journal - social media

7/26/2019 Journal - social media

1/32

The role of social media in local government

crisis communications

!"#$$%%&'()(*$+,

-.(/0$%.(12*

34 5

"#$%& $'&()*&&)(%"+("$& ,-./01234-567184 9 :.;1584 =? %$"% @$"(&%%,A15B.B 9 CD5;154 =? )(&(E(%&F' " % )(*@"F' G(H"$'H)(I#))($$J*K"%F'


2/32

*" @&*$(HE"%"*@

("&%)&*L $ M $$&&K$N@"*@)*H"O*'$(H*"*@K''

HHH%&&)(L$%)%)(F&@$E E("+%

")J*K$)($"$%%"+)("F%$(L# ,P67 9 Q6R4


3/32

"+"HH$&

&&* "+"#("$')"$G)(%%%"+,\DB18 9 SD]R1BB14 >? %)( %"+*"&) (

$G"+GF' (#L$ *%E&$)(%"+G$"$"%$,_DW` 9 VU6W;4 >? OF"+$")J*K

)E(%&G(HE#%@&( "%)"$&"+EE$""%(J*%$(L#"E

*"G&&(K)((("$E% F%))(#[ $E"+%" "E"+$E(*$'"+E("#


4/32

(L#E%"J*% %"*@$*"#F'$$

G %G"HH$*%EJ*KEF"+"$)(E"+ FIFaK$$""HH$"$'$% &$'EF*"G*E&(%&

J*K "#"+(H)E*E("%(H@%G% H%EL$ E(@"$L$$EE@&'#b%$F'%

E"#(E("+*E&"#"+"(%& F&&E%"J*"'$%

64 $%((%%7$%%


5/32

%&)&&&$"E%&"J* E

'EF"+L&FG(H$(%& "#)%"+FI#E%J*K

)(

""#F'%"+&"+"&( F&%"+$%&E(G$"+%&),-./0123 1B D/c4 =? OFGE$')%"+&$&"#" ($* H%F &@ ,d.55684


6/32

"* &)(""+"E )*$"#$E"#$'"%$$@"$&

"& ,-5DUD7 9 ij15k4 M? K($$l&&&$'FG(H$%&E$$"#$-5DUD7 )( ij15k "'$"%"G $(%&$*

)%$(%&$F& )*$"+""' %)%"+F$(G" ,-5DUD7 9 ij15k4 M? "E"+)$&(

J* EFG%("$GF' )(*("+%"EF*&*)G(J*$%


7/32

,VUDW; 9 PDWDW


8/32

%&(HEEE@&)(*(#""G)#%G

$$EGE %*@"#$% E$' (H$"E(%&E H$&()(

H$"#F' ,A.W8.W 1B D/c4


9/32

& EG"(LK@ ij15k 1B D/c ,=? #&"E

$LK(LK@(*$E("HH$"@*[ E$'#&$)**&$ *%@$"+G&$%E)%"+Gu&*@"$*

$@% *%" "%)(@&*%& %'"EF*'@*%w

_>w @%$@%"+&$"%"*@J*K

E$'G"#"G)#%@# "$$@%"+&O*",ij15k 1B D/c4 =? $F"Ky#EK E"E$LK( $$"E$$@" E($)H$$&@E ,-5DUD7 9 ij15k4 M? #&$')%"+@


10/32

%$$&(K)($(&@ $)H$E(

&( OF)**"$'"+$%"E$"*"G&J*K$"%F' H%$%("+"%# "#%&"#"*)(GE#&"$' "EF**'"#"*w

:v


11/32

E"$&"$'"#"*%"(&&)(I#(J*"'

,C6W4 Q6R4 9 iR8B6W4 hf Q6R4 iR8B6W4 9 C6W4 >f z2UR/Bm4{Bm4 9 -.56Bm4 >f {Bm4 z2UR/Bm4 9 -/.23D4 ? )(+%&&")&&

%'"% ,S5.2.}6. 9 S5.2.}6.


