Exploring differences and similarities in the content of reports on Hurricane Andrew in five point media sources

The purpose of this study was to examine the content of print media sources in their reporting of a major disaster, Hurricane Andrew. At the time, Andrew was the most expensive natural disaster in United States history with damages estimated at twenty five billion dollars. In Dade County, Andrew resulted in fifteen deaths and one-quarter million people were left temporarily homeless. In terms of sociological knowledge, the findings will show what different institutions print in accounts of a major disaster. These findings will provide an opportunity to reflect on the nature and character of these institutions. This study includes media coverage that spans an entire year to capture images of the impact and recovery phases of the disaster.In order to research a variety of news coverage of Hurricane Andrew, three different newspapers were selected including a national newspaper, The New York Times, a regional paper, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, and a local paper for the disaster impact area, The Miami Herald. Two government documents were selected to represent the government's response to the disaster. The Senate committee hearing includes testimony from a wide selection of individuals including government personnel, non-governmental agencies and experts, and those people who participated in the relief effort for Hurricane Andrew victims. The report from the U.S. Army Material Command describes the military's response to Hurricane Andrew and the logistic problems they encountered in their relief efforts. Most of the findings of this study support previous disaster studies. The newspaper articles focused more heavily on descriptions of victim behavior than the government reports.The Miami Herald had the highest percentage of content on descriptions of victim behavior. The media coverage of Hurricane Andrew had a higher percentage of content on damages than either of the government documents. The newspaper articles and the government reports had very limited coverage on evacuations and shelters and even less on descriptions of criminal behavior, activities, and events. In contrast to previous disaster studies, the mass media only directed a small percentage of content to criticizing the government's response to Hurricane Andrew. The Senate committee hearing contained the most criticism of the federal government's response to Hurricane Andrew. The Army Material Command report had the most criticism for the military's response to Hurricane Andrew.