Are media exaggerating coronavirus threat?
A few years ago during an Ebola outbreak, the media were rightly accused of stirring up unnecessary fear, even hysteria. As news is disseminated about the coronavirus, are media once again unnecessarily exaggerating an international viral outbreak?
First, a bit of history. Media Matters and others blamed the media for creating undue anxiety during the 2014 Ebola outbreak. “A (2014) Rutgers-Eagleton poll of New Jersey residents found that 69 percent were at least somewhat concerned about the deadly disease spreading in the U.S…Poll director David Redlawsk cast an eye of blame on the news media. “The tone of the coverage seems to be increasing fear while not improving understanding,” Redlawsk told a reporter. “You just have to turn on the TV to see the hysteria of the ‘talking heads’ media. It's really wall to wall. The crawls at the bottom of the screen are really about fear. And in all the fear and all the talking, there's not a lot of information."
The examples of overblown coverage included CNN, which invited onto the network a fiction writer who wrote an Ebola thriller in the 1980’s to hype unsubstantiated fears about the transmission of the virus…On Fox News, Elisabeth Hasselbeck demanded that we put the country on lockdown, banning all travel in and out. Fox host Steve Doocy suggested the CDC was lying about Ebola because they’re “part of the (Obama) administration.” Fox also promoted a conspiracy theorist who claimed the CDC was lying when they cautioned people not to panic.”
How does this compare to current coverage of the coronavirus?
A small study by the Center for Global Peace Journalism using the news database Nexis Uni shows that media coverage has largely been hysteria-free. Between Jan. 20 and Jan. 28, the study maxed out at 10,000+ hits for stories containing the term “coronavirus.” Of these, only 375 stories contained the terms “coronavirus” and “pandemic”; 637 “coronavirus” and “crisis”, 501 “coronavirus” and “panic”, 569 “coronavirus” and “precautions,” and 44 “coronavirus” and “wildfire.” Thus, only a small percentage of stories contained any potentially inflammatory language. Even when those terms did appear, an informal perusal found that many were used neutrally (“not a pandemic”, “a crisis only in China”, etc.)
Contributing to this measured, responsible reporting was an editorial in the Kansas City Star on Jan. 29 whose title says it all: “Potential coronavirus case in Lawrence is a reason for caution—but not panic.” It quoted a Kansas City public health official who said he’s more worried about panic over the virus than the virus itself.
The danger of needlessly inducing panic would thus far seem to come from online misinformation. According to Poynter, “An army of at least 48 fact-checking organizations from 30 countries has been working since (Jan. 24) to debunk false information about the 2019 novel coronavirus. So far misinformation regarding the launch of a miraculous vaccine has been the largest trend, followed closely by a huge amount of fake data about the source of the fatal illness. Conspiracy theories come in third…For example, in the United States, Lead Stories, Fact-Check.org and PolitiFact debunked dozens of erroneous. social media posts…”
Debunking misinformation, coupled with responsible reporting by traditional media outlets, is essential during the virus’ outbreak, especially given that 74% of Americans are either very or somewhat concerned about the virus spreading into the U.S. (Morning Consult Poll, Jan. 27). These opinions run counter to those of the CDC which says the risk of the virus spreading to the U.S. is low.
Media and their fact-checking cousins need to keep debunking misinformation about the coronavirus while they continue to provide perspective while not provoking panic.
A few years ago during an Ebola outbreak, the media were rightly accused of stirring up unnecessary fear, even hysteria. As news is disseminated about the coronavirus, are media once again unnecessarily exaggerating an international viral outbreak?
First, a bit of history. Media Matters and others blamed the media for creating undue anxiety during the 2014 Ebola outbreak. “A (2014) Rutgers-Eagleton poll of New Jersey residents found that 69 percent were at least somewhat concerned about the deadly disease spreading in the U.S…Poll director David Redlawsk cast an eye of blame on the news media. “The tone of the coverage seems to be increasing fear while not improving understanding,” Redlawsk told a reporter. “You just have to turn on the TV to see the hysteria of the ‘talking heads’ media. It's really wall to wall. The crawls at the bottom of the screen are really about fear. And in all the fear and all the talking, there's not a lot of information."
The examples of overblown coverage included CNN, which invited onto the network a fiction writer who wrote an Ebola thriller in the 1980’s to hype unsubstantiated fears about the transmission of the virus…On Fox News, Elisabeth Hasselbeck demanded that we put the country on lockdown, banning all travel in and out. Fox host Steve Doocy suggested the CDC was lying about Ebola because they’re “part of the (Obama) administration.” Fox also promoted a conspiracy theorist who claimed the CDC was lying when they cautioned people not to panic.”
How does this compare to current coverage of the coronavirus?
A small study by the Center for Global Peace Journalism using the news database Nexis Uni shows that media coverage has largely been hysteria-free. Between Jan. 20 and Jan. 28, the study maxed out at 10,000+ hits for stories containing the term “coronavirus.” Of these, only 375 stories contained the terms “coronavirus” and “pandemic”; 637 “coronavirus” and “crisis”, 501 “coronavirus” and “panic”, 569 “coronavirus” and “precautions,” and 44 “coronavirus” and “wildfire.” Thus, only a small percentage of stories contained any potentially inflammatory language. Even when those terms did appear, an informal perusal found that many were used neutrally (“not a pandemic”, “a crisis only in China”, etc.)
Contributing to this measured, responsible reporting was an editorial in the Kansas City Star on Jan. 29 whose title says it all: “Potential coronavirus case in Lawrence is a reason for caution—but not panic.” It quoted a Kansas City public health official who said he’s more worried about panic over the virus than the virus itself.
The danger of needlessly inducing panic would thus far seem to come from online misinformation. According to Poynter, “An army of at least 48 fact-checking organizations from 30 countries has been working since (Jan. 24) to debunk false information about the 2019 novel coronavirus. So far misinformation regarding the launch of a miraculous vaccine has been the largest trend, followed closely by a huge amount of fake data about the source of the fatal illness. Conspiracy theories come in third…For example, in the United States, Lead Stories, Fact-Check.org and PolitiFact debunked dozens of erroneous. social media posts…”
Debunking misinformation, coupled with responsible reporting by traditional media outlets, is essential during the virus’ outbreak, especially given that 74% of Americans are either very or somewhat concerned about the virus spreading into the U.S. (Morning Consult Poll, Jan. 27). These opinions run counter to those of the CDC which says the risk of the virus spreading to the U.S. is low.
Media and their fact-checking cousins need to keep debunking misinformation about the coronavirus while they continue to provide perspective while not provoking panic.
No comments:
Post a Comment