July 1, 2014 Quake aftermath: Christchurch journalists' collective trauma experience and the implications for their reporting. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Ph.D in Journalism by Sean Scanlon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- University of Canterbury Christchurch New Zealand 2014 1 Abstract: On February 22, 2011, Christchurch-based journalists were jolted out of their normal work routine by a large 6.3 magnitude earthquake that killed 185 people, wrecked the city and forced reporters to reappraise their journalism. This study considers how the earthquake affected journalists’ relationship to the community, their use of sources and news selection. A theory of collective trauma is used to explain the changes that journalists made to their reporting practice. Specifically, Christchurch journalists had a greater identification and attachment to their audience post-earthquake. Journalists viewed themselves as part of the earthquake story, which prompted them to view sources differently, use those sources differently and see advocacy as a keystone of their news work after the disaster. This study adds to a growing scholarship about journalists and trauma, but focuses on what the event meant for local reporters’ choice of sources and news selection rather than measuring rates of psychological distress. 2 Acknowledgments I have many people to thank for helping me complete this study. Being a journalist by training and not an academic has made the experience an interesting one, which required the guidance of many more people than I can name. First, thanks to my patient and wise supervisors Jim Tully and Donald Matheson. I asked for critical feedback and always appreciated your honest responses and guidance. The journalists who took part in this study spoke openly and bravely about what the February 2011 earthquake meant for them professionally and the impact it had on their personal lives. My thanks to all and apologies for any mistakes that may appear in this study. Thanks to former Press librarian James Branthwaite who diligently copied and supplied me with PDFs of all The Press newspaper pages I required for the content analysis in this research. The Canterbury Community Trust and The Press newspaper kindly supplied me with scholarships to conduct this research. Without that financial support I could not have completed this study. Thanks to Sarah-Jane O’Connor for patiently walking me through some of the statistical work that was required in the results chapter. There have been many others who have helped me along the way, offering encouragement and advice when I sought it. Thank you for patiently listening to me drone on. My final thanks go to my wider family and especially my wife, Lucy, for supporting me throughout. Four years on since the start of the Canterbury earthquake sequence many challenges remain for individuals rebuilding homes or businesses and earthquake recovery leaders trying to deal with the big task of getting a city back on its feet. The ups and downs of disaster recovery are difficult for journalists to traverse, but the city’s reporters continue to report the good and bad of the long road back to normality. This study is dedicated to them. 3 Contents Page Abstract 1 Acknowledgements 2 List of tables/graphs 6 Introduction 7 Research goals 13 Background 14 Earthquakes and aftershocks 14 Post-disaster bureaucracy 16 Social/economic impact 19 Summary 22 Literature review 23 News selection 26 News framing 36 Source relationships 41 Journalists and disasters 51 Journalists and trauma 63 Collective trauma 71 Summary 80 Methodology 82 Interview process 84 Interview group 89 Case stories 92 Interview analysis 95 Content analysis 100 News story coding 103 4 Coding reliability 110 Ethical issues 113 Case stories 116 Author’s experience 117 Olivia Carville 123 Iain McGregor 131 Amanda South 140 Jeff Hampton 147 Journalist A 154 Andrew Holden 160 Summary 170 Interview results 172 Interview data 174 Categories: Part of story 177 Reporter as advocate 187 Attached to audience 196 Ethics 208 Summary 213 Content analysis results 215 Sources 220 Frame results 226 Frame strength 228 Summary 230 Conclusion 232 Contribution to scholarship 233 Lessons for journalism practice 240 Future research 245 Appendices Appendix 1: frame coding guide 248 5 Appendix 2: source coding 250 Appendix 3: ethics approval 252 Appendix 4: list of interviewees and dates 253 Appendix 5: interview questions 254 References 255 6 List of tables Table 1: Example of descriptive coding 97 Table 2: Example of interpretive coding 98 Table 3: Intra-coder reliability results 111 Table 4: Inter-coder reliability results 112 Table 5: Interpretive coding percentages 175 Table 6: Total number of stories and photos 216 Table 7: Subject matter per story coded 217 Table 8: Affiliated and unaffiliated source use 221 Table 9: Breakdown of authority source use 224 Table 10: Breakdown of non-authority source use 224 Table 11: Recorder frames for each coding period 227 Figure 