Academic Staff Opinion
By: Yudi Sastroredjo
Student of Master in Communication Management Science UNS/ Coordinator of TU UPT International Office UNS
On the angkringan table in Solo, a person stated to his friends, “2020 only has four months, January, February, Corona, and December.” His friend, who wears a mask, laughed. But his other friend, who does not wear a mask, looked as if he wanted to smile but then looked pensive. Even though 2020 flows slowly due to the Covid-19 pandemic impacts on all parts of life. But imperceptibly, December comes, and 2020 has ended.
There are two key findings from Kompas Gramedia Media Research in identifying the situation in 2020 concerning the Covid-19 pandemic. Their research finds that, first, Indonesia was indifferent before the first Covid-19 positive case is detected in Indonesia or before 2 March 2020 when the first case was announced. Second, society’s reaction and response were divided because of the confusion caused by the floods of information, in which social media worsen the situation.
At the time, people were confused with the information, misinformation, disinformation, and even miscommunication. Misinformation is information or fake news that spread, but people who shared it do not realize that the news is incorrect or misleading. Disinformation is the intentional spread of incorrect information to create confusion in society. Miscommunication is the failure to deliver information or the lack of clear information. Miscommunication often occurs when there is a gap between the purpose of communication and comprehension.
If there is an award designated for Miscommunication of The Year 2020, the jury will likely be confused to choose the winner. Too many public officials performed misinformation that leads to miscommunication in this year of crisis. On 6 April 2020, LP3ES released its finding on the communication blunder in Jokowi Cabinet amid the pandemic. LP3ES study stated that less than 100 days since Covid-19 disease became an issue and threat for Indonesia, there had been 37 blunder statements issued by Jokowi and his cabinet in Covid-19 handling. These statements are 13 blunder statements pre-crisis, 4 blunder statements at the beginning of the crisis, and 20 blunder statements during the crisis.
According to the study, from the end of January to 5 April 2020, the government issued 13 blunder statements that dismiss the possibility of coronavirus disease. These statements were stated by 10 officials, starting from President, Vice-President, Minister of Health, Coordinating Minister for Maritime, Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security, Coordinating Minister for Economy, Minister of Transportation, the Chief of BNPB, Minister of Tourism, and Directorate General of Transportation. Some of the statements were delivered jokingly. The high frequency of communication caused public uproar and confusion. There was no communication with the public to prepare them for the crisis.
On 15 February, the Minister of Health then, Terawan Agus Putranto, stated a controversial statement in responding to the soaring mask price. He mentioned that the high price is caused by the demand from the community after the Coronavirus issue. He also blamed the public who buy masks. “It’s your fault for buying a mask,” he stated in Halim Perdanakusuma Airport, Jakarta.
Terawan thinks that healthy people do not need to wear a mask to anticipate the virus. Mask should only be used by sick people so that they do not spread it to their environment.
Crisis Communication Management
Coombs in Exploring Public Relations Global Strategic Communication defines crisis as a perception of unpredictable events that threaten stakeholders’ interest in terms of health, safety, environment, and economy, which can seriously impact the institution’s performance and bring negative results. Three threats caused by the crisis are public safety, financial loss, and loss of reputation.
Crisis communication management is a set of factors used to solve the crisis and reduce damage to institutions, countries, and stakeholders caused by the crisis. From the public relations perspective, it is important to be aware that crisis causes information gaps. A negative event is taking place and has the potential to threaten the institution and its stakeholders. The key to effective Crisis Communication Management is finding the information wanted and delivered it to the stakeholders. The striking difference between effective and ineffective crisis communication management is in its strategic thinking. An effective crisis communication management is built over the foundation of preparation based on accurate data.
Communication Strategic Plan
Not only ministers but other public officials from the governor to the mayor are also indirectly a public relation officer for their institution. Moreover, in the crisis, their words for the public or mass media are a public relation activity that provides vital information to represent their institution and significantly impact society. Therefore, public officials need to master communication and public relation strategies to avoid inaccuracies that will grow into misinformation and miscommunication as final products, and not rarely, to correct their own statements.
A public official should have a perfect concept by elaborating all data and facts into information that can be delivered to the public. The information should be relevant and appropriate for the pandemic condition. Public officials’ role in providing excellent and proper information will maintain and build their reputation and create a sense of security for the public.
Various studies have shown that the quality of communication is one of the important factors to build trust. In a crisis, quality communication has a vital role in building public confidence in facing the crisis, reducing panic, minimizing rumors, and helping the public prepare for the crisis.
One of the models that can be used to effectively communicate amid the crisis is the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) formulated by Barbara Reynolds and Matthew W Seeger (2005). This communication method consists of five stages.
The first stage is the pre-crisis stage. Before the crisis, crisis communication must be directed to the efforts that prepare the public for what will happen or show the mitigation plan, not through denial of the potential of crisis. Second, the initial event. At the beginning of the crisis, crisis communication should be ready with the rapid changes in the situation. The recommended early crisis communications are, for example, delivering a consistent message, responding promptly with accuracy, and stay open. The unrecommended actions are speculating on the causes of the crisis and giving a “no comment” statement. The public will hear “I am guilty” or “I hide something” when a public official provides a “no comment” statement. The information delivered in this stage also has a similar role in placing the initial crisis events under the relevant context. Do not exaggerate or downplay the event. Therefore, the public can face the crisis with accurate information.
Third, maintenance. During the crisis, crisis communication should be directed to the crisis mode, identify the current condition, and start preparing alternative strategies for many instances. Fourth, the resolution. This resolution refers to the crisis communication process that needs to be performed when the authority knows or can predict when the crisis will end. The predicting makes it possible to assess the impact that will appear when the crisis ends, for example, economic recession. The last stage is the evaluation.
It seems like we need to be patient and wait until when we enter the resolution stage—a stage at which the crisis can be predicted when it will end. The prediction of the effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines is still confusing for the public. Patience and resilience are the strongest capital to welcome the 2021 new year. The resilience of patience is often defined as adaptability, coping, facing difficulties, and recover from a difficult situation. Al Siebert defines resilience as an individual ability to recover from their adversity in their development. There might be annoying pressure at first, but people with high resilience will be easier to go back to normal or even new normal situation. (*)
