on Facebook and Twitter and incorporated mes-

sages coming from the operation center in their digital communications.

Some of the PAOs said that social media was the most important

channel to reach publics. Facebook and Twitter were the most‐used

social media to convey information to citizens and media, as reported

in the following interview excerpt:

“We pushed out on social, we had two photographers

out there. We put every release linked through social to

the website. We posted it every 4 hours. Facebook

comments said it was helpful and the media retweeted

it” (State Infrastructure Management).

Some participants praised the fact that social media increased their

ability to accurately and rapidly perform media relations by sending

information directly to reporters, especially via Twitter. Other emer-

gency communicators thought that social media was not dominant but

just one tool within a holistic and multichannel strategy. For instance,

“Strategy was to maintain open lines of communication

and manage the crisis in the most efficient way

possible. Social media was just one tool in the strategy”

(State Administration Office).

They stressed this point due to the fact that PSOs are financed by

tax payers so they must inform citizens with different media to limit

inequalities and difficulties of access to emergency information. This

discrepancy often depended on the government agency of the

communication professional and several noted the extent to which

South Carolina is a rural state, making social media an unreliable

means of reaching low‐income and aged populations as highlighted

in the following excerpts:

“Sometimes, we used social media but older people are

still on radio. So, we focused on SC Radio and AM

radio” (Military‐type Organization).

“We're trying to get it out on all platforms. A large

number of people don't have internet in their homes.

Taxpayers come in all ages” (County Government).

“You can't rely on one form of communication to reach

multiple constituencies. Experience told us to put signs

up on the water fountains that the water was not

drinkable until we had flushed all lines. Social media just

can't replace that form of communication” (Education).

Many participants noted that traditional news releases were far

too slow as a means to update publics on the unfolding disaster. Most

of the participants said that their office used social media to push

media messages, but they also tried to create a dialogue with reporters

by answering questions and messages, although adjusting to the speed

needed in an emergency.

One participant commented that a news release would be out-

dated by the time it was disseminated, whereas others used social

media to link reporters to rapidly written news releases posted on

their websites. News update and links to news releases via Twitter

4 of 9 LOVARI AND BOWEN

quickly began using the hashtag #SCFlood that was created by one of

our interviewees, but not formally adopted by every PSO in the study.

By including a codified hashtag in posts, emergency communicators

informed not only the media as news broke, but also citizens seeking

information through the hashtag.

Social media was used during this emergency communication

response in a predominantly one‐way, dissemination model (Grunig,

2009). Emergency information was spread in Spanish and English

due to the presence of Spanish‐speaking communities. This action

clearly emphasizes the strategic perspective adopted by at least four

of the PSOs to reach the highest number of inhabitants potentially

limited by linguistic barriers.

Two‐way communication was used primarily in the media relations

area, rather than with citizens. Many participants explained that they

answered online questions from reporters and tried to relate to the

media through direct messages on Facebook or Twitter, such as the

following:

“We use news releases to media on social media.

Facebook and Twitter were big part of the first few

days of the event” (County Government).

“We get the info to our Twitter feed. Media are like

wolves, retweeting us in seconds” (State Infrastructure

Management).

This study explored the extent to which two‐way communication

was used through crowdsourced videos of flooded areas. Emergency

communicators preferred not to use grassroots information because

they were concerned with message verification and the privacy rights

of individuals being rescued, although participants noted that requests

for rescue or assistance were responded to via direct message. For

example,

“We do not typically retweet other people's stuff. It was

difficult to confirm information. To know what was

accurate” (County Government).

“Social media helped in painting the picture. But it takes

a lot of time, and we're faced with the inability to

respond” (State Administration Office).

“One of the things people expect in social media is a 24/7

real time response, and it is impossible to get the word

out in the early stages of an emergency” (NGO).

A few participants indicated that it would not be ethical to use

crowdsourced materials from the perspective of a state agency

because it inferred a state endorsement or verification of the

messages. Others simply said it would be unethical to use citizen's

content in their own social media. Some raise ethical questions about

using citizen‐sourced information, and most offered that their agency

had a policy against using privately created materials in their own

communications. Thus, emergency situations could limit citizens'

engagement in two‐way communication; conversely, a one‐way

approach can contribute to conveying information in a more ethical

way, avoiding the risk of unreliable or inaccurate messages

being spread.