12/32

GIFa@%H% Q6R4 t5DR8B6W. )( C6W ,o? )%"+ $("%("F$%&

)("+""G)#"$&(J*"+#"Ia )("*% @"+E"+"#)E)&&*[ "%(H@%


13/32

)(%"E#"#(J*) H%"l#( Ja$znVV %)%"+F

u#L($"$(J* &(@OF"+GG*)(&H"$&J*KG,Q6R 1B D/c4 M? @@)$L&Ja$znVV @$"$&(J*"#G$*&%"% )(

"+$E(G$$L# @@$Ja$znVV "+$EG*%* )(FG$&HEG% @@$$(&@H%Ja$ znVV E"E&@$EG

%" (&@@$)**H%Ja$znVV G$$E%J*GFL$)("$*&G E$'$"%"GL$u&*$%$$@%&Gu&*(J*$%

16/4 AR1UW154 )(

SD/1W2UD5 ,>? %")&$E(u&**GG""(&"$)((J* $#")($%$'w


14/32

r>? %"+FH&E%"$)((J* )(L$f


15/32

\.RsR01 )( 671. &K$""$''%K($"%(J*E"+"$"(

)(K$ EE"+E(*")F""'

$


16/32

)*)* G4 "I*$4 )("E$[ $%&)**'*##F#"+&O* sT6BB154 tD210..3 )(

\.RsR01 "+ "#)EF$@)("*$##)( )(G*F""$'"#)E$LK&&,S518B.W )( zB1B/154


17/32

"#*&"@L %'"EF*'*%%*$'w

_


18/32

specializes in local government and public policy research administered a national survey to itsdatabase o local government ocials.

8 (*9:$%,%(;

Mc> '*E"#$E(*E&&E%J* E&a E"$$"$)(EH&LK(&E)*"E$&he frm !as selected based on its ability to reach the most broad and representative sample ogovernment oces that both serve a !ide range o population sizes and are diverse in the orm otheir governments "mayor, manager, commission, etc.#.

&a %&"F'&"F@*)("+*)$$'%()($)&&" ,"I*$4GE%4 K( [ ?$ollo!ing I%& protocol, participants !ere sent a solicitation email that re'uested their participation. Ithey chose to clic( on the survey lin(, participants !ere frst as(ed to read a statement o inormedconsent then notifed that by clic(ing to continue the survey they !ere e)pressing their consent.

*$'HH*K(G"$"$$#" #""$E($E

G""+')$E())EH%$E(%"E$#"%)%#"


19/32

he survey data !ere stripped o identiying inormation and entered into an S*SS fle prior to beinggiven to the researchers. +ata !ere then entered into S*SS, cleaned, and screened. s an incentive,participants !ere promised and sent an aggregate summary o data or completing the survey.

E%E$(&@*)("N

zSzz $E(&&E )"H) zSzz4 (%)(%" "+)EEG"%)(@&E

3.-. *articipantsn email re'uest or survey participation !as sent to public ocials and government employees !hohandle communication unctions. he research frm sent the email !ith a cover letter rom the leadresearcher. he frms list is generated andconstantly updated by the research frm through direct human research see(ing local governmentocials email addresseson the Internet and, in some cases, by calling the oce directly to re'uest contact inormation. totalo 3/ government ocials participated in the survey about their crisis management. here !ere --0partial completions that !ere not included inthis analysis, and 1- participants !ho started the survey but !ere dis'ualifed as they did not meetcriteria or participation"e.g., did not perorm a communication unction, did not recall a crisis#.

