\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
In a way, Strong summarizes his theory using the following words: “When the conditions are right, epidemics can potentially create a medical version of the Hobbesian nightmare \u2013 the war of all against all, followed by fear, panic, suspicion and stigma, by mass outbreaks of moral controversy, and potential solutions. This distinctive collective social psychology is rooted in the fundamental properties of language and human interaction” (Strong, 1990). <\/p>\n
Each of the described characteristics of epidemic psychology, apart from having a deep psychological meaning and specific nature, is also a firm framework that media or individual journalists cannot escape. Neither individuals, nor any segments of society are immune to them, especially when an epidemic is new, such as COVID-19. For a long time it was a kind of taboo, even today, after 10 months since its appearance, it surprises, bewilders, scares and paralyses. “The distinctive social psychology produced by large-scale epidemic disease can potentially result in a fundamental, if short-term, collapse of conventional social order. All kinds of disparate but corrosive effects may occur\u2026 For a moment at least, the world may be turned upside down” (Strong, 1990).<\/p>\n
Indeed \u2013 by living in a permanent state of emergency, more or less officially declared, the world has transformed itself to the extent that questions such as: What have we sacrificed for safety? Freedom? Trust in institutions? Truth? \u2013 have largely replaced the initial questions related to the safety and finding the cure for the new infection: “A society that lives in a permanent state of emergency cannot be a free one. We live in a society that has sacrificed freedom for so-called ‘security reasons’ and has hence condemned itself to living in a perpetual state of fear and insecurity” (Agamben, 2020).\u00a0 <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Information policy in a crisis<\/strong><\/p>\nIt has happened that the right to accurate and timely information, which public likes to see as “the right to the truth” \u2013 has remained overshadowed by a range of so called emergency measures and decrees, overshadowed by natural fear for life’s essentials, and the life itself, even overshadowed by the new everyday life in which reality constructed by the media has to face competition. In other words, the crisis was managed by politicians and medical experts, and the media followed them, mostly trying to keep up, and rarely succeeding in being one step ahead. Bearing in mind that “crisis management consists of five key activities: identification, decision making, explanation, termination and learning” (Ga\u0107inovi\u0107, 2011:313), the role of the media is seen as a part of the crisis management, because the media have the greatest responsibility for communicating every stage of these activities. In a crisis, information policy is comprised of “laws, regulations, and doctrinal positions \u2013 and other decision making and practices with society-wide constitutive effects \u2013 involving information creation, processing, flows, access and use” (Braman, 2011:3).<\/p>\n
By definition, “Crisis appears when the key values (safety, security, health, integrity, justice, wealth or production, etc.) and\/or survival of a community are threatened. The greater the nature and scope of the threat, the bigger the crisis. Crisis is a state in which society ceases to function following the principles of democratic organisation. It represents a set of legal norms that are in the given circumstances conflicted, and thus slow down or speed up the chain of events, i.e. the process of crisis escalation or the process of crisis management” (Ga\u0107inovi\u0107, 2011:306). Of course, in the times of crisis, media and communication in general are bound by crisis norms and rules that restrict freedoms, and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, allows that guaranteed human right to freedom of expression can be conditioned and restricted: “in the interest of national security, public safety, \u2026 for the prevention of disorder or crime, \u2026. for the protection of health.” The most important elements in managing crisis situations such as pandemics are a sound communication plan and a good media strategy. “The perception of a crisis is followed by a high level of insecurity related to the nature and potential consequences of the threat” (Ga\u0107inovi\u0107, 2011:307). <\/p>\n
In the times of COVID-19 pandemic, the extent of the need for well-defined communication that will not suppress the truth, and the right to accurate and timely information, is evident from a range of actions undertaken around the world (some have already been mentioned), such as the address by an international team of experts from the UN, OSCE, and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They have warned that: “Human health\u2026also depends on access to accurate information about the nature of the threats and the means to protect oneself, one’s family, and one’s community. The right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, through any media, applies to everyone, everywhere, and may only be subject to narrow restrictions”<\/a>[8<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a> (Kaye, 2020). This group of experts urges the world’s governments to follow these five steps:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n- It is essential that governments provide truthful information about the nature of the threat posed by the coronavirus; <\/span><\/li>\n
- Internet access is critical at a time of crisis. It is essential that governments refrain from blocking internet access;<\/span><\/li>\n
- The right of access to information means that governments must be making exceptional efforts to protect the work of journalists. Journalism serves a crucial function at a moment of public health emergency. We urge all governments to robustly implement their freedom of information laws to ensure that all individuals, especially journalists, have access to information.<\/span><\/li>\n
- False information about the pandemic could lead to health concerns, panic and disorder. In this connection, it is essential that governments and internet companies address disinformation in the first instance by themselves providing reliable information. Resorting to other measures, such as content take-downs and censorship should only be undertaken where they meet the standards of necessity and proportionality. Any attempts to criminalise information relating to the pandemic may create distrust in institutional information, delay access to reliable information and have a chilling effect on freedom of expression;<<\/span><\/li>\n
- Individual rights to privacy, and non-discrimination, the protection of journalistic sources and other freedoms should be rigorously protected; States must also protect the personal information of patients. We strongly urge that any use of such technology abide by the strictest protections and only be available according to domestic law that is consistent with international human rights standards.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
<\/p>\n
Disinformation is an old story, fuelled by new technology<\/a>[9<\/strong><\/span>]<\/sup><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\nIt is probably an exaggeration that journalism based on verified facts and working in public interest has lost the race with disinformation<\/a>[
![\"Creative](\"https:\/\/i.creativecommons.org\/l\/by-nc\/4.0\/88x31.png\")
<\/a>![\"inmediasres\"](\"https:\/\/centar-fm.org\/inmediasres\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/inmediasresno1malo19.png\")
<\/p>\n