Aurora Comms Blog

Swine flu cyberpandemic

Posted on 01. May, 2009 by phaedrus in Communications, Health, News, People, Web 2.0

As broadcast and print news report the steady movement of swine flu around the globe, the outbreak of online coverage, mainly in the form of blogging, is spreading at an even faster rate.

I can understand why this news story is one that the online community has taken up in this way. It is an ongoing story with new developments every day, it affects ordinary people and it fulfils the irrational human trait of morbid curiosity with the unfamiliar and the frightening. Additionally, the professional press are also contributing to these public fears.

But is this dissemination of citizen journalism alongside mass media coverage of such an issue a good or a bad thing for society? Should we challenge the mass media handling of swine flu and does the nature of web 2.0 exaggerate the potential dangers of irresponsible ‘reporting’? Twitter has gone swine flu mad in recent days but what are the readers of the microblogging website making of it all? It depends on the capacity of the average consumer to digest and analyse this information and respond to it appropriately. Additionally, we must be aware of differences in interpretation of news, depending on its source.

Those who control the mass media could take the stance that the public need protection from this sensitive issue to avoid mass hysteria or mob mentality reactions. In the case of swine flu it seems they are not taking this approach and the effects of all the media coverage on the world population will unfold accordingly. Public reactions to the BSE ‘crisis’ in the 90s arguably harmed the agricultural industry needlessly and the media may be held partially responsible for that. Although eating pork cannot pass on swine flu, some unforeseen adverse societal effect from over-inflation of the potential dangers of this issue may result from media attention, and I wouldn’t be surprised by news of falling pork sales either. We have witnessed that the British public love a good media scare to overreact to. We’ll be queuing outside petrol stations before any conclusive reporting reaches us, just to ensure we are personally prepared.

So can the public be trusted with information about public health issues like swine flu or does it just evoke fear and provoke rash decisions? “How dare you!”, I hear you say, and I agree the withholding of relevant news under the guise of public protection sounds a bit like the action of a totalitarian state in denial. However, although as an individual I demand to know everything the government knows, I can see the benefits of withholding certain information from a public lacking in specific expertise and prone to impetuous reactions. Instead of racing down to petrol stations amid fears of fuel shortages, will everyone be locked away at home this time, blogging about their fear of contracting swine flu? Since the World Health Organization has raised the issue to pandemic level five, Mexico has actually started a five-day shut down and advised people to stay at home.

As anecdotal evidence of careless journalism and public overreaction, a colleague observed two young people on a tube train one morning this week reading the front page story on swine flu in the Metro and gasping at the desperate situation it indicated to them. Although it was evident that the person reading aloud (for any nearby commuters to hear) was misunderstanding the explanation of the possibility of a pandemic, they were both convinced the report was conveying imminent danger. Unfortunately there are probably many daily news consumers reacting in this way and spreading their contagious misconceived fears.

But who can blame them with descriptions of “danger” and “worry” over this “terrible virus” ready to “explode”, forthcoming from the papers. Surely it is words and images like these that are driving people to tweet incessantly about swine flu and blow it out of proportion. In turn, the high concentration of swine flu tweets proliferates fears on another level as consumers gain ‘community spirit’ in their reactions to what they read. Indeed, tweeters may argue that the democratic nature of web 2.0, through which potentially every human (with internet access) can have their say, is conducive to balanced and thoughtful reporting and therefore representative of some higher truth than print and broadcast news.

Critics of the (over)use of web 2.0 communication channels may argue that the unaccountable authors of every tweet and blog post are unconsidered and flippant at best, and inaccurate and fear-mongering at worst. And, of course, where are they getting their information or their general impression of the issue? Invariably from the mass media, who are making a big enough sensation of swine flu themselves. Alongside conventional media, web 2.0 increases quantity and accessibility of ‘news’ and is more likely to harbour extreme views and melodramatic, reactionary public opinion.

The media treatment of swine flu may be frightening some people but the media would defend their position by saying that they are taking the initiative to convey potential risks to the public. Their assertive input has arguably led to increased safety measures being put in place and to the stepping up of government and NHS preparations. For example, a quick and effective advertising campaign has already been launched and the government’s crisis response committee, COBRA, have been active in tackling the issue. However, healthcare services (such as NHS Direct who have been receiving very high call volume) have complained that they are dealing with a panicked public as a result of media hype and misrepresented risks.

Awareness of risks and worst case scenarios is beneficial for assessment of global health issues. Equally though, global health risks are delicate issues, especially in the public domain, and are to be presented as accurately as possible so as to gently inform people of possible eventualities through balanced reporting on the available scientific and epidemiological data. Accordingly, we must remember, when berating media handling of swine flu that epidemiological data is the available resource for predicting global trends and is not being presented as capable of infallible predictions. What must be strived for is recognition of this infallibility in reporting that the public accept and can understand. Perhaps the definition of ‘risk’ as a potential outcome needs to be spelt out for some health news consumers before they regurgitate information as more threatening than it really is through popular and unregulated communication channels and harmful overreactions ensue.

To wrap up this post, I conclude that we should be aware of the potential dangers of certain applications of web 2.0 communication tools, especially when highly sensitive issues are laid bare for all to comment on. Although giving the public a voice is positive in theory, the side effects of mass citizen journalism beginning to occupy such a prominent position may be negative. The unnecessary proliferation of fear surrounding a health issue such as swine flu is an evident risk with unknown consequences. To combat this, diligence and responsibility must be exercised by both professional and amateur journalists who are also conscious of the nature of news flow in the digital age.

It may sound obvious but the crucial thing about the internet is simply that it exists, and it is here to stay. The music industry is having to deal with that fact, and identity theft and bank fraud police have their work cut out to stay one step ahead of online criminals. The recent advent of the Google hypochondriac was an inevitable effect of online health information and the surge in swine flu discourse may provoke inappropriate reactions in the near future. But this won’t go away. More news stories will break and be distorted by this new and unfamiliar news machine, and consequences may be surprising and difficult to deal with. There is no outright prevention or cure.

But this is not a hopeless situation, it is a challenge. If irresponsible and ill-informed ‘journalists’ are dispensing harmful information, it is the job of responsible, well-informed experts to engage in the discourse and counter the damage being done. On this count, a report yesterday of doctors.net having their online say is encouraging. There is an increasing amount of false information available to the public on important health issues, but the truth is out there and, when told with conviction by true experts, it will surely shine through. In the case of swine flu, step forward Professor John Oxford!

Tags: public health, Social media