2ob titles o participants are varied and include the ollo!ing titles public inormation ocer, mayor,city administrator,director o administration, city manager, village manager, council member, director o public saety,president o council,village administrator, and to!n supervisor. he most common titles !ere mayor and city manager.ges range rom -0to 0, !ith 11 participants "3.45# choosing not to ans!er. he age mean is , median is /, andmode is 4-. here are representatives rom 66 states in the sample. 7overnment ocials representingpopulation sizes rom less than people"n 8 0, -5# to 3, or more "n 8 1, .35# !ere represented in the sample, !ith the largestcategories being populations o1,9-:, "n 8 13, 6-.35# and 9:::: "n 8 /4, -5#. $orms o government include board otrustees, commissions,council;manager


20/32

crisis management.In addition, the types o social media used "i.e. $aceboo(, !itter, and @ouube# !ere measured !ith aAchec( all that apply'uestion. he level o usage o social media !as measured by as(ing BCn a scale o 19, !ith I beingnot at all and beinggreat deal, did you use social media in your crisis management.D he number o social media toolsused !as calculated by

adding the numbers o social media in the social media type 'uestion. hese t!o 'uestions "socialmedia usage level andnumber o social media used# !ere also used or testing E- and 3.$or hypothesis testing, respondents indicated the population o their communities as one o theollo!ing less thanF 9::::F 1,9-:,:::F 3,96:,:::F ,9::,:::F 1,91::,:::F -,9-::,:::F 3, or more. series o 'uestions !ere designed to measure crisis types. $irst, participants !ere as(ed to considera crisis that they hadrecently managed in their communities. *articipants !ho could not recall a particular crisis !eredirected to a survey relatedto general crisis communication. hose !ho !ere able to recall a crisis !ere as(ed to identiy the typeo crisis as one othe ollo!ing public health, natural disaster, transportation, political, social, criminal, environmental,and other. $inally,

to insure that participants had correctly categorized the crisis, they !ere as(ed to provide detaileddescriptions about thecrisis. $or %?-, 3, and 6 participants !ere as(ed or their level o agreement !ith the ollo!ingstatements on a ;point scale"1 8 strongly disagree and 8 strongly agree# "a# BSocial media improved our ability to manage thecrisis "%?-#DF "b# BI eltcontrol during the crisis situation "%?3#DF and "c# B>y citys post;crisis response "recovery# !as strong"%?6#.D

4. Results

6.1. Social media usage o local governments "%?1#mong -00 government ocials, /15 "G8 -# used social during crisis !hile -:5 "G8 03# did not.$aceboo( "G8 1/,35# !as the most popular social medium ollo!ed by !itter "G8 01, -/5#, blogs "G8 1/, 45#,@ouube "G8 13, 5#, 7oogle

*lus "G8 0, 35#, and other "G8 1:, 45#. he level o usage o social media "i.e., BCn a scale o 19,!ith I being not at all and being great deal, did you use social media in your crisis managementD# !as >8 -.04, S+ 8 1.60 H1"G8 03, -:5#, - "G8 36,1-5#, 3 "G8 43, --5#, 6 "G8 4, 1:5#, "G8 -, 105#. he average number o social media usedduring the crisis !as >8 1.3/,S+ 8 1.-0 H "03, -:5, 1 ":1, 3-5#, - "46, --5#, 3 "36, 1-5#, 6 "1-, 65#, 4 "-, 15#, / "-, 15#. $inally,reported crisis types !erepublic health "G8 16, 5#, natural disaster "G8 -, /5#, transportation "G8 0, 35#, political "G8 1,5#, social "G8 /, -5#,criminal "G8 -/, :5#, environmental "G8 , 5#, and other "G8 14, 45#.

6.-. Jommunity size and social media use "E1#In order to test the relationships bet!een community size and social media use "i.e., the level o socialmedia use and the

number o social media used#, the populations o cities !ere divided into three groups based on thenumber o responsesin each group H7roup 1 less than :::: "G8 01#, 7roup - 1,96:,::: "G8 10#, 7roup 3 morethan , "G8 6:#.!o one;!ay bet!een sub=ects GCKs !ere perormed to identiy relationships. o analyze therelationship bet!eencommunity size and the level o social media use, responses rom participants !ho did not use socialmedia "G8 03# !eree)cluded rom the analysis. sable 1 sho!s, there !as a signifcant relationship bet!een communitysize and the level o


