The Dilemma of Organizational Transparency: A Critical Metaphor Analysis of Media Reframing of Crisis Events in Danish and British Tabloids
Author
Al-Yousefy, Jwan Adham
Term
4. term
Publication year
2025
Submitted on
2025-06-02
Pages
72
Abstract
Organizations are encouraged to prepare for crises and build crisis responses into their communication with the press and the public. Transparency—being open and truthful—is a key strategy that internal and external stakeholders expect. It is linked to expectations about ethics, social governance, and accountability as a basis for trust. In the past, some actors chose silence or denial, which often triggered critical media scrutiny because silence was seen as inadequate. This has contributed to a shift toward more openness. Yet even transparent responses are frequently criticized. This thesis examines this transparency dilemma: transparency is praised in theory and practice, but still placed under intense media scrutiny. The thesis draws on two recent cases. In Denmark, three companies were accused of doing business with Russian “shadow fleets,” prompting intense media attention. In the UK, the Infected Blood Scandal resurfaced after a public inquiry, revealing that thousands were contaminated with blood by the NHS, leading to widespread public outrage and media condemnation. In both cases, the Danish companies and the British government attempted to be transparent. The thesis asks why transparency still failed for the three Danish companies, especially for Saga Shipping, which tried to be open about its business activities. What might organizations and standard crisis frameworks be missing? The analysis takes a media lens: how Danish and British tabloids reframe attempts at transparency through metaphors. Metaphors are word pictures that engage readers and shape how events are understood. The thesis is grounded in George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s Conceptual Metaphor Theory (1980), which explains how our conceptual system is largely metaphorical—like a mental map that structures how we understand and frame events. Through a comparative analysis of Danish and British tabloid coverage, the thesis explores how metaphors can change the meaning of transparency in public crises, and what cultural differences may reveal about broader trends of institutional distrust, even though transparency is a widely used communication strategy.
Organisationer opfordres til at forberede sig på kriser og indarbejde kriserespons i kommunikationen til presse og offentlighed. Transparens – at være åben og sandfærdig – er en central strategi, som både interne og eksterne interessenter forventer. Den er knyttet til forventninger om etik, social styring og ansvarlighed som grundlag for tillid. Tidligere valgte nogle aktører tavshed eller benægtelse, hvilket ofte udløste kritisk mediedækning, fordi tavshed blev opfattet som utilstrækkelig. Det har bidraget til et skifte mod mere åbenhed. Alligevel bliver transparente svar stadig mødt af kritik. Dette speciale undersøger dette transparensdilemma: at transparens hyldes i teori og praksis, men samtidig sættes under medielup. Specialet tager udgangspunkt i to nylige sager. I Danmark blev tre virksomheder anklaget for at have forretningsaktiviteter med russiske “skyggeflåder”, hvilket udløste intens medieopmærksomhed. I Storbritannien dukkede Infected Blood-skandalen op igen efter en offentlig undersøgelse, som viste, at tusinder blev smittet gennem blod i NHS, hvilket skabte bred offentlig vrede og fordømmelse i medierne. Fælles for begge sager er, at de danske virksomheder og den britiske regering forsøgte at være transparente. Specialet undersøger, hvorfor transparens alligevel ikke virkede for de tre danske virksomheder, særligt for Saga Shipping, som forsøgte at være åben om sine forretningsaktiviteter. Hvad overser organisationer og gængse kriserammer? Analysen sker gennem et medieperspektiv: hvordan danske og britiske tabloider omrammer forsøg på transparens ved hjælp af metaforer. Metaforer er sproglige billeder, der engagerer læsere og former forståelsen af begivenheder. Teoretisk bygger specialet på George Lakoff og Mark Johnsons Conceptual Metaphor Theory (1980), som beskriver, hvordan vores begrebsverden i høj grad er metaforisk – som et mentalt kort, der strukturerer, hvordan vi forstår og indrammer hændelser. Gennem en komparativ analyse af danske og britiske tabloiders dækning undersøger specialet, hvordan metaforer kan ændre betydningen af transparens i offentlige kriser, og hvad kulturelle forskelle kan sige om bredere tendenser til mistillid til institutioner, selv om transparens er en udbredt kommunikationsstrategi.
[This apstract has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]
Keywords