“Winning” the “battle” and “beating” the COVID-19 “enemy”: Leaders’ use of war frames to define the pandemic.

Abstract

During March 2020, as the American President and the British Prime Minister addressed their constituencies, they were also framing their perceptions regarding COVID-19. By analyzing the formal pronouncements of both leaders, we show that they used terminology and frames that are associated with conflicts: They described the pandemic as a war, saying they had a plan on how to "win" it; they defined isolation as patriotism and conferred war hero status on their medical teams, all the while expounding how their plan for handling the situation was better than the plans of others (although fighting a global pandemic). We claim that the leaders used words, language, and frames that resonated with what they believed their audiences would know and accept. In doing so, they allowed themselves considerably more leverage in what they asked of the public, such as a complete change in their everyday behavior, acceptance of higher casualty numbers, and compliance with harsher measures. They even went so far as to paint extreme images of potential outcomes-namely expecting a complete victory. COVID-19 changed the behaviors of billions of people, but the framing used by the leaders was based on the traditional way societies build their conflict stories. Public Significance StatementThis study's contribution is threefold: Firstly, Understanding how leaders used war-framing in order to structure the way their constituencies perceived COVID-19. Secondly, explaining how war framings enable leaders to demand certain actions and to make the public anticipate certain outcomes. Lastly, showing how framings of a violent conflict are "copy-pasted" to different circumstances.

SARS-CoV-2 and Asbestos Exposure: Can Our Experience With Mesothelioma Patients Help Us Understand the Psychological Consequences of COVID-19 and Develop Interventions?

“…Inhabitants of NPCSs can harbor intense feelings of guilt or shame, which increases the burden of an already traumatic situation. This is similar to the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic (Benziman, 2020;Nana et al, 2020) in which communities are fearful of contagion and worried about spreading the virus to their families, friends, or colleagues. The potential for each individual to be a vehicle of virus transmission can elicit blame, remorse, and regret.…”

A Macromarketing Prescription for Covid-19: Solidarity and Care Ethics

“…Its government's messaging stressed that all societal members are a priority, which is integral to unifying its people by activating the first level of social solidarity and care ethics, thus reinforcing national identification. In contrast, the U.K. and the U.S. maladaptively used war frames to describe their policies and action plans to defeat Covid-19 (Benziman 2020). However, in countries with highly populist segments and public policies, such narratives risk converting a unified response into one defined by identity politics and collective narcissism.…”

Ethical Issues in COVID-19 Communication to Mitigate the Pandemic: Dilemmas and Practical Implications

“…War terminology is used to rally the public in crisis and disaster situations as a means to enlist a collective effort for the public good, appeal to compassion, support those on the frontlines, and to justify utilizing public resources and emergency measures (Frieden, 2020). Using war terminology raises concerns that it can serve to justify increased surveillance and restrictions that infringe of people's privacy (noted in the section on contact tracing) and as a threat that hard times lie ahead to justify extreme measures that compromise human rights (Benziman, 2020). Focusing on the virus as the enemy can not only lessen criticisms regarding infringement of citizens' rights but can forestall initiatives to engage in a discourse on alternative methods.…”

“…It can also distort the suffering and loss of those who were ill or died, by depicting them as soldiers in a battle whose death was an inevitable sacrifice in order to "win" a battle. It can also lead to a binary conception of the situation: creating a false hope that the "battle" can be swift and triumphant, implying that there is an immediate solution (Benziman, 2020;Naumova, 2020).…”