21/32

usage o social media H$ "-,-# 8 6.01, p 8 .:. *ost hoc comparisons using the LS+ test indicatedthat the mean or 7roup 1">8 3.-3, S+ 8 1.# !as signifcantly diMerent than 7roup - ">8 3.44, S+ 8 1.3# and 7roup 3 ">83.0:, S+ 8 1.#. he resulto second GCK !as consistent !ith Eypothesis 1 H$ "-,-03# 8 .01, p 8 .3. LS+ post hoccomparison !as conducted to fnd signifcant diMerences bet!een groups. he mean o number osocial media use or 7roup 1 ">8 .::, S+ 8 1./# !as

signifcantly lo!er than the means or 7roup - ">8 1.6, S+ 8 1.-/# and 7roup 3 ">8 1./1, S+ 81.#.

6.3. Social media use and crisis management "%?s -, 3, and 6#hree hierarchical multiple regressions e)plored the relationship bet!een social media use and thecrisis management olocal governments. $or each dependent variable "social medias impact on crisis management, controlo the crisis situation,and the strength o governments response to crisis#, the frst bloc( that included the practitioners ageand !or(ing years!as entered frst ollo!ed by the second bloc( that included the e)tent o social media use and thenumber o social mediatools used.able - summarizes the results o the regressions on dependent variables. $or all threeregressions, the frst bloc(did not account or any signifcant variance in the dependent variables. Eo!ever, !hen the secondbloc( !as added to thefrst hierarchical regression, the %- signifcantly increased rom .3 to .-4, and both the e)tent o social

media use "N 8 .61,p O .1# and the number o social media tools used "N 8 .14, p O .# !ere positively related to theocials crisis management.he second regressions results revealed that the level o social media use !as positively associated!ith the ocials abilityto control the crisis "N 8 .1/, p O .#, !hile the number o social media tools engaged !as not. $inally,the results o the frstregression indicate that only the e)tent o social media use "N 8 .1:, p O .# !as a signifcantpredictor o the strength ogovernments response to crisis.

6.6. Jrisis type and social media use "E- and 3#he relationships bet!een crisis types and social media use !ere tested using t!o one;!ay bet!een;sub=ects GCKs.here !as a signifcant relationship bet!een crisis type and the level o social media usage at the p O .

1 level H$"4,1:0# 8 -.:/,p 8 .:. *ost hoc comparisons using the LS+ test indicated that the mean or public health "G8 :,>8 6.4, S+ 8 ./3# !asdiMerent rom natural disaster "G8 16, >8 3.4, S+ 8 1.-#, transportation "G8 /, >8 3./, S+ 8 .:0#, political "G8 4, >8 3.,S+ 8 1.#, social "G8 4, >8 -.33, S+ 8 .-#, and criminal "G8 -, >8 3.4, S+ 8 1.6#. lso, social!as signifcantly diMerentrom natural disaster, transportation, political, criminal, and other "G8 1-, >8 3./, S+ 8 1.6#. Cn theother hand, the secondGCK results sho!ed that there !as not a signifcant relationship bet!een crisis type and the number


22/32

o social media usedH$ "4,-0# 8 1.36, p 8 .-30.

5. Discussion

Phat began as an e)ploratory revie! o social media use during crisis or local governments yieldedcompelling resultsthat underscore the importance o e)tending this !or(. $irst, results o individual hypothesis andresearch 'uestion testing are revie!ed in turn, then !e discuss overall implications or theory andpractice. his !or( provides an importantassessment o ho! local governments are engaging social media amidst crisis that suggests they maylag compared to corporate and other organizational conte)ts. he direct implications on public saetyor governments !ith strained resourcesmanaging crises are particularly motivating to e)tend this line o in'uiry.

.1. Social media usage o local governmentslthough encouraging that more than /5 o these government ocials engage social media duringcrisis, this optimismis some!hat blighted by the act that almost one;third o their counterparts do not, and their e)tent ouse is disappointing.*e! %esearch "-13# reports that /35 o online adults use a social net!or(ing siteF /15 use $aceboo(,and /15 use !itter.Pith government ocials during crisis, $aceboo( "35# !as the most popular social medium ollo!edby !itter "-/5#Fblogs, @ouube, 7oogle *lus, and other tools !ere all !ell under a 15 engagement rate. @et, !henreporting e)tent o overalluse in crisis management, the mean reported by local government ocials ">8 -.04# reveals their use!as barely greaterthan the midpoint. bout 35 o the sample reported using no social media tools during crisis, and,even or those !ho usedtools, the ma=ority "65# engaged - or e!er tools.

