General Description of the Interviewee’s Profiles

The 21 interviewees recruited in this study came from three different groups: incident-related actors (survivors and their family members/friends as well as affected residents), digital participants, and local journalists (see Table 5). Each group consisted of seven interviewees. They were all Indonesians and active dual screeners during the KM bombing attack. Their average dual

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 screening time was five hours per day for watching videos (e.g., news videos, TV shows, etc.) and engaging in social media discussions related to videos on their daily routines. Most of them were considered as social media heavy users based on the fact that 16 of them used social media (mobile chatting applications and social networking sites) more than eight hours per day. The average time of social media use was 10 hours per day. 62% of the participants were female, while the other 38% were male. The age of participants ranged from 20 to 32, with the average age of 26 years old. Majority of participants had obtained a bachelor’s degree, except one participant who was still pursuing her undergraduate study and another participant who had already obtained his master’s degree.

Table 5

Respondents’ Profile

Respondents Gender Age Occupation Dual Screening Usage (hour)

Group

I1 Female 26 Sales Manager 8 Incident-related Actor

(affected resident)

I2 Male 24 Civil Servant 4 Incident-related Actor

(affected resident)

I3 Female 20 Student 3-4 Incident-related Actor

(friend of survivor)

I4 Male 23 Designer 2-3 Incident-related Actor

(survivor)

I5 Female 27 Freelancer 10 Incident-related Actor

(affected resident)

I6 Female 26 Doctor 1-2 Incident-related Actor

(affected resident)

I7 Female 24 Banker 7-8 Incident-related Actor

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 (affected resident)

D1 Male 32 Officer 2-4 Digital Participant

D2 Male 30 Entrepreneur 5 Digital Participant

D3 Female 25 Entrepreneur 2 Digital Participant

D4 Male 26 Editor 3-4 Digital Participant

D5 Male 24 Theatre Coach 4 Digital Participant

D6 Female 26 Writer 1-2 Digital Participant

D7 Male 26 Freelancer 8-9 Digital Participant

J1 Male 25 Online Journalist 3.5 Journalist

J2 Female 26 Newspaper

Journalist 5-6 Journalist

J3 Female 25 TV Journalist 2-3 Jour Journalist

J4 Female 25 TV Journalist 5 Journalist

J5 Female 26 Newspaper

Journalist 3 Journalist

J6 Female 25 TV Journalist 3 Journalist

J7 Female 26 TV Journalist 9 Journalist

With regard to the dual screening device use, most incident-related actors used laptops and smartphones simultaneously for their daily routine, while the digital participants had more varieties of combinations, such as laptops and smartphones, TV and smartphones, laptops and tablets, or two smartphones concurrently. Moreover, most journalists utilized TV and smartphones for dual screening on daily basis. The dual screening behavior was different during terrorist attacks, especially with regard to the combination of utilized screens. This would be further elaborated in the section of motivation to use dual screening during terrorist attacks.

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 4.3. Crisis response communication process

This section explains the process of crisis response from three groups (i.e., incident-related actors, digital participants, and journalists), starting from observation, next interpretation, then choice, and finally dissemination (Hale et al., 2005). These are sequential stages which flow from the observation to the dissemination although after reaching the dissemination, it can repeat to the observation stage again. Furthermore, connectivity is also discussed as it spreads throughout every stage of the process.

With regard to the crisis response communication process during the terrorist attacks, the process among the three groups mostly occurred on the storm phase for the digital participants and journalists; while for the incident-related actors, they responded during the storm and post-storm phases. The incident-related actors tended to feel concerned about the issue of bombing attacks relatively longer than the other groups. I5 who resided very close to the bombing attack and often passed by KM bus station mentioned that the bombing attack was very frightening. “Because it’s close to my home, so I’m scared, because of the proximity.” She even avoided passing the road in front of the KM bus station for a month, as she was afraid that there would be the explosion of another bombing. Therefore, she kept observing the news regarding the incident for the next two weeks. Similarly, other incident-related actors also continued monitoring the news about the incident until approximately one to two weeks after the occurrence. In contrast, the digital participants and journalists were concerned for a shorter period of time. The majority of digital participants only cared about the bombing attack for around one to seven days. D6 explained that the reason why she did not follow the news regarding the incident for a long time was because her house was relatively far from the bombing location and the incident occurred in the place that she rarely visited. Similarly, D5 only looked for information regarding the KM bombing attack for a

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 day. He mentioned that as he did not have any relatives living close to the bombing location, he did not think it was very necessary to seek information about the event for a long period of time.

Furthermore, the situation was slightly different for the journalists as it really depended on how long they were assigned to the incident by their editors. Once they were deployed on another task, they did not really follow the news about the incident anymore. However, most of the journalists responded to the event for only less than a week.

