# 4327
In October of 2008 I wrote a blog entitled It's Called A News Medium Because It Is So Rarely Well Done, where I cautioned that a news media unfamiliar with the intricacies of influenza and pandemics could hinder the emergency response and confuse and frighten the public.
Six months later the pandemic of 2009 began, and many of my concerns came to fruition.
While we saw stellar reporting from the likes of Helen Branswell of the Canadian Press, Maggie Fox of Reuters, Jason Gale of Bloomberg, Maryn McKenna – Lisa Schnirring – Robert Roos of CIDRAP News, Betsy McKay of the Wall Street Journal, and Bob Bazell of NBC News (an incomplete list, to be sure) - not everything that was published or went out over the airwaves met their lofty standards.
In fact, a lot of the early coverage was shrill, over-the-top, and verging on hysteria. Particularly reports from the local media and from the usual `tabloid’ sources.
The measured and calm words of Dr. Anne Schuchat and Dr. Richard Besser at the CDC were somehow translated into an impending Aporkalypse by some media outlets.
Now, with the pandemic of 2009 on the wane, and the overall impact less than originally feared, the media backlash (and second guessing of the CDC, the WHO, and other agencies) has become the big story.
Unfortunately, rather than undertaking a serious post mortem look at their own pandemic response, most of the media seems intent on vilifying agencies and public health officials for `fear mongering’.
Were there media missteps by the WHO (World Health Organization), the CDC, and other governmental agencies around the world?
Sure. Although far fewer than I expected.
That happens sometimes when doctors and scientists, who are not used to having their comments `cherry-picked’ for a sensationalized headline, speak to the press.
Plus the release of `worst case’ numbers early in the outbreak (see UK Told To Brace For Up To 63K Swine Flu Deaths and The PCAST Plausible Scenario) both fed the media mania. Numbers that are now being used to beat up officials since they did not come to pass.
Of course, it is the duty of every government to prepare for the `worst-reasonable-case’ scenario. The worst case doesn’t happen often – but when it does – you have to be ready.
- The choice then becomes – do you keep these worst-case scenarios and preparations secret, and only release rosy estimates to the public?
- Or do you own up to what your agency or government is really preparing for, and hope the public and the press is mature enough to handle the concept that the worst-case rarely happens.
Most people would be outraged by any agency exercising option number one. Yet today many in the media are going after officials for taking the second route.
Talk about a no-win situation.
Much of this `hype and gripe’ by the media is by design. It’s a formula that sells newspapers and draws viewers to websites and TV shows. It drives the news cycle, and can feed the beast (provide news content) for long after a crisis ends.
Cynical, yes. But effective marketing, and unlikely to change.
But some of the less stellar coverage of the pandemic of 2009 came about simply because news gatherers, writers, and reporters knew very little about the subject.
In October of ‘08, six months before the pandemic started, I wrote:
Today it may seem an unimportant issue. A pandemic, to many of these newsrooms, seems like an unlikely and distant event. But the next pandemic will likely come at us quickly, and not necessarily from the direction we expect.
It may not even be bird flu.
And reporters, whether they are ready or not, will be thrust into the limelight and expected to cover the event.
Prophetic words as it turns out. But we got lucky, the novel H1N1 virus wasn’t as virulent as the 1918 or bird flu virus. That luck, however, may not hold forever.
Now, before the next crisis appears, would seem a good time for government agencies like the CDC and the HHS to find ways reach out to news writers, bloggers, and reporters to help them understand about some of the complexities (and the science) behind dealing with emerging infectious diseases.
That kind of background would go a long way in improving the quality, and tone, of reporting during the next health crisis.
It is perfectly possible to report on, discuss, and put into context difficult subjects like pandemics without resorting to hyperbole or sensationalism. And during the next public health crisis that could prove invaluable.
For dozens of examples of how it can be done, check out Reliable Sources In Flublogia.
A few free seminars for local reporters won’t turn local news people into ace science reporters like Maggie Fox and Helen Branswell, but a little public outreach and education now on the local level could pay big dividends later.