1: Coding trends for first five subjects 218 Figure 2: Frame salience trends 229 7 Introduction At 12.51pm on February 22, 2011, life changed for the residents of Christchurch in little more than 10 seconds of deafening noise and shaking caused by a shallow magnitude 6.3 earthquake centred just 10 kilometres from the central city. As the earthquake fanned out across Canterbury at three kilometres per second, registering some of the highest levels of ground accelerations recorded, 185 people were left dead and others badly injured. The central city was a dangerous tangle of collapsed buildings and twisted roads, bent further by a slew of large aftershocks. In the city’s suburbs, especially in the east, liquefaction bubbled up around ruined homes and essential services - water and power - were out while phone lines struggled with the massive boost in traffic from worried people trying to contact loved ones. More than half the deaths occurred in the six-storey Canterbury Television (CTV) building, which collapsed and caught fire in the quake. Others were killed by falling debris. The Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force until April 30, 2011. Amid the chaos on February 22, as people were pulled from the rubble and the injured were rushed to help, the city’s journalists were among the first on the scene. Reports of the earthquake quickly emerged online, radio and television: within minutes I was contacted by Wellington-based media and asked to comment. At that time Christchurch-based reporters, photographers and camera operators saw death and destruction on a scale not seen in their normal news routine and, for many, ever in their work. Within minutes of the earthquake reporters faced difficult questions: should they try to find their families and friends? Rush out to record what was happening? Help the injured or remain in “reporting mode’’? Natural disasters pose a difficult challenge for 8 local journalists who share the disaster’s effects with those on whom they are reporting. In Christchurch, they have to grapple with the initial news event and its aftermath for months and years as their own homes maybe damaged and family and friends affected. Christchurch journalists were confronted by a situation none had experienced before in their hometown. Although the Canterbury earthquake sequence had started the year before on September 4 with a magnitude 7.1 earthquake none of the tremors up until February 22 had caused death, or injury on such a scale. All the central city newsrooms - including TV3, TVNZ, CTV, Newstalk, Radio New Zealand and The Press - had to be relocated. Journalists, in many instances, knew the injured and dead, and faced the uncomfortable situation of life without essential services alongside the public. Their news coverage was subject to some praise, some criticism and over time has helped to frame the city’s recovery. This thesis is not about criticising news practice but rather it considers whether the disaster affected the way in which journalists went about their work. In the past decade there has been a growing body of academic work focused on how journalists respond psychologically to trauma they experience through their work (Newman, Shapiro and Nelson, 2009, Smith, 2008, Keats and Buchanan, 2009 & 2013). The bulk of academic inquiry on journalists and trauma stems from the American or British experience and, as will be discussed, is mostly focused on assessing rates of psychological distress rather than the impact on their work practices or news selection. A New Zealand perspective on journalists and traumatic disasters will add to a greater understanding of media responses to such events in different countries. The Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma has highlighted the need for more research to help build an understanding of how journalists respond to trauma, especially psychologically. However, the cliche of hard-bitten reporters able to shrug off the events they cover lingers on. It is an idea often promulgated in popular entertainment, 9 newsrooms and by the public but does not help us to understand the impact of traumatic situations on journalists’ work. Masse (2011) found that a culture of “machismo’’ is still prevalent in newsrooms - reporters earn their reputation by doing the tough stories. It is this author’s experience, as a working journalist for 15 years in New Zealand and Australia, that while reporters can write and speak openly about the suffering of others they are reticent to do so with regard to their own experiences in front of their peers. However, in times of disaster, for example, the boundaries between recognised professional practices and personal perspectives can be blurred (Newman et al, 2009), thereby altering how journalists view and talk about their work. The reason for this research can, in part, be encapsulated by a comment from Christchurch-based broadcast journalist Amanda South: “I have lived through what the people whose doors I’m knocking on have lived through ..