Media relations, however, was more symmetrical; two‐way

communication was often conducted with journalists, favoring more

personal relationships. Participants often indicated that they believed

media‐sourced information was credible enough to pass along through

their social media channels without further quality control. In addition,

communicators often indicated that they sent information to specific

reporters' social media accounts because of previously existing

relationships with them. In this sense, the cultivation of quality

relationships with journalists made an enormous difference in terms

of mutual exchange of information and credibility.

5.2 | Challenges and barriers

In a level of agreement rare in qualitative studies, every PAO in this

study indicated a need for more trained personnel to handle social

media. Respondents highlighted the need of more communicators to

manage media relations via social media, to respond to direct mes-

sages, and forward requests for help that came in via social media.

This demand clearly emerged during interviews as follows:

“We were behind, not staffed, no budget for that”

(Military‐type Organization).

“We were going around the clock for weeks, having three

people in 8‐hr shifts for 24‐hr response” (State

Infrastructure Management).

“It's a staffing issue. Getting more buy‐in from our County

Council on how social media can be important and

efficient in partnerships with emergency management”

(County Government).

Many of the interviewees indicated that staff had not been trained

in the use of social media, or they simply did not have enough staff to

manage the response adequately during and after the flood. Every par-

ticipant mentioned a desire to have trained communicators before an

emergency unfolded.

“Having the staff up and trained in advance during a

disaster to help with social media is key to being ready

to go” (NGO).

Another challenge was the lack of coordination across platforms.

Communication managers varied in the experience and skills level with

social media, and often they did not have staff to handle multiple

platforms consistently. This lack of message integration led to

some confusion and spotty updating of information as it came in from

the field.

Finally, little evaluation research was conducted to measure the

impact of social media in crises response. Several participants stated

that their agencies ran analytics, and some participants provided the

researchers with copies of their collected data. However, evaluation

remains strictly anchored to vanity metrics, such as counting the num-

ber of fans. For instance,

LOVARI AND BOWEN 5 of 9

“We saw an increase in followers on all of our platforms

during the flood, but we've not yet done evaluations

more than that” (NGO).

“We've not done any analytics. Our follow‐up of the crisis

was looking at branding issues so people will know what

we do and how we can help them” (Regulatory Agency).

Among participants, no qualitative evaluation was carried out after

the flood to understand to what extent the needs of media members

and citizens were met via the use of social media. Such information

could be exceptionally valuable in planning for future emergency and

disaster, also for establishing collaborative communication flow across

agencies.

5.3 | Ethical implications for disaster response

The participants indicated that they had to gauge the trustworthiness

of messages and were very concerned about rumor control in these

situations. The veracity of citizen‐sourced information is difficult to

judge. In using citizen‐provided information, the danger would be that

official emergency information could be intertwined with misinforma-

tion or inaccurate messages. Private and public contexts inevitably

tend to collapse in the entropic emergency communication flow

spread on social media, but PSOs communication managers avoided

to give visibility to contents they were not able to verify in the acute

phase of the disaster.

A surprising finding was the extent to which social media were used

to identify and quell rumors and misinformation by strategically listen-

ing to citizen sources. It appeared that the emergency communicators

in our study use social media routinely to push out information to news

sources, but the second most common use of the medium was rumor

control, as highlighted in these interviews' excerpts as follows:

“We correct misinformation on social media all the time.

A large part of what we do is verify, correct, use the

right definitions” (State Infrastructure Management).

“Social media can be lifesaving. We used it a great deal

for rumor control, quelling rumors is part of any

disaster. Twitter especially helped us control rumors”

(State Administration Office).

“Social media is a faster medium. We used it for rumor

control” (Regulatory Agency).

Indeed, all but one participant mentioned the use of social media

to identify and stop rumors, to correct erroneous reports, and to pro-

vide official sources of truthful, verified, and accurate information.

Several participants argued that in situations of emergency in crisis

response, it is important to quell rumors to prevent panic and make

decisions based on the most accurate and truthful information avail-

able. Communicators noted the difficulty of controlling rumors and

prevention of misinformation on social media, raising ethical concerns

as reported by several respondents as follows:

“Using social media involve ethics and transparency in

state government” (Regulatory Agency).

“There's a big ethical responsibility. I'm not sure anyone

knows how to correct misinformation on social media.

Mainstream media has an ethical responsibility to verify

the information they're putting out. Most do, some

don't because there are many journalists who push out

information, confirmed or not. It can create confusion.

But they're not bound by the same legal and ethical

constraints as we are” (Education).

