Introduction: In crisis situations, media play a role far beyond mere information dissemination, becoming a determining factor in managing public opinion, reducing or intensifying social anxiety, and coordinating between relief and executive institutions. However, in countries like Iran, where crises possess a hybrid nature combining social, political, economic, and security dimensions, media management of these events has become a strategic challenge. Previous experiences in managing major national disasters, including the presidential helicopter crash (2024), the Kerman terrorist attacks (2023), the COVID-19 crisis (2019), and the Plasco building collapse (2016), indicate that media strategies have often been reactive, fragmented, lacking a coherent framework, and based on improvisation. This situation has led to phenomena such as information vacuum, multiplicity of contradictory narratives, widespread rumor-mongering in cyberspace, weakening of public trust in official media, and in some cases, intensification of the crisis itself. Despite the frequent occurrence of national crises over the past two decades and the evident role of media in managing or exacerbating them, Iran lacks a native, systematic, and tested model for media crisis management. Therefore, the present study aims to develop a comprehensive model for media crisis management by examining crisis communication in ten major national disasters.
Research Method: This research employed a qualitative approach using the grounded theory method (Glaserian approach). The study is applied in terms of purpose and developmental in nature, relying on the interpretive paradigm to analyze the hidden meanings in the actions and experiences of media professionals in crisis management. The statistical population consisted of experts, media managers, and public relations officials from official institutions, who were selected through snowball sampling. Theoretical saturation was achieved after conducting 12 in-depth semi-structured interviews. Participants included seven specialists in media and crisis communication, four experts in national crisis management and passive defense, and one specialist in artificial intelligence and cognitive warfare. The data collection instrument was a semi-structured interview with 15 questions, designed and refined dynamically and progressively. Data analysis was conducted in three stages: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding.
Findings: In the open coding stage, 106 initial concepts were extracted from the interview transcripts. In the axial coding stage, these concepts were categorized into 15 core categories. The most frequent concepts according to the experts were: unified and specialized crisis spokesperson (11 repetitions), centralized structure and unified command (11 repetitions), public trust and social capital (9 repetitions), strategic framework and macro model (7 repetitions), and inter-sectoral coordination and elimination of silo functioning (7 repetitions). In the selective coding stage, the category of "centralized structure and unified command" emerged as the core category of the research. The final model, entitled "Theory of Establishing Centralized Structure and Unified Command in Iran's Media Crisis Management," was developed as a paradigmatic model comprising six main components: weaknesses (current situation), strategies (proposed strategies), consequences (results of implementing the strategies), contextual conditions (implementation context including existing governance and legal structures, religious and national culture and capacities, data and new technologies), intervening conditions (crisis level, type of incident, intensity of rival media competition, level of pre-crisis preparedness), and responsible institutions (Supreme National Security Council, National Crisis Management Organization, IRIB, Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Ministry of Interior, Passive Defense Organization, National Cyberspace Center, Armed Forces, and religious and cultural institutions).
The most important identified weaknesses include: lack of a unified and specialized spokesperson, weak inter-sectoral coordination, absence of a macro strategic model, weaknesses in human resource training, weaknesses in narrative construction and proactivity, lack of transparency in information dissemination, absence of a media attachment, lack of alternative media, weak coordinated dissemination, lack of public opinion monitoring and assessment, weaknesses in cultural cultivation, governance and legal gaps, and lack of data and technology infrastructure. In contrast, proposed strategies include: establishing a unified and specialized spokesperson, creating inter-sectoral coordination, developing a strategic framework and macro model, training and empowering human resources, securing the first narrative and proactivity, transparent and accountable information dissemination, developing a pre-crisis media attachment, creating alternative media and resilience, coordinated dissemination in cyberspace, establishing public opinion monitoring and assessment, cultural cultivation using religious capacities, reforming governance and legal structures, and developing data and new technologies.
Conclusion: Media crisis management in Iran is impossible without establishing a centralized structure and unified command. Experts emphasized that "we have a coordinating headquarters for hard warfare, but we do not have one in the media sector" and "every institution plays its own instrument." This situation indicates a serious gap between the crisis management structure in military and security domains and that in the media and culture domain. Implementing the proposed strategies will lead to consequences such as rebuilding public trust and social capital, increasing media and cultural resilience, transparent and accountable information dissemination, public participation in crisis management, and the ability to continuously monitor and assess public opinion. The final model of this research demonstrates that bridging this gap requires reforming media governance, enforcing the binding nature of Supreme National Security Council approvals, and strengthening inter-sectoral coordination. Otherwise, future crises will face the same challenges as past crises: information chaos, rumor-mongering, and the weakening of public trust. The model presented in this research can serve as a strategic framework for policymakers, media managers, and crisis management officials in the country