The complexity of the challenge: Communicating government

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Audiences exist in highly personalised, high-choice media environments built on a hybrid of established traditional brands and informal digital networks. Officials trying to reach the public must navigate such spaces, but public reluctance to consume news coverage is a challenge for health and government officials when trying to communicate with and inform the public during a national health crisis like Covid-19. Based on a representative survey (N=2,031) from the 2021 <italic>Reuters Digital News Report</italic>, this article focuses on Irish audiences’ information sources during the pandemic; in particular, how government and political sources were used and perceived. The article is a secondary analysis of the data set and focuses on three questions from the survey related to (i) sources of information about Covid-19, (ii) concern about sources of false or misleading information about Covid-19, and (iii) sources of local information about politics and local updates on Covid-19. The article finds that official sources were relatively effective in being heard, and that health agencies like the Health Service Executive and the National Public Health Emergency Team were more salient than politicians, suggesting the pandemic was perhaps apolitical in the eyes of the public, which is often a key strategy for effective crisis communication. Politicians and government actors also succeeded in not being perceived as the main source of concern in terms of false or misleading information, as audiences were more worried about activists. The article also reiterates the importance of health officials reaching out beyond traditional news distribution channels to engage groups who may not access news through traditional channels.
</abstract>

Irish audiences and news information from official sources during Covid-19

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

This paper explores the nature of newspaper coverage of ‘cocooning’ as a public health measure at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in Ireland in 2020. The study, which focuses on coverage in <italic>The Irish Times</italic>, shows that the number of human-interest-framed articles on cocooning was approximately four times greater than the number of informative ones. This suggests that the proportion of human-interest and emotive stories diluted the volume of informative articles. The findings also point to an absence of significant official voices in the coverage of cocooning, such as key ministerial figures, which may have contributed to knowledge gaps. There was also a discernible gender bias, not just in experts quoted but also in the journalists who wrote news and feature articles. The study offers important lessons for government communication strategies in how important public information is provided to target groups.
</abstract>

How ‘cocooning’ as a public health measure was reported during the Covid-19 crisis

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

Climate change is acknowledged as a pressing – even existential – problem for societies around the world. Despite the growing body of scientific evidence concerning the extent and impacts of climate change, meaningful policy responses have not been forthcoming. Actors and organisations intent on preventing or diluting policies around climate action have adapted their discursive strategies, moving from outright denial of the reality of climate change to focus on discourses of distraction and delay. Taking the case of parliamentary debates and media coverage of the 2021 Climate Action Bill, this research examines the extent to which these discourses are prevalent in Ireland. We find that discourses of delay were present, both in Dáil debates and in the media. We discuss the influence of these discourses on later interventions which affected the implementation of provisions of the Bill and may delay transformative climate action.
</abstract>

From denial to delay: Climate change discourses in Ireland

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

This article seeks to add to the growing body of research into government-led nation branding initiatives by examining a specific case study as the driver of a new nation brand strategy for Ireland. Drawing on interviews with senior government officials, policy advisors and brand marketing executives, the author examines the ‘Global Ireland 2025’ initiative and Ireland’s campaign to win a UN Security Council seat. The findings indicate that some important building blocks of a new nation brand initiative have been put in place, most notably around government policy, leadership and resources. But in the absence of meaningful citizen and stakeholder engagement, the author questions the authenticity of the new nation brand strategy. This article argues that without meaningful collaboration, Global Ireland 2025 risks losing the opportunity to be more than just another promotional exercise.
</abstract>

A new nation brand strategy? Global Ireland 2025 and the UN Security Council campaign

The rise and fall of the Strategic Communications Unit, 2017–18

Taoisigh and addressing the nation

Ireland’s Covid-19 response: Perspectives from science communication

Assessing government communication – A roundtable

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 72 (2024): Issue 1 (February 2024) Special title: Review of developments, structure and management in the public sector 2023

Volume 71 (2023): Issue 4 (December 2023)

Volume 71 (2023): Issue 3 (August 2023)

Volume 71 (2023): Issue 2 (May 2023)

Volume 71 (2023): Issue 1 (February 2023) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS, STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 2022

Volume 70 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)

Volume 70 (2022): Issue 3 (August 2022)

Volume 70 (2022): Issue 2 (May 2022)

Volume 70 (2022): Issue 1 (February 2022) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS, STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 2021

Volume 69 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021)

Volume 69 (2021): Issue 3 (August 2021)

Volume 69 (2021): Issue 2 (May 2021)

Volume 69 (2021): Issue 1 (February 2021)

Volume 68 (2020): Issue 4 (December 2020)

Volume 68 (2020): Issue 3 (August 2020)

Volume 68 (2020): Issue 2 (May 2020)

Volume 68 (2020): Issue 1 (February 2020)

Volume 67 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 67 (2019): Issue 3 (August 2019)

Volume 67 (2019): Issue 2 (May 2019)

Volume 67 (2019): Issue 1 (February 2019)

Volume 66 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 66 (2018): Issue 3 (August 2018)

Volume 66 (2018): Issue 2 (May 2018)

Volume 66 (2018): Issue 1 (February 2018)

Volume 65 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)

Volume 65 (2017): Issue 3 (August 2017)

Volume 65 (2017): Issue 2 (May 2017)

Volume 65 (2017): Issue 1 (February 2017)

Volume 64 (2016): Issue 3-4 (December 2016)

Volume 64 (2016): Issue 2 (August 2016)

Volume 64 (2016): Issue 1 (May 2016)

Volume 63 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)

Volume 63 (2015): Issue 3 (December 2015)

Volume 63 (2015): Issue 2 (August 2015)

Volume 63 (2015): Issue 1 (May 2015)

Administration

 PRINT ISSN: 0001-8325ONLINE ISSN: 2449-9471  Administration is the peer-reviewed journal of the Institute of Public Administration of Ireland. It has been published quarterly since 1953. As the principal journal concerned with Irish public administration and its development, it seeks to combine original scholarship on public administration from a variety of disciplines with the insights and experiences of practitioners.  Rejection Rate   80%   Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 