This chapter identifies five significant interpretive frames which operated in Hong Kong and southern China as the SARS crisis developed in spring 2003. These five frames treated SARS, respectively, as (a) a state secret of the Chinese provincial officials, (b) a scientific mystery to be solved by the scientific community, (c) a medical epidemic that legitimized the use of emergency powers and necessitated the taking of large scale collective actions, (d) a general warning to the community concerning the poor state of public hygiene and, finally, as (e) a government failure that served as a catalyst for social unrest and change. As each frame is described some of the behavioral and actional consequences of using the frame are also indicated.
Xia, Yiming, Changpeng Huan & Alexandra García Marrugo
2024. Fair or biased? A corpus-based study of Australia’s early COVID-19 media representation of China. Social Semiotics► pp. 1 ff.
Takovski, Aleksandar
2022. Political alliance with COVID-19: Macedonian politics and the strategic use of the pandemic. Discourse & Society 33:2 ► pp. 215 ff.
Ophir, Yotam, Dror Walter, Daniel Arnon, Ayse Lokmanoglu, Michele Tizzoni, Joëlle Carota, LORENZO D'Antiga & Emanuele Nicastro
2021. The Framing of COVID-19 in Italian Media and Its Relationship with Community Mobility: A Mixed-Method Approach. Journal of Health Communication 26:3 ► pp. 161 ff.
Chan, Chi Kit
2016. Defining health risk by media template: Hong Kong’s news discourse of the Swine Flu pandemic. Journalism 17:8 ► pp. 1018 ff.
Chan, Hin‐yeung
2013. Crisis Politics in Authoritarian Regimes: How Crises Catalyse Changes under the State–Society Interactive Framework. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 21:4 ► pp. 200 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.