Framing Philanthropy During Time of War
What is mass media’s social role and responsibility to encourage the public to donate and volunteer during humanitarian crises?
War brings civil catastrophes, misery, and suffering. We are used to seeing nonprofits and philanthropic actors rush into action, recruiting volunteers, fundraising, and striving to meet pressing public needs.
But nonprofits are not alone in their efforts.
Mass media is an important actor during a time of war, too.
Mass media is a vital source for information during an emergency and a major social actor. The media can cover nonprofits in a positive frame, which can encourage fundraising and enhance their public image, especially while they engage in heroic efforts to fundraise, recruit volunteers and mobilize donations to meet pressing public needs.
My research Framing Philanthropy in Time of War analyzes the unique relationship between mass media, nonprofits, and philanthropic actors during humanitarian crises. It asks:
What is mass media’s social role and responsibility to encourage the public to donate and volunteer during humanitarian crises?
The specific research question that guided us in this research was — how did different media outlets in Israel frame philanthropy during warfare, and why? What was mass media’s social role during a time of war?
To find the answer, we analyzed how four types of media outlets in Israel covered philanthropy during wartime: the elite newspaper Ha’aretz; the financial newspapers The Marker and Calcalist; the most popular newspaper Yediot Aharonot; and Israel’s leading news website Ynet.
We read every news story about philanthropy, giving, nonprofits, or volunteering published in the newspapers during two types of warfare. We analyzed the coverage according to the framing theory, noticing keywords, narratives, negative or positive tone of coverage, etc.
We found that the newspapers used six frames to cover philanthropy during a time of war:
- Government substitution:
Seen mostly in the elite newspaper, this frame combined the civilian suffering, nonprofits’ efforts, and the government’s failure to provide adequate aid. It presented nonprofits and philanthropic actors together and addressed the normative division of responsibility according to the newspaper’s worldview.
- Individual philanthropy:
This frame praised the individual donors and recipients and focused on philanthropy as a direct interpersonal giving process. The frame presented a series of concrete, random stories of individual giving, and was widespread in the coverage of the popular newspaper and new media.
- Elite philanthropy:
This frame appeared mostly in the financial newspapers; this frame focused on elite donors, and their public image. The frame criticized the donors’ involvement and blamed them for donating out of egocentric and self-promotion motivations.
- Consumer philanthropy:
This frame presented the purchase of goods and services from factories and businesses located in the violence-damaged areas, as a philanthropic and altruistic act. The popular newspaper praised this type of philanthropy and encouraged the readers to show their patriotic support through buying products.
- Corporate philanthropy:
This frame referred to ad-hoc giving by local and national corporate companies to residents of the home front. Such donations were money, equipment, services, and discounts. The frame placed the corporation in the center and mentioned the recipients in passing.
- Media driven philanthropy:
The press played an active role in encouraging and promoting philanthropic behavior. For example, the popular newspaper published lists of people willing to host citizens that were evacuated from their homes. This frame emphasized the mass media’s role as a pro-active social actor, creating a kind of ‘national peer group.’
During a time of war, the media played an active role in mobilizing the public to donate, and active involvement and social responsibility. The media tried to solve social problems and not merely report on them.
The media functioned as a horizontal mediator between audiences, social groups, home front residences, nonprofits, and philanthropic actors.
Different types of media outlets shaped the media’s coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits, emphasizing various aspects and actors of the giving process.
As a result, we developed a framework for analysis. The framework allows comparative framing analysis of philanthropy during a war, according to various media types and roles.
Conclusion
Mass media framed philanthropy as a legitimate and useful social and economic activity. The media-philanthropy relationship is a fascinating area of research, which is especially relevant during civil crises and time of war and hopefully can help nonprofits engage in a fruitful relationship with the media.
