So, I am going to look at a couple of different statements. This is one from "How do People React in a Pandemic?":
"If it is a pandemic wave causing mild disease and low
death rates, research on people’s reactions to the risk of infection,
possible death and a more severe outbreak provides important guidelines
for journalists covering this story."
And this one, from "Covering Risk":
"The most powerful way to get people to take precautions is to mobilize
and increase outrage."
What I see here is the looping, cyclical nature of this reporting, that there is an attempt to increase outrage, while then reporting on the reactions of those who have potentially been 'outraged', which would then be another (passive) attempt to further increase outrage.
In these statements, the stated intent of this outrage is to get people to take precautions... certainly a good thing.
I will also consider though that both with the recent Swine Flu and previous SARS incidents, there never was a true pandemic, such as the Spanish Flu of 1917, but there was certainly a 'media pandemic' and a highly profitable venue for pharmaceutical interests.
Here is the tricky part then. How do we effectively report on a pandemic to maximize public safety while also protecting the public from interests to profit off of a potential (or real) health crisis?
Part of the answer here, from "Coming to Terms with Uncertainty":
"Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch, a voice of research and reason in
the preparedness debates of the past decade, explains how multiple
sources can help balance uncertainty"
Reporting from multiple sources is key, so that the public can be both aware of potential health crisis and potential malicious intent to 'create' a health crisis.
You need to be a member of Urgent Evoke to add comments!
Join Urgent Evoke