One participant emphasized his process of contacting media mem-

bers with whom he has a personal relationship to help disseminate

accurate information in quelling of rumors that appear to have a poten-

tial to go viral. All participants mentioned a dual role of social media

channels to be more connected with what people were saying on the

ground, yet also to monitor that communication for veracity. Quelling

rumors with honest information was important for both media relations

and communication to publics. Congruent with arguments in our

conceptualization (Bowen, 2010, 2013, 2016), these PAOs viewed

honesty as the most essential component of social media communication.

6 | CONCLUSIONS

This study represents an elite observation of how governmental and

PSOs have practiced disaster communication in social media in the

context of the SC flood, describing gaps and areas of realignment

between theory and practice. In‐depth interviews allowed us to inves-

tigate organizations' awareness in strategic use of social media during

emergencies and disasters. Based on this rare qualitative insight, we

discuss theoretical implications as well as practical recommendations

that can be used in disaster situations. Although this study has obvious

limitations, such as being constrained to one state in a specific disaster

situation, we find the level of insight gained through elite interviews in

this qualitative research stunning in the sense that we can offer

numerous suggestions to improve the social media effectiveness of

disaster situations, and to reflect on the impact of these platforms

on public sector communication (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019).

Two‐way communication, emphasizing listening, is an integral part

of the social media management process that can be conveyed to risk,

crisis, and disaster communication. It encourages a responsive organi-

zation by helping to identify the concerns and problems of publics for

potential inclusion in planning and resolution. Likewise, evaluating the

disaster response via social media can help to facilitate more effective

and agile social media use during the next emergency or disaster faced

by these agencies. Interviews showed that PSOs underutilized evalua-

tion research. They are either too pressed for time and staff or are not

yet fully aware of the importance of evaluating social media impact

after a disaster. They noticed an increase in followers, but they did

not give specific meanings to social media analytics. This weakness

should be surmounted because evaluating the effectiveness of social

media offers input into strategic management. Evaluation of impact

6 of 9 LOVARI AND BOWEN

is a crucial activity that needs to be integrated in broader organiza-

tional listening procedures to improve the quality of relationships with

digital publics (Lovari & Parisi, 2015).

Having staff trained and ready was a weighty concern for most

PSOs, confirming previous studies (Falco & Kleinhans, 2018). All of

the PAOs complained of a lack of funds for training specialists in social

media during an emergency (Hiltz et al., 2014).

Emergency drills could also involve social media use by singular

agencies or coordinating the efforts with other departments, adopting

guidelines to manage citizen‐sourced content and media relations, and

also identifying possible lack of training of the existing staff. At the

same time, communication specialists “should be careful and deliber-

ate use of social media, while not neglecting traditional media in crisis

responses” (Austin et al., 2012, p. 203). This case study confirmed how

a multichannel approach is the appropriate one to inform and engage

with the general populations (Kavanaugh et al., 2012; Vanderford,

Nastoff, Telfer, & Bonzo, 2007), not fostering further divides among

citizens (Madianou, 2015).

Scenario building precrisis is an important part of understanding

how social media can be employed in both information dissemination

as well as strategic listening for information gathering and monitoring

for rumors in media ecologies intoxicated by inaccurate information.

For instance, it could be useful to organize meetings with local media

to listen to their information's needs during emergencies, proposing

guidelines for disaster communication to improve the relations between

communicators and journalists, respecting both roles to act ethically.

Ethical concerns of presenting honest and accurate information in

order to prevent and quell rumors were a central concern in the use of

social media (Bowen, 2016) for all of the emergency communicators in

this study. This research recommends that processes be examined in

which these concerns are addressed across emergency and disaster

scenarios to resolve the weaknesses mentioned above. Planning best

process measures for social media during disasters can help improve

response speed, lessen uncertainty, and have an outcome of increased

efficacy of communication in advance of the next event.

The use of social media was considered a positive tool in the disaster

of the SC floods, despite some lack of coordination among the

governmental agencies and public sector bodies (Mergel, 2013, 2015).

This lack of coordination could be overcome favoring the creation of

networks to share best practices and emergency communication

protocols (i.e., identification of codified hashtags and agencies'

postcrossing rules) to be used in emergencies. Many improvements can

be made integrating social media in disaster communication planning

and identifying a social media task force, composed by trained staff, to

strategically deal with these events, before, during, and after an

emergency. Future studies could investigate these challenges or study

social media use to ethically manage rumors or misinformation, better

handle media relations, conduct evaluation, and to develop a more

effective two‐way engagement with citizens during emergency response.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the Mary Caldwell International Grant

at the University of South Carolina for supporting this research.

