The Radio-Television News Directors Association website posted an article by RTNDA chairman Stacey Woelfel, reflecting on the high school class clown who did an oinking and squealing routine whenever anyone mentioned swine flu back in 1976. He doesn’t hear oinking today but, rather, “the sound of hundreds of reporters beating this story to death.”
Woelfel writes:
“The rampant coverage stems from the fact we’re in a good, old-fashioned arms race. That’s right, an arms race just like the ones the U. S. and the Soviet Union were having back when Gerald Ford was getting his swine flu shot. But the current arms race doesn’t have anything to do with out-nuking each other. It has to do with the escalating competition between media outlets to grab an ever-shrinking audience for our product. I must give credit to Robert Frank and his terrific book The Economic Naturalist for opening my mind to the current arms race scenario. Frank describes the race in economic terms, focusing on why businesses do what they do—even it seems illogical. That illogic is, I believe, at the heart of our swine flu crisis. We fight to do more and more on this mostly-trivial disease because we fear our competitor will have more than we do. But what we miss is that our audiences are laughing at us every bit as hard as I did when Ken Kosciulek (his old class clown classmate) started his pig noises.
Should we end all swine flu coverage? No. But our goal should not be to have the most coverage—just the best. And best may include not covering it at all when there’s nothing new to report. At least put the current news in context. I’ll risk mentioning another book all news directors should read. Pick up a copy of Barry Glassner’s The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things. Even though the book’s now ten years old, it still speaks to our role in frightening the American public for no good reason. Again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t cover stories that might be a little scary. But we should put those scares in the context of the odds—the odds of catching swine flu, the odds of dying from it, the odds you’ll even know you have it. That gives the audience a fighting chance to decide just how important the story is and to make an intelligent decision to tune elsewhere when they tire of it.”
If only RTNDA and its chairman and its website and its terrific code of ethics seemed to make any difference with its members! Sadly, that often doesn’t seem to be the case on journalism ethics issues – and certainly not regarding shoddy coverage of health news stories.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like