IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v105y2024i1p54-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How the media framed the COVID‐19 crisis on Native Nations: A case comparison of The New York Times and the Navajo Times

Author

Listed:
  • Earlene Camarillo
  • Stefanie Kunze
  • Charlie Pollard

Abstract

Objective This article examines how the limited national media reporting covered the pandemic in American Indian communities across the United States, specifically the Diné (Navajo) Nation, and whether and how this coverage differs from American Indian news sources. Methods This article compares coverage related to COVID‐19 by The New York Times (NYT) with coverage by the Navajo Times (NT), a Diné newspaper. The authors compiled their own database of news‐based articles published by the NYT and the NT covering the pandemic and its impact on Native Nations between January 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020, and conducted a comparative content analysis of these articles. Results While coverage was limited, the NYT articles highlight social inequities that settler colonialism and federal Indian law have fostered in the past and present, the cultural backdrop, which contributed to greater adverse impacts from COVID‐19. However, coverage differs from the NT in important ways, particularly when considering the distinction between the Navajo Nation as a bureaucratic entity versus the Diné people, the framing of Native peoples as adaptive, and Indigenous investment in future creation. Conclusions The NT was more nuanced in its coverage of stories of the impact of COVID‐19 on American Indian communities as compared to the NYT.

Suggested Citation

  • Earlene Camarillo & Stefanie Kunze & Charlie Pollard, 2024. "How the media framed the COVID‐19 crisis on Native Nations: A case comparison of The New York Times and the Navajo Times," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(1), pages 54-67, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:1:p:54-67
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13331
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13331?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:1:p:54-67. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.