Within 3 hours, 97 percent learn about 9/11 attack

Newspaper Research Journal, Winter 2003 by Kanihan, Stacey Frank, Gale, Kendra L

This news diffusion study showed that 44 percent of the college students surveyed learned of the Sept. 11 attacks from television and radio and 48 percent from another person. Only two percent of respondents found out about the attacks from the Internet.

The terrorist acts of Sept. 11 riveted the attention of the nation as hijacked commercial airliners hit first one tower and then the second tower of the World Trade Center complex in New York. Given the magnitude of the attacks and the location in one of the country's largest media centers, live television and radio coverage was almost immediate. CBS aired a live shot of the second plane crashing into the tower. All of the networks ran live coverage of the towers disintegrating and collapsing. News of the attacks monopolized all channels of communication throughout the day. Several cable channels preempted their programming in favor of CNN coverage or suspended broadcasting entirely; radio stations switched to live television feeds and Web sites stripped out graphics to facilitate the flow of information.1 Newspapers across the country printed extra copies and special editions and sold out early in the day on Sept. 12.2 In addition, the major networks provided continuous coverage and news updates for several days after the attacks.

A catastrophe of this magnitude provides an opportunity to understand how people learn about these kinds of events, how rapidly or slowly information spreads and how people respond to the news. This study examines the news diffusion process of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as individuals' emotional and issue involvement with these events in relationship to media use in the first few days following the attacks.

Studies in the news diffusion tradition suggest events that are highly relevant (salient) are diffused throughout the population much more rapidly than events perceived as being of less personal magnitude.3 For example, 92 percent of the U.S. population knew of the assassination of President Kennedy within one hour;4 50 percent were aware of the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger within 30 minutes.5 By contrast, only 30 percent were aware of an Ohio prison riot 24 hours after it occurred.6

When there is variance in the assessment of the newsworthiness of an event, there is also variance in the rate of diffusion.7 If a story is personally relevant, people are more likely to pass it on to others. For example, Magic Johnson fans were more likely to tell others about his announcement of his HIV status than non-fans were.8

Other studies on the diffusion of news indicate that people seek information from others when the event is sudden and of crisis proportion.9 The positive relationship between the relevance of an event or situation and the motivated search for information also has been documented in political involvement literature.10

Further, there is a association between the length of time between the event and how one hears of the event.11 Early knowledge often comes from the media but that information is quickly passed on via word of mouth.

Finally, time of day and location influence how one learns of news events.

People who learn about important events at home are far more likely to have learned from a mass media channel than are people who are at work or school where more opportunity for interpersonal diffusion is available.12

Salient events also drive a search for more information.13 This is certainly true of the Sept. 11 events. While Web sites may not have been the initial source of the information, they were swamped when people began searching for additional information.14 A nationwide survey conducted Sept. 14 through Sept. 16 indicated Americans watched an average of 8.1 hours of television on Sept. 11 with 18 percent watching more than 13 hours of television that day.15 Abundant anecdotes recount stories of people gathering around televisions at home, in dorms or the workplace and obsessively switching channels on the chance that one network had more current information than another in an effort to reduce the uncertainty: Is it over? Who? How many? How could this happen? Who is responsible? People often turn to the media after hearing the news initially for confirmation and details.16

For the majority of people, television was the most important source for information immediately following the attacks.17 Nielsen Media Research estimates 60.5 million people watched one of the four networks during prime-time on Sept. 11.18 This does not include those who were following the story on CNN, CNBC or other news-oriented cable channels. A November survey by the Pew Research Center indicated that 53 percent of the respondents identified cable stations as their primary source for news about terrorism versus 17 percent for network television.19

While television has been credited as being a unifying, calming force during a time of national tragedy,20 others have blamed the media, television in particular, for being sensationalistic, exploiting emotional issues and fueling fear and anxiety.21 Television may be a coping mechanism for some but for others it intensifies emotional upset.22 Many in the popular press endorsed the view that Sept. 11 media coverage contributed to anxiety and fear among the general public: