Virus in the Media

Media coverage of the Influenza AH1N1 pandemic is easy.

Easy, because there’s a direct source of information, the Department of Health and its constant updates. The World Health Organization also figures prominently in news wires for a global perspective to this constantly-mutating story.

The H1N1 virus threatens lives and productivity. And because it is of utmost importance that any information on the novel flu is cascaded, the DOH seeks out the media. It’s the other way around with regular news stories where media pursues sources for information.

The H1N1 pandemic also opens to a myriad of other stories such as school suspensions, shortages of flu medicines, masks or hand sanitizers, and the frantic airport body checks and segregation.

There’s also the ever-convenient “vox populi” where (lazy) reporters just piece together public opinion or reactions to H1N1 developments, and bingo! Another news story is born!

Unlike usual news reports where details are essential, H1N1 stories do not need to contain substantial information on the patient for humanitarian considerations. A largely misinformed and panicky public can be judgmental, subjecting the afflicted and his family to discrimination. Hence naming the victims “Patient A” or “Case X” will do, like a blind item.

But covering H1N1 stories has its attendant challenges.

The virus is an elusive and unfamiliar subject. Very little is known about its behavior hence journalists run the risk of giving partial (or even outright false) information obtained from health experts who also know little about the new flu.

It is equally dangerous if these bits and pieces of half truths are woven into a news story. News media after all, is not in the business of rumor mongering.

Damn if we do, Damn if we don’t.

Reporting on the H1N1 virus is a public service to warn people and teach them how to avoid it. That’s why H1N1 stories come with a tone of “grave” concern and “dead” seriousness. But in so doing, journalists also unintentionally cause panic or fuel widespread paranoia (which only benefits pharmaceuticals with brisk sales of face masks and flu vaccines that may not really prevent H1N1).

If media downplays the story, the public will be less cautious, which is more disastrous in the end. With each story, journalists need to strike the balance between giving caution and passing accurate information.

The H1N1 count continues to rise and with the flu considered “mild”, health experts say some people may have actually caught it (and recovered from it) unknowingly. Undocumented cases would hence make current H1N1 figures in RP very understated.

That’s why more than just keeping count it is the greater task of media to make sense of these figures, and tell the public what the ever-changing statistics means.

It’s a tough job but someone’s got to do it!

Journalists come into direct contact with patients making them vulnerable. Come to think of it. The microphone, the tape recorder (or the mobile phone, in some cases) are a “cesspool of germs” catching the interviewee’s “breath droplets”.

News teams spend hours in hospitals (or morgues) covering this developing pandemic. They travel to places where the virus is rampant, and blend with infected communities.

How long do you think would it take for the virus to conquer newsrooms? Is it inevitable for news teams to bring the virus home to their loved ones?

Those are the risks every journalist takes, to tell this flu story.