Media Fail: Scare Tactics and Swine Flu

As much as I'd love to write a serious blog about politics, the Mayday marches and immigrant rights, or the military's torture tactics (sorry!), I have to take this week off to rant about media sensationalism and the current near-pandemic affecting us all. That's right, together now, say it with me: swine flu!

I first heard of this contagious, dangerous, terrifying outbreak from my mother. (Apparently she's a much better at this than I am...) She cautioned me of how quickly the disease was spreading and told me not to go out unless absolutely necessary. I laughed it off, but was soon swarmed by USC emails, news headlines, and video clips telling me just what my mother had told me hours earlier: Run for the hills! Swine flu is near!

Not to make light of the situation, it is a serious matter that has (allegedly, since nothing is proven yet) killed over 80 people and affected over 1,000, a relatively small number considering the 6 billion people that currently inhabit the world. It's not a pandemic, but fear of it's spread has caused the word 'pandemic' to spread like wild fire. What should be a pandemic? Maybe HIV/AIDS, currently afflicting 33 million people? Or maybe the regular flu, which kills thousands per year but receives less media coverage? Or maybe even diabetes, which kills one in every ten people in the UK, a number that may rise to one in every eight by the year 2010?

If there is one thing the media is good at, it's scaring people. Today on the CNN homepage, there were a total of seven headlines pertaining to the deadly "swine flu" virus, days after the number of infected people has begun to dwindle. Many of my friends began to feel light-headed and reported flu-like symptoms after seeings news reports depicting people all over the world wearing face masks. Common use of the words "epidemic," "pandemic," and "fear" are indeed scaring people more than necessary, and while it is the media's duty to report and warn the public of potential harm, it is also their job to not over-sensationalize serious and otherwise un-sensational news.

One of the headlines on CNN.com was a story about men and women who survived the flu pandemic of 1918. Roy Braswell, currently 100 years old, responded saying "I know it's bad, 'cause I had it."

Was interviewing someone who has been alive 100 years and who I'm sure has bigger concerns than the short-lived swine flu pandemic really necessary? Most people haven't in fact had it, but the media has made sure that even we, the ignorant majority, know how bad it is.

This also started a global cultural battle as people in Israel began calling the swine flu "Mexico flu," since their religion prohibits the consumption of pork and pork products. Called the swine flu because of similarities to a previous flu outbreak caused by pigs, this outbreak has not been found in any pigs in Mexico or anywhere else. However, finger pointing continues to plague countries everywhere, and conspiracies of bio-terrorism have even begun to be the subject of many news articles.

While I understand the possible severity of this outbreak, I continue to believe the media is on a desperate mission for ratings. There are more pressing illnesses than the swine flu, illnesses that deserve more media attention and publicity. The swine flu indeed affected less than 10% of those in contact with already infected patients, including family and friends. It's spread was hyped. It is not a pandemic. It is not a bio-weapon. If you are reading this, chances are you are not infected with the swine flu. But because I feel the urge to end this blog dramatically, I will quote Margaret Duchez, a 94-year-old survivor of the 1918 flu pandemic in her interview with CNN.

"My life is in the hands of God. Why should I be afraid?"



1918 flu survivors share memories as research continues
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/04/flu.antibodies/index.html

World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html

Swine flu and the dramatization of disease
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6615/

Diabetes UK
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/