ORCID

Alessandro Lovari https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5877-467X

Shannon A. Bowen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7675-5002

REFERENCES

Acar, A., & Muraki, Y. (2011). Twitter for crisis communication: Lessons

learned from Japan's tsunami disaster. International Journal of Web

Based Communities, 7(3), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.

2011.041206

Austin, L., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2012). How audiences seek out crisis

information: Exploring the social‐mediated crisis communication

model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.654498

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a

culture of transparency: E‐government and social media as openness

and anti‐corruption tools for societies. Government Information

Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001

Bowen, S. A. (2010). The nature of good in public relations: What should

be its normative ethic? In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations

(pp. 569–583). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bowen, S. A. (2013). Using classic social media cases to distill ethical

guidelines for digital engagement. Journal of Mass Media Ethics:

Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 28(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08900523.2013.793523

Bowen, S. A. (2016). Clarifying ethics terms in public relations from A to

V, authenticity to virtue. Public Relations Review, 42, 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.03.012

Bowen, S. A., Rawlins, B. L., & Martin, T. M. (2019). An overview of the

public relations function (2nd ed.). New York: Business Expert Press.

https://doi.org/10.4128/9781606490990

Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Crawford, K., & Shaw, F. (2012). #qldfloods and

@QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East

Queensland Floods. Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence.

Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2019). Public sector communication: Closing

gaps between citizens and public organizations. Hooboken: Whiley

and Sons.

Capozzi, L., & Ricci, S. R. (2013). Crisis management in the age of social

media. NY: Business Expert Press.

Cheng, Y., & Cameron, G. (2017). The status of social‐mediated crisis

communication (SMCC) research: An analysis of published articles in

2002‐2014. In L. Austin, & Y. Jin (Eds.), Social media and crises

communication (pp. 9–20). NY: Routledge.

Comunello, F. & Mulargia, S. (2017). A #cultural_change is needed.

Social media use in emergency communication by Italian local level

institutions. Proceedings of the 14th ISCRAM Conference, Albi, France.

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis:

The development and application of situational crisis communication

theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–177. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

Coombs, W. T. (2014). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing,

and responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coombs, W. T. (2016). Digital naturals and the effects of social media on

disaster communication. In S. Jayakumar (Ed.), State, Society and

National Security (pp. 183–192). Singapore: World Scientific.

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813140127_0012

Coombs, W. T. (2019). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing,

and responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Falco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2018). Beyond information‐sharing. A typology

of government challenges and requirements for two‐way social media

LOVARI AND BOWEN 7 of 9

communication with citizens. Electronic Journal of e‐Government, 16(1),

18–31.

FEMA. (2018). Declared disasters by year. Retrieved from: https://www.

fema.gov/disasters/grid/year.

Grunig, J., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. Holt: Rinehart and

Winston.

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of

digitalization. PRism, 6(2), 1–19.

Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: Toward a critique of the digital

divide. New Media & Society, 5(4), 499–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 146144480354003

Heath, R. L., & O'Hair, H. D. (2009). The significance of crisis and risk

communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair (Eds.), Handbook of Risk

and Crisis Communication (pp. 5–31). NY: Routledge.

Hertz, R., & Imber, J. B. (Eds.) (1995). Studying elites using qualitative

methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/

9781483327341

Hiltz, S. R., & Gonzales, J. J. (2012). Assessing and improving the

trustworthiness of social media for emergency management. In V. A.

Oleshchuk (Ed.), Proceedings NISK (pp. 135–145). Trondheim:

Akademika Forlag.

Hiltz, S.R., Kushma, J., & Plotnick L. (2014). Use of social media by U.S.

public sector emergency managers: Barriers and wish lists. Proceedings

of the 11th International ISCRAM Conference, University Park, USA.

Hung‐Baesecke, F., & Bowen, S. (2017). Ethical engagement at the time of

crisis in the social era. In L. Austin, & Y. Jin (Eds.), Social media and crises

communication (pp. 68–80). New York: Routledge.

International Telecommunication Union. (2015). Measuring the information

society report. Geneva: Switzerland. Available at: http://www.itu.int/en/

ITU‐D/Statistics/Documents/publications/misr2015/MISR2015‐w5.pdf.

Jack, C. (2017). Lexicon of Lies, Data & Society, Available at:

https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/Data AndSociety_LexiconofLies.pdf.

Johnson, J. M. (2001). In‐depth interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, & J. A.

Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method

(pp. 103–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kavanaugh, A., Fox, E. A., Sheetz, S. D., Yang, S., Li, L. T., & Whalen, T.