4.3.1. Observation

The first stage of the crisis response process was observation which is defined as collecting information regarding the event (i.e., terrorist attacks). The phase was started when the individuals first heard about the bombing attack. All participants from the incident-related actors’ group mentioned that they first learned about the event through social media, particularly WhatsApp and Facebook. 43% of participants in this group who were affected residents (I2, I5, and I6) revealed that they first got the news about the KM bombing attack through a family group chat on WhatsApp. On this application, the family members of these three affected residents had their own group chats and one of the group chat members updated the news to this group; thus they received the notification about the incident. The other two of participants belonging to this group (I1 and I7) were personally contacted by their family or friends via WhatsApp. As their family or friends knew that they lived nearby the area, their circle reached them via WhatsApp to ask about the participants’ current conditions. I3 whose friend was a friend of a victim mentioned that she knew the incident when she browsed her Facebook account. On her homepage, one of her friends shared an amateur video about the condition of the location post bombing attack. Lastly, I4 was in the location as he was a survivor of the bombing attack.

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 Additionally, some participants also mentioned that they did not only receive news regarding the event, but they also received graphic contents, such as the photos or videos of the victims, via group chats on WhatsApp. Most participants had also watched amateur videos, displaying the explosion or the body of the victims, from the social media, like Twitter and Facebook, or mobile instant messengers, such as WhatsApp. However, they did not actively look for those video. For example, I7 mentioned that she received a lot of amateur videos on WhatsApp group chats. Similarly, I1 also got some videos and photos related to the incident. However, the contents circulated through social media mostly did not pass through censorship, therefore some incident-related actors did not rely on social media as information source. I1 even refrained herself from getting any multimedia content on social media because of the disturbing contents, “So in social media, I have to be very careful to screen the information. From that moment, I set my WhatsApp not to download automatically for pictures because those broadcasts, disturbing broadcast. So, yeah, I’m being more careful of using this social media.”

Most digital participants also received news about the incident from social media. 43% of the digital participants (D1, D3, and D6) knew about the bombing attack from Twitter by observing posts made by their friends on the Twitter timeline. The other 43% of the participants (D2, D4, and D7) got the information through WhatsApp. Not long after the bomb detonated, the participants received either personal chats from their friends and family or someone updated the news on the group chat. Some of the participants also mentioned that they saw some photos or videos about the bombing, such as the condition of the victims or the location, through this platform. Lastly, D5 noticed that there was a bombing attack after watching TV.

Similar with the group of incident-related actors, six of seven journalists also first heard about this bombing incident from WhatsApp, while another journalist received a phone call from

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 her editor. All of the journalists joined a group chat only for reporters on WhatsApp. On this group chat, other journalists helped one another by updating any news, including the bombing attacks.

Therefore, a lot of journalists relied on the group chats to gather background information of the events, including bombing attacks. For instance, J5, a 26-year-old newspaper journalist, shared her opinion about how important the chat group was to gain initial information:

As what I have mentioned before, we personally do not monitor news, TV, read newspaper, and so on every minute, every second, and every hour. Sometimes our colleagues in the WhatsApp group are more updated about the news and they like to share the news they read on the group. So, we (the other journalists) also become well-informed.

Participants from all groups mentioned when they knew that a bomb exploded, they directly started to gather more information related to the incident. There were two kinds of information that they wanted to know: news regarding the event and the conditions of their friends or family. All incident-related participants wanted to know the basic information (5W1H) of the bombing attack, for instance, what actually occurred where the bomb took place, who the main actors were, how many victims died or were injured, how this could have happened, and so on.

Moreover, they also wanted to get the information about their family and friends to ensure that they were fine.

In order to acquire information regarding terrorist attacks, the incident-related actors relied on mainstream media, such as TV and online news portals. They either watched live reports or breaking news on TV or they looked for further information by reading articles provided on online news portals aside from monitoring social media, such as Twitter. The participants belonging to incident-related actors group perceived these two platforms (TV and online news portals) credible and the fastest in publishing news compared to the other platforms. I1, a 26-year-old sales manager,

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 said she was in disbelief when she heard the information about the bombing attack, she went to somewhere else to watch TV as she did not have her on TV, as stated:

I watch it on TV because it’s a breaking news. It’s so big. Because it’s on Ramadan’s eve, one day before the Ramadan and everybody was getting ready to start the fasting and stuff like that and then it happened, so it’s kind of a shock. Everybody is reporting that event.

So, I remember I went to my friend’s office to watch the news and all the horrible effects after that and the investigation.

In addition to mainstream media, 57% of participants mentioned that they also monitored social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, in order to obtain more information about the event. Social media had the ability to update the content in real-time and therefore it was very useful to obtain background information about the bombing attack.

For digital participants, TV and Twitter were the main information sources during the terrorist attacks. 71% of the participants mentioned that after knowing of the incident, they watched TV to learn more about this event. D2, a 30-year-old entrepreneur, said that TV could be a main reference during crises, such as terrorist attacks, as TV would broadcast breaking news for these kinds of events. Furthermore, 71% of participants belonging to this group also kept an eye on their Twitter timeline due to its ability to update tweets in real-time, hence they could keep track of the ongoing situation. In addition to these two channels, some digital participants also collected more information regarding the bombing attack through WhatsApp and online news portals.

