ICRC 2017 R. Tyler Spradley, Associate Professor SFASU Comparative Case Study of Conflict Framing: Mediated Naming, Blaming, and Claiming in Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy

–The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned “The magnitude of Hurricane Katrina does not excuse our inadequate preparedness and response, but rather it must serve as a catalyst for far-reaching reform and transformation.” –The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned

FEMA Administrator, W. Craig Fugate in the Hurricane Sandy FEMA After-Action Report (2013) “Over the last four years, FEMA has made continuous progress in improving our capabilities to support the Whole communication before, during, and after disasters. FEMA’s performance during sandy response and recovery operations highlighted this progress.”

Conflict Framing: Issue Development Naming, blaming, and claiming in news coverage of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy were coded to determine convergence and divergence of issue development and how stakeholders (media, governmental agencies, levels of governmental officials, and other stakeholders) were attributed responsibility for both strengths and weaknesses of emergency response.

Issues: Katrina

Issues: Sandy

Blaming: Katrina Conflict escalation frames pitted stakeholder against stakeholder to attribute responsibility. Governmental organizations, notably at the federal level, were center stage in conflict frames.

Blaming: Sandy

Conflict and Media Framing Claiming: Katrina and Sandy Conflict and Media Framing

Lessons learned focus on: frequent and transparent communication by the federal government, avoiding media as a bargaining table for conflict resolution between organizations, and reframing hurricane risk and crisis communication as lessons from Hurricane Katrina.