News (Media) and the 'Cry Wolf' Syndrome
jonparadise
Posts: 6,054 Forum Member
✭
It was interesting to see a Doctor on BBC News this morning acting rather shocked that the vast majority of the general public think the whole Swine Flu thing is media hype.
The presenters also looked concerned in a 'how could they think that' kind of way.
Now I fully understand the need to inform the public about potential danger, fair enough, but I think the whole situation was summed up for me on Saturday night when I flicked between 2 news channels.
The BBC were running a 'oh, actually a lot less people have died than we thought, and it's actually less dangerous than normal flu' story.
Meanwhile on Sky they had a huge graphic of a nasty bug spinning around on the screen, showing how you should wash your hands, informing us of emergency transport measures, and telling us we weren't covered by health insurance.
Two completely different takes on 1 story.
Just the fact we are on this forum means we probably tend to view a few different news sources rather than get it from one place. Whereas the vast majority of the public still consult just one source for their information.
It seems we have been through this so many times, each time the media gets away with total sensationalism and use the old 'well it might have happened' line.
Does that excuse alarmist rhetoric and sensationalism? No.
It occurred to me that one of these days something really awful is going to happen, the media will warn us but because they're such drama queens and have led us down the wrong path so many times, we'll all decide it's not true.
The presenters also looked concerned in a 'how could they think that' kind of way.
Now I fully understand the need to inform the public about potential danger, fair enough, but I think the whole situation was summed up for me on Saturday night when I flicked between 2 news channels.
The BBC were running a 'oh, actually a lot less people have died than we thought, and it's actually less dangerous than normal flu' story.
Meanwhile on Sky they had a huge graphic of a nasty bug spinning around on the screen, showing how you should wash your hands, informing us of emergency transport measures, and telling us we weren't covered by health insurance.
Two completely different takes on 1 story.
Just the fact we are on this forum means we probably tend to view a few different news sources rather than get it from one place. Whereas the vast majority of the public still consult just one source for their information.
It seems we have been through this so many times, each time the media gets away with total sensationalism and use the old 'well it might have happened' line.
Does that excuse alarmist rhetoric and sensationalism? No.
It occurred to me that one of these days something really awful is going to happen, the media will warn us but because they're such drama queens and have led us down the wrong path so many times, we'll all decide it's not true.
0
Comments
Which leaves us in the "crying wolf" scenario. If the general public become inured to the warnings, does that then increase the risk of one of these infections turning into a "Survivors"-style pandemic?
K
There is also the tendency of the public to confuse an effective defence with a scare story.
If a succesfull effort is put into preventing swine flu having a big effect, the sceptical public will say it was a scare story. Its what happens when ill-educated people have access to too much information.
IMHO 'snot ;)right
Why moan about the dreadful state of TV news though? Nobody is forced to watch it and alternative, higher quality news services are available. They are called newspapers and they are available on line or in the original paper versions.
As for news from a TV, I suppose teletext is enough for the basic facts for anyone in a hurry.
Don't make me laugh! Newspapers are just as guily, if not more so, of overhyping issues - including swine flu.
Haha, I was with you till this. How can you possibly think the newspapers are better?
Depends which papers you mean. Papers are pretty much divided into broadsheets and redtops.
TV news is going the way of the worst redtop newspapers with their sensationalism, gimmickry and simplistic news items. Both Sky and BBC.
I do know it's early to judge on swine flu (as to if it will spread) but that's not really my point.
Of course the media should report it, but it's the way they report it, with the sensationalism.
They don't report the facts and they cause alarm.
As I mentioned earlier, a ruddy great spinning graphic of a virus strain taking up 3/4 of the screen while the presenter says 'And TWO MORE' people have contracted it in an 'oh my god we're all going to die' voice. They may as well go the whole hog and create a bug character like you get in the toilet cleaner adverts and have it dribbling and screaming at the screen.
They also leave out all the facts. Yes, two more people have been identified, but they're presenting nothing more than a bad cold. 'They're doing well' makes it sound like they're in intensive care!
The sad thing is that they don't seem to realise that broadcasting comes with a huge responsibility - both for the intended consequences (informing the population) and the unintended ones (causing panic, mis-information and falling foul of out innate difficulties with understanding risk).
At least with these medical hypes, there is relatively little "hangover" from hyped reporting. With the credit crunch, I'm not so sure - I suspect a proportion of the down-turn is the responsibility of the media.
http://www.cafepress.com/moneygeddon
K
But what's happened is that the likes of sky have ramped it up to hysterical levels. Yes people have sadly died from the condition and there are confirmed cases in the UK.
These facts should be reported, yes we should be aware of this but and this is a bloody big but we should be not be panicked and I believe very strongly that the likes of BBC and Sky are doing this whether advertedly or inadvertedly.
Say what you like about the government but in this case I feel they have selected the right tone in dealing with this ie warning but not panicking. It's a pity the news organisations haven't done the same.
Hopefully swine flu will be dealt with soon and the necessary steps will be successful but for the sake of sanity lets not get wound up about it.
If anyone was offended by my use of "bloody" then i apologise.
I totally agree with that.
The BBC is very prone to hype and scaremongering over negative stories I don't believe most of the crap they come out with.
And yet they seem to be less "scaremongering" than other new providers over this one.
As to the people who are suggesting its less damaging than normal flu, why don't you go and tell the WHO experts that - who clearly don't agree with you. It's less dangerous but requires emergency use of anti-viral drugs?
For instance, day one hundreds of people had died, then a week later it was down in the tens.
Last week, 'normal' flu killed 5000 people. That's what I mean by perspective. People avoiding public transport, wearing face masks and locking themselves in their own homes is a result of the media giving the wrong impression.
Unfortunately so much 'news' now is what might happen, rather than what has happened.
Watch the next news bulletin and you'll see that most stories have the words 'could' and 'might' in the opening words.
In the Swine Flu context. The responsible way to approach it would be to say 'xxx people have died, xxx have been infected, but at present only have mild symptoms.' Then, and only if it worsens, should the FACTS of what has happened be reported, not some doctors scary opinion on what the worst possible scenario is.
Instead we get, 'it COULD spread ALL OVER THE WORLD' , 'it MAY be a PANDEMIC like the one where MILLIONS of people DIED'.
Sky's News wall with it rotating virus graphics reminds me of the Dustin Hoffman film Outbreak.
That in itself could give rise to all sorts of panic.
This will sound sad but I yesterday I came across BBC Parliament's showing of the 1979 election being preceeded by a Nine O'Clock news bulletin.
I wonder how the likes of Richard Baker and Kenneth Kendall would have covered this or something similar.
Guess what ? We're all still here. Funny ol' world innit ?
Last week he was the prophet of Doom saying we were heading for major problems..
he just said 5 mins ago on sky news 'we have to question whether the goverment did the right thing sending out leaflets when the flu season is all but over'...last week he said it was a great idea because 'without doubt we are heading for a pandemic'..