In a report rom the Jongressional %esearch Service, Lindsay "-11# ac(no!ledges the gro!ing role osocial media inemergency preparedness and management and notes social media are the ourth most popular sourceor crisis inormationor publicsF given the rapid gro!th o social media =ust in the last three years it has presumably goneup in ran(. Social mediaenable rapid inormation e)change to mass audiences and may be an even more credible inormationsource than traditionalmass mediaF they oMer organizations eciency !ith respect to time and budget in releasinginormation "Qingsley, -1FQuzma, -1F *rocopio R *rocopio, -/#. @et, one;third o government oces in this study !ere notusing social media intheir crisis management. 7iven the !ell;established benefts they oMer organizations, the reasons orthis lac( o use call orurther e)planationF !e turn to identifed moderators o use to start to e)plore !hy.

.-. Jommunity size and social media usevery et al. "-1# note public inormation ocers in health departments !ere slo!er to adopt socialmedia technologies than their counterparts in other industries and ound diMerences depending on thesize o the community served bythat department, !ith rural departments lagging behind those serving larger and more urban areas.his fnding led us tohypothesize that diMerences !ould also be present according to size o population served in this morebroad analysis oocials managing a range o crises, rom health to political scandal. *ractitioners at local governmentsserving the smallestcommunities in this sample used social media during crisis to a lesser e)tent overall and used e!ertools than ocials inthe t!o larger population categories. Jonsistent !ith very et al.s "-1# fndings, this survey oundthat as communitysize increased so did the e)tent o use and number o social media tools engaged during a crisis.his fnding is disconcerting and li(ely e)plained by the act that rural ocials are managing more


23/32

strained time, human,and fnancial resources. Qeim and Go=i "-11# note that social media may oMer important psychologicalbenefts or vulnerablepopulations amidst disaster and better involve them as sta(eholders in the organizations response.Kictims o disasteridentiy the need to contribute to improve their abilities to cope !ith the situation "Qeim R Go=i, -11 #,and during a crisis

social media oMer an important orum in !hich people can engage in dialog. hese support net!or(smay be especially criticalin rural areas !here people are more isolated and, oten, underserved. Local governments must reachbroad audiences duringcrisis, and the presence o disparities among the smaller, rural population local government oces istroubling to that end.In addition to the support oMered these publics by social media, disparities in engagement amongocials indicate responseprotocols may not be as broadly or immediately distributed in more rural areas, !hich maycompromise public health andsaety and, ultimately, the local government ocials reputation.ccording to *e! %esearch "-13#, /45 o urban, /-5 o suburban, and /5 o rural online adults usesocial net!or(ingsitesF clearly the vast ma=ority o adults across all urbanities are using social media, and the act thatrural government

ocials are still lagging behind their larger population counterparts is troubling. %egardless o themoderating actors otheir use, !hich should be e)plored in uture research, rural local governments ocials engagemento social media duringcrisis revealed here is troubling. Social media enable participation, contribution, coping, control, andresiliency during crisis,!hich may be o particular important or more isolated, vulnerable populations. $uture research mustinorm practitionersho! to eMectively and strategically engage social media during crisis even in the ace o strainedresources.

