INTERCULTURALITY

This study explored crisis communication frames, how they were created, negotiated, and shared by Al Jazeera and a select Nigerian television stations when covering significant national and international crises. Grounded in framing theory and critical media studies, the paper explored the narrative structures, word choices, visual elements, and ideological foundations that shaped crisis reporting in these two media landscapes. Through qualitative content analysis, the research examined broadcast segments on political unrest, security issues, and humanitarian crises, paying special attention to how frames of responsibility, conflict, human interest, and solutions were utilised. Al Jazeera's global perspective was evaluated in terms of its focus on worldwide power dynamics, underlying structural causes, and storytelling that centers on human experiences, while Nigerian television stations were analysed for their context-specific framing practices, institutional limitations, and political biases. This comparative approach revealed differences in editorial independence, patterns of crisis attribution, and the relationship between state interests and journalistic standards. The findings suggest that Al Jazeera often highlights explanatory and accountability frames, while Nigerian stations tend to lean on reactive, elite-driven, and episodic narratives influenced by political sensitivities and resource constraints. This study adds to the body of knowledge on crisis communication in the Global South and sheds light on how media systems shape public understanding, affect risk perception, and influence crisis responses. It was concluded by emphasising the importance of building capacity in Nigerian broadcast journalism to improve evidence-based, ethically sound, and audience-focused crisis reporting.

Open Full Text (PDF)