No wonder there is such hysteria…

By Andrew Baker

Although I can only base my feelings about the swine flu off of anecdotal and first hand experiences, I don’t really see it as any more threatening than Influenza A, a more common type of flu. Having had swine flu and lived through it I don’t feel particularly fortunate, like I snuck through the death trap that is H1 N1. I don't really feel like it's THE DREADED, TERRIBLE, AWFUL, DEADLY thing media outlets seem to be painting it as. Don't get me wrong, people are dying from it, but most of us have little to worry about (other than the ickiness of being sick).

However I can see how some people are beginning to feel so alarmed. The yesterdays’ media coverage of the swine flu out break beginings may lead some like myself to throw around scary words like fear-mongering, sensationalism, hysteria, and even chaos. This article from the Times may be my favorite example of such sensational reporting. This week’s news from the Washington Post and New York Times isn’t much different. But maybe one of the most interesting things about the outbreak