.3. Jrisis type and social media useSocial media use !as central to crisis response in ma=or crises such as the !ildfres in Jaliornia"Sutton et al., -0#, the-: crash o .S. ir!ays Tight 16: "+erner, -13#, the -1 Eaiti earth'ua(e, and Eurricane Sandy

"*reston R Stetler,-1-#. Go!, strategic crisis planning entails identiying !hich social tools to engage in response, !ho!ill manage them,and the nature o re'uency o updates, among many other considerations. s in routine organizationaloperations, socialmedia must be engaged eciently amidst crisis, !ith an eMective plan or their use that ma(es themmore than =ust tacticsbut integral to strategy. C all media channels, social media oMer the most ecient method o the crisisprinciple o Btellingit all and telling it no! and telling the truthDUas !ell as sharing inormation broadly and ast. *riorresearch such as thestudies reerenced above demonstrates value o social media during crisis, especially !itter,$aceboo(, and @ouube duringa natural disaster and ma=or accidentsF o course, this optimism is tempered by the act that social

media can also contributeto rumor and misinormation "Qeim R Go=i, -11 #. &ut, a more nuanced understanding o social mediaengagement duringcrisis also re'uires understanding o ho! to best match tools to a diMerent crisis situations based onaudience inormationneeds and use. his study ta(es a frst step in that direction by e)amining the current state o socialmedia use during diMerenttypes o crises.

lthough the number o tools did not vary by crisis type, e)tent o social media use did vary by crisistype. Social media


24/32

!ere used signifcantly more or crisis communication during public health crises than or naturaldisaster, transportation,political, social, or criminal crises. $or social crises, social media !ere engaged signifcantly less thanduring natural disasters,transportation, political, criminal, and the BotherD category. hese results are encouraging evidencethat social media are,to some e)tent, being engaged strategically during crises based on perceived needF o all the types o

crisis, public healthcrises li(ely present the most !idespread and imminent threats to public !ell;being and the mostimmediate inormationaldemands. hus, it is positive that use rates are higher or those crisis types. Jonversely, social crises!ould li(ely call orsignifcantly less social media engagement, as they li(ely do not re'uire much public response. heact that practitioners are using social media to a greater e)tent depending on the type o crisissuggests strategic engagement o the tools insteado a Bone size fts allD crisis response model approach.

$inally, regression e'uations !ere used to evaluate i the e)tent o social media use, and the numbero social media toolsengaged aMected the impact o crisis management, control o the situation, and ocials evaluationso the strength o theirresponses. he eMects o age o the ocials and the number o years on the =ob !ere entered in the

frst bloc( o the e'uationto control or the eMects o those actors, !hich !ere not signifcant. &oth the e)tent o social mediause and the number osocial media tools used !ere positively related to the e)tent o impact o the ocials crisismanagement. Cverall, it seemsthat practitioners can ta(e rom this fnding strong evidence that strategic use o social media in theircrisis planning !illyield positive impact on and impression o their management o the situation. he e)tent o socialmedia use, but not thenumber o tools used, !as positively associated !ith the ocials assessments o their ability tocontrol the crisis as !elltheir overall evaluations o the strength o their response. So in addition to impact, practitioners arealso given evidencehere that crises can be better contained and managed !ith strategic social media useF in this case,'uantity


25/32

the meantime, ho!ever, !e have documented compelling diMerences in social media use across crisistypes and revealedencouraging evidence o strategic integration o social media in crisis management among localgovernments.


26/32

A15B.B4 Cc Vc4 CD1;154 Sc4 nRW8.W4 zc4 9 -/D68k154 sc ,=?cz.26D/ 71`6D B12UW./.;k DW` ;.j15W71WB B5DW8}D51W2kc

V.7}RB15 z.261Bk4 >>,hM?4 oMopcA15B.B4 Cc Vc4 9 CD5;154 Sc ,=?c d186;W6W;4 67}/171WB6W;4DW` 1jD/RDB6W; R81521WB151` DW` 26B6m1W21WB151` 1;.j15W71WBc WB15WDB6.WD/ C.R5WD/ . /12B5.W62-.j15W71WB :181D52U4 Z,