(2012). Social media use by government from routine to the critical.

Government Information Quarterly, 29, 480–491. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.002

Kent, M. L. (2013). Using social media dialogically: Public relations in

the reviving democracy. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.024

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2014). Problems with social media in public

relations: Misremembering the past and ignoring the future.

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 3(2), 23–37.

Kimmel, A. J. (2004). Rumors and rumor control: A manager's guide to

understanding and combating rumors. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lovari, A., & Parisi, L. (2015). Listening to digital publics. Investing citizens'

voice and engagement within Italian municipalities' Facebook Pages.

Public Relations Review, 41(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.pubrev.2014.11.013

Madianou, M. (2015). Digital inequality and second‐order disasters: Social media in the Typhoon Haiyan recovery. Social Media + Society, 1(2),

205630511560338. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603386

Maguire, S., Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2001). When “silence = death”, keep talking: Trust, control, and the discursive construction of identity in

the Canadian HIV/AIDS treatment domain. Organization Studies,

22(2), 285–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601222005

Men, R. L., & Bowen, S. A. (2017). Excellence in internal communication

management. New York: Business Expert Press.

Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., & Castillo, C. (2010). Twitter under crisis: Can we

trust what we RT?, Workshop on Social Media Analytics, July 25,

Washington (US).

Mergel, I. (2013). A framework for interpreting social media interactions in

the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.015

Mergel, I. (2015). Social media institutionalization in the U.S. federal

government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 142–148.

Palenchar, M. J. (2005). Risk communication. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The

encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 752–755). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952545.n377

Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication,

organization, and crisis. Communication Yearbook, 21, 230–275.

Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and

organizational crisis. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511

557842

Supa, D. W. (2014). A qualitative examination of the impact of social media

on media relations practice. Public Relations Journal, 8, 1–11.

Sutton, J., Spiro, E. S., Johnson, B., Fitzhugh, S., Gibson, B., & Butts, C.

(2014). Warning tweets: Serial transmission of messages during the

warning phase of a disaster event. Information, Communication & Society,

17(6), 765–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.862561

Vanderford, M. L., Nastoff, T., Telfer, J. L., & Bonzo, S. E. (2007).

Emergency communication challenges in response to Hurricane

Katrina. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880601065649

Veil, S. R. (2012). Clearing the air: Journalists and emergency managers

discuss disaster response. Journal of Applied Communication Research,

40(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.679672

Veil, S. R., Buehner, T. M., & Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A work‐in‐process literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis

communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(2),

110–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐5973.2011.00639.x

Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2018). I do not believe you: How providing a

source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms.

Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1337–1353. https://doi. org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883

Waters, R. D., & Williams, J. M. (2011). Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and

hooting: Analyzing the communication patterns of government

agencies on Twitter. Journal of Public Affairs, 11(4), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.385

White, C. M. (2011). Social Media, Crisis Communication and Emergency

Management. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Alessandro Lovari, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Sociology of

Communication at the University of Cagliari (Italy). Lovari's

research focuses on public sector communication, public relations,

and health communication. He also studies social media impact on

organizations and citizens' behaviors. Lovari is a member of the

scientific committee of the Italian Association of Public Sector

Communication and member of the European Project “Creative.”

He was visiting research scholar at Purdue University, University

of Cincinnati, and University of South Carolina (USA). His works

8 of 9 LOVARI AND BOWEN

appear in several books and international journals like Public Rela-

tions Review, International Journal of Strategic Communication,

Health Communication, and PRism.

Shannon A. Bowen, PhD, is a Professor (full) at the University of

South Carolina. Bowen's research focuses on ethics within organi-

zations, specifically the application of Kantian deontological ethics

in public affairs. She is a board member of the International Public

Relations Research Conference, the Arthur W. Page Society, and is

a regular columnist for PRWeek. Before her academic career, she

worked on Capitol Hill and as an analyst at apolitical research firm.

Ethics is featured in her 100+ publications, and she has been hon-

ored with numerous awards. Recent books include, An Overview of

the Public Relations Function (2nd ed.) and Excellence in Internal

Communication Management by Business Expert Press.

How to cite this article: Lovari A, Bowen SA. Social media in

disaster communication: A case study of strategies, barriers,

and ethical implications. J Public Affairs. 2020;20:e1967. https://

doi.org/10.1002/pa.1967

LOVARI AND BOWEN 9 of 9

Copyright of Journal of Public Affairs (14723891) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.