# 3589
Over the past 24-hours a flap has emerged over whether PAHO (Pan American Health Organization) officials acknowledged the existence of Tamiflu resistant novel H1N1 cases along the Mexican border.
The original story was carried by AFP Agence France-Presse on Monday, and despite denials by PAHO yesterday, continues to be reprinted today.
On Monday night I carried the original report, and noted at the time that it provided `scant information’ and suggested that until we had more solid data that `it is hard to gauge the seriousness of this report.’
I’ve no special insight as to whether or not Tamiflu resistant cases have been detected along the Mexican border. But I’ve learned over the years that news reports, particularly early ones, often get the details wrong.
And so I am always a bit wary.
Unfortunately, our modern information technology means that bad reporting can live forever on the Internet. And once printed, you often find it cited over and over again on websites, or even by other news outlets.
In other words, there’s an information minefield out there on the Internet, and we all need to watch our step.
Just because it appeared in the `legitimate press’ somewhere in the world, that doesn’t make it automatically accurate or reliable information.
Even good reporters can get the story wrong, officials can misspeak, and typographical errors can occur.
Now that we are in a genuine pandemic, and many more people are paying attention to `flu stories’, we need to be particularly cautious when it comes to automatically accepting `breaking news’ stories as being true.
If these stories appear legitimate, we should report them of course. But we shouldn’t be too quick to embrace them or use them to to prove a point or promote a pet theory.
Until corroborated, all `breaking news’ stories should be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism.
I try, as much as is possible, to restrict news reports in the blog to those that come from `mainstream media’ sources or from legitimate government agencies. That may be no guarantee of accurate reporting, but it does improve the odds.
As an aside: My primary goal as a blogger is not to interject my opinions (after all, who cares?) but rather to try to provide some rational context for the stories that appear in the media and when possible, a reality check in an agenda driven world.
Whenever I do express an opinion, or offer speculation, I try to clearly label it as such.
Meanwhile, I would urge all of my readers not to be too quick to jump on the latest news reports (or any rumors you hear) as we go through this pandemic.
Some are going to be misleading, and others may be completely false. And even oft reported `factoids’ appearing in mainstream news stories can be wrong.
Admittedly I use a very subjective editorial filter when it comes to the stories I print. I don’t try to cover every flu news story that crosses the wires, instead I prefer to highlight stories that interest me, or I feel I can add some value to.
I would remind my readers that Flu.gov, maintained by the HHS, is the best site for official flu information from the US government. And that my essay on Reliable Sources in Flublogia will give you a pretty good idea of the people, and media outlets, I trust and turn to for information.
In closing, I’ll just remind my readers of two words that get mentioned in this column a lot. Even if you read it here:
Caveat Lector.