27/32

`R56W; D 256868w sU1 `1j1/.}71WB DW` D}}/62DB6.W . 86BRDB6.WD/256868 2.77RW62DB6.W BU1.5kc

V.5}.5DB1 :1}RBDB6.W :1j61T4 >=,M?4 >ZM>XXcV5.7154 Vc ,=?c {W`158BDW`6W; T10


28/32

;.j15W71WB /1j1/c SR0/62 :1/DB6.W8 C.R5WD/4 X4 >c-~{4 9 V686.Wc ,=}`8;T 2686.W 87 8BR`k =pcSdt_DW`4 Qc Vc4 9 VU6W;4 Ac dc ,>?c \.R UDj1 .W1 561W`51]R18Bc i`76W68B5DB6j1 sU1.5k 9 S5D684 MM,M?4 MZ


29/32

518}.W`1` B. BU1 Zc

Q6W`8Dk4 Ac :c ,>?c z.26D/ 71`6D DW` `68D8B158w VR551WBR8184 RBR51 .}B6.W84 DW` }./62k 2.W86`15DB6.W8c :1B561j1` 5.7UBB}wTTTcD8c.5;8;}258U.71812:h>peXc}`Q6R4 Ac tc4 iR8B6W4 Qc4 9 C6W4 \c ,>?c _.T }R0/628 518}.W`

B. 256868 2.77RW62DB6.W 8B5DB1;618w sU1 6WB15}/Dk . 6W.57DB6.W.57 DW` 8.R521c SR0/62 :1/DB6.W8:1j61T4 MX,h?4 MhoMoMcQ6R4 Ac tc4 t5DR8B6W.4 Cc4 9 C6W4 \c ,o?c _.T `68D8B15


30/32

6W.57DB6.W .574 8.R5214 Bk}14 DW` }56.5 `68D8B15 1}.8R51D12B }R0/62 .RB2.718w CR7}6W; .W BU1

8.26D/ 71`6D 0DW`TD;.Wx C.R5WD/ . i}}/61` V.77RW62DB6.W:181D52U4 hM,>?4 hhZocQ6R4 Ac tc4 C6W4 \c4 9 iR8B6W4 Qc Qc ,M?c sU1 B1W`1W2k B.B1//w {W`158BDW`6W; }R0/628 2.77RW62DB6j1 518}.W818 B. 2568686W.57DB6.W .57 DW` 8.R521c C.R5WD/

. SR0/62 :1/DB6.W8 :181D52U4 ?4 o>ZXcQ.jD564 ic4 9 SD56864 Qc ,h?c Q68B1W6W; B. `6;6BD/ }R0/628cWj18B6;DB6W; 26B6m1W8 j.6218 DW` 1W;D;171WB T6BU6W BD/6DW7RW626}D/6B618 tD210..3 }D;18c SR0/62:1/DB6.W8 :1j61Tc

nDk|1/`4 ic ,o?c :1B561j1` 5.7

UBB}wW1T8c002c2.cR3c8B7S1T :181D52Uc ,M?c z.26D/ W1BT.536W; R81 :1B561j1` 5.7UBB}wTTTc}1T5181D52Uc.5;`DBDB51W`71`6DDW`


31/32

B12UW./.;k8.26D/W1BT.536W;R81S518B.W4 Cc4 9 zB1B/154 Ac ,< .j17015?c _.T ;.j15W71WB

.26D/8 D51 R86W; sT6BB15 .5 _R5562DW1 zDW`kc sU1 1T \.53s67184c :1B561j1` 5.7UBB}wBU1/1`1c0/.;8cWkB6718c2.7>=?c 8 BU1 71`6R7 BU1

7188D;1x S1521}B6.W8 . DW` 51D2B6.W8 B. 2568682.77RW62DB6.W j6D BT6BB154 0/.;8 DW` B5D`6B6.WD/71`6Dc SR0/62 :1/DB6.W8 :1j61T4 MX,>?4 >>>oTUk

D71562DW8R818.26D/71`6DzRBB.W4 Cc4 SD/1W4 Qc4 9 zU3/.j8364 c ,


32/32

zV:in 2.W151W21 z.RBU15W VD/6.5W6D T6/`|518c ~D8U6W;B.W4dVw zV:inc

{Bm4 zc4 z2UR/Bm4 tc4 9 -/.23D4 zc ,

journal - social media

Documents