Lastly, the journalists relied mostly on WhatsApp and TV to obtain information regarding the incident. On WhatsApp, they had the group chats for journalists that could supply them with the latest news. All of the journalists also watched TV to see the visuals of the incident and also to gain more updates about the terrorist attack. Though the journalists claimed to use TV as a source,

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 more than half of them used smartphones to stream the TV content, because they were observing this content as they were moving to the scene. Moreover, some journalists also still checked online media to gain supplementary information about the bombing attack. J7, a 26-year-old TV journalist, stated that information from online news outlet could be used as a background information and usually this platform provided quite comprehensive information. Additionally, Twitter was also utilized by some journalists. Although the credibility of Twitter as an information source was still questionable, this platform offered additional information as J6, a 25-year-old TV journalist, shared her view about Twitter as a crisis information source:

(From Twitter we can get) More like the condition of people out there whether they become more panic, whether they become apathy, or as mentioned before, there are sympathy for the victims instead or maybe on social media appears some speculations that we never thought before. Although sometimes they are not correct, but we can take it into our consideration.

Besides gathering event-related information, all participants also contacted their friends and family to know about their conditions just in case they were affected by the incident. They also asked their friends and family whether they had already heard about the bombing attack. Most participants from all of the groups used mobile messaging applications, particularly WhatsApp and Line, for this purpose. Some digital participants also reached their friends using Twitter, as they did not have their friends’ personal contact, so they saw that their friends had tweeted something about the bombing attack.

During the observation stage, most participants from all groups also admitted that they kept an eye on the information or updates from the authorities, particularly the Indonesian National Police. More than half participants from all groups listened to the announcement or speech from the Indonesian National Police Chief, Police-General Tito Karnavian. Aside from releasing some

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 official information related to the incident, one message he conveyed at that time was to encourage all Indonesians not to be afraid of the bombing attacks. For some participants, what he said did not only make them more well-informed, but it also calmed them down. For instance, I6, a 26-year-old doctor, mentioned that by following the information from the police, it reduced the uncertainty that occurred from the chaotic situation, so she could ensure that everything was safe already, thus appeasing her anxiety caused by the incident. Moreover, the ordinary citizens did not have any capacity to investigate the incident on their own, hence they relied on the authorities to figure out what actually happened, for instance I1, a 26-year-old sales manager, said “I think I simply believe them because they are the one who is in charge of this investigation, so I didn’t really check it myself because I don’t have the knowledge and the capability to do so.”

4.3.2. Interpretation

Following the observation phase was the interpretation when the individuals made sense of the information they had gathered and evaluated the accuracy and relevance of the information.

Some participants stated that the information regarding terrorism was very messy and complex.

Moreover, many fake news were also circulated under this crisis situation. I6, a 26-year-old doctor, explained that in the beginning, information about the terrorist attack was confusing and unclear, as a lot of media outlets or other information sources, such as social media, were not able to report in-depth coverage regarding the incident. Considering the aforementioned situations, individuals must put more effort in evaluating the information in order to make sense of the information that the participants had acquired from the observation stage and to obtain thorough understanding about the event. Participants from all of the groups exhibited similar methods towards gaining a holistic picture of the bombing attack, for instance comparison, verification, and discussion.

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 Comparison became a recurring theme in interpretation stage. Most participants agreed that using multiple channels to obtain information was crucial during a crisis to collect as much information as possible. Most participants used TV, online news portals, and social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram for information-seeking purpose. This behavior enabled them to distinguish the relevant and irrelevant content as well as find the differences and similarities from the news to ensure the consistency of information. By accessing various channels, they could construe the chronology of the event which allowed them to have better comprehension about the terrorist attacks. I1, 26 years old, sales manager, shared her experience in comparing the information from different sources:

As I’ve told you I opened a lot of media sources from my mobile news apps and YouTube videos of the event, even the CNN that I think report it as well. CNN Indonesia I mean.

And… yeah, so I just compare those information, even from the Line messenger, I compare the information and I just google them and see what other people say and basically they are saying the same thing.

During the interpretation stage, participants also assessed and determined the veracity of the information by verifying the messages they received. 86% of participants from incident-related actors group relied heavily on mainstream media, particularly TV, to conduct the fact-checking.

During a terrorist attack, one screen that they consumed the most was TV. They perceived TV as credible news platform during a crisis like a terrorist attack, besides they knew that TV would cover the event and have a breaking news segment. Aside from TV, some participants also browsed online news portals for verification. Once the bombing attack occurred, online news portals would cover the incident and publish the articles right away. However, this platform commonly only covered the surface of the incident, thus it could not be the main source for validating information.

Similarly, digital participants also used mainstream media, particularly trustworthy online news portal and TV for verification. However, half of the participants belonging to this group also used

DOI:10.6814/THE.NCCU.IMICS.006.2018.F05 social media for checking the facts. They utilized Twitter to validate the information as well as updates that they got from or group chats WhatsApp group chats.

In order to deeply understand the incident, participants from incident-related actors group and digital participants group also discussed about the event with their family or friends through

In order to deeply understand the incident, participants from incident-related actors group and digital participants group also discussed about the event with their family or friends through