This article investigates how the COVID-19 pandemic was framed in public, private and non-profit media production. It conceptualises digital news as an indicator of social resilience and the interaction between social and biological/natural systems. We analysed news articles published in 2020/2021 on 21 Croatian websites using natural language processing. We collected 985,850 articles and manually coded samples to train different classifiers. The first classifier was developed to determine which articles relate to COVID-19. The second classifier was used for articles’ topic classification; the third classifier was used to classify articles into resilience classes. A limited discussion of transformative (long-term) resilience, especially in private media, contributed to the most significant content share. The debate focused on keeping the status quo through coping or returning to pre-pandemic conditions through adaptive mechanisms. The news media contributed to how public issues were framed and how science and scientific research were discussed.
BakerCE (2006) Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BénéCWoodRGNewshamA, et al. (2012) Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes. IDS Working Papers 2012(405): 1–61. DOI:10.1111/j.2040-0209.2012.00405.x
3.
BilićPPrimoracJ (2018) The digital advertising gap and the online news industry in Croatia. Medijske Studije9(18): 62–80. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/318538
4.
BilićPPrugTŽitkoM (2021) The Political Economy of Digital Monopolies: Contradictions and Alternatives to Data Commodification. 1st ed. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
5.
BirkinbineBJGómezR (2020) New methods for mapping media concentration: network analysis of joint ventures among firms. Media, Culture & Society42(7–8): 1078–1094.
6.
BoserBEGuyonIMVapnikVN (1992) A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory. New York: ACM, pp. 144–152.
7.
CalabreseASparksC (2003) Toward a Political Economy of Culture: Capitalism and Communication in the Twenty-first Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
8.
CalhounCMcCarthyT (eds) (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
ChandlerD (2020) Security through societal resilience: contemporary challenges in the Anthropocene. Contemporary Security Policy41(2): 195–214.
10.
CouldryNTurowJ (2014) Advertising, Big Data, and the clearance of the public realm: marketers’ new approaches to the content subsidy. International Journal of Communication8: 1710–1726.
FernandoJL (2020a) From the Virocene to the Lovecene epoch: multispecies justice as critical praxis for Virocene disruptions and vulnerabilities. Journal of Political Ecology27(1): 685–731. Available at: http://206.189.126.38:8081/index.php/JPE/article/view/23816
FlewT (2022) Digital Platform Regulation: Global Perspectives on Internet Governance. Cham: Springer Nature.
20.
FuchsC (2014) Social media and the public sphere. Triplec: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society12(1): 57–101. Available at: https://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/552
21.
FurmanISakaEYıldırımS, et al. (2019) The gulf information war| news coverage of the gulf crisis in the Turkish mediascape: agendas, frames, and manufacturing consent. International Journal of Communication13: 28.
22.
GorwaR (2019) What is platform governance?Information, Communication & Society22(6): 854–871.
23.
HabermasJ (1987) Theory of Communicative Action Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
24.
HabermasJ (1991) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
HabermasJ (1996a) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
26.
HabermasJ (1996b) Further reflections on the public sphere. In: CalhounC (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 421–461.
HelbergerNPiersonJPoellT (2018) Governing online platforms: from contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society34(1): 1–14.
30.
HollingCS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics4(1): 1–23.
31.
HornborgA (2021) Beyond the image of COVID-19 as nature’s revenge: understanding globalized capitalism through an epidemiology of money. Sustainability13(9): 5009.
32.
IosifidisPNicoliN (2020) Digital Democracy, Social Media and Disinformation. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
33.
JinDY (2015) Digital Platforms, Imperialism, and Political Culture. New York: Routledge.
34.
JukićJJelenićFBićanićM, et al. (2023) ALANNO: an active learning annotation system for mortals. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. Dubrovnik, Croatia: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 228–235. Available at: https://aclanthology.org/2023.eacl-demo.26
KenneyMZysmanJ (2019) The platform economy and geography: restructuring the space of capitalist accumulation. Technical Report. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3497978
38.
LangleyPLeyshonA (2017) Platform capitalism: the intermediation and capitalization of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society3(1): 11–31. Available at: http://financeandsociety.ed.ac.uk/article/view/1936
39.
LjubešićNLaucD (2021) BERTić—the transformer language model for Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Balto-Slavic Natural Language Processing. Kiyv, Ukraine: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 37–42. Available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2021.bsnlp-1.5
40.
LorenzDF (2013) The diversity of resilience: contributions from a social science perspective. Natural Hazards67(1): 7–24.
41.
McChesneyRW (2003) The problem of journalism: a political economic contribution to an explanation of the crisis in contemporary US journalism. Journalism Studies4(3): 299–329.
42.
McChesneyRW (2013) Digital Disconnect. New York; London: The New Press.
43.
McChesneyRWPickardV (2011) Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It. New York: The New Press.
MansellR (2015a) Platforms of power. Intermedia43(1): 20–34.
46.
MansellR (2015b) The public’s interest in intermediaries. Info17(6): 8–18.
47.
MansellR (2021) European responses to (US) digital platform dominance. In: JinDY (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Digital Media and Globalization. London: Routledge, pp. 1–21.
48.
MontalbanMFrigantVJullienB (2019) Platform economy as a new form of capitalism: a régulationist research programme. Cambridge Journal of Economics43(4): 805–824.
49.
MoscoV (2009) The Political Economy of Communication. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
50.
NewmanNFletcherRSchulzA, et al. (2021) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2021. SSRN scholarly paper 3873260. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3873260
51.
ObristBPfeifferCHenleyR (2010) Multi-layered social resilience: a new approach in mitigation research. Progress in Development Studies10(4): 283–293.
52.
PasqualeF (2017) The Automated Public Sphere. University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law legal studies research paper No. 2017-3, p. 28.
53.
PeruškoZVozabD (2021) Digitalne publike vijesti u Hrvatskoj 2017.—2021 Analiza na temelju anketa u projektu Izvještaj o digitalnim vijestima Reutersovog instituta za istraživanje novinarstva Sveučilišta u Oxfordu. Technical report, CIM—Centar za istraživanje medija i komunikacije, Fakultet političkih znanosti, Sveučilište uZagrebu, Zagreb.
54.
PeruškoZVozabDCuvaloA (2022) Comparing Post-socialist Media Systems: The Case of Southeast Europe. New York: Taylor & Francis.
55.
PickardV (2013) Social democracy or corporate libertarianism? Conflicting media policy narratives in the wake of market failure. Communication Theory23(4): 336–355.
56.
PickardV (2015) America’s Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
PickardV (2019) Democracy without Journalism? Confronting the Misinformation Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
PickardV (2022) Can journalism survive in the age of platform monopolies? Confronting Facebook’s negative externalities. In: FlewTMartinFR (eds) Digital Platform Regulation: Global Perspectives on Internet Governance. Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 23–41.
59.
RussialJLauferPWaskoJ (2015) Journalism in crisis?Javnost – The Public22(4): 299–312.
TurowJ (2011) The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
63.
VossM (2008) The vulnerable can’t speak. An integrative vulnerability approach to disaster and climate change research. BEHEMOTH – A Journal on Civilisation1(3): 39–56.
64.
WinseckD (2020) Vampire squids, ‘the broken internet’ and platform regulation. Journal of Digital Media & Policy11(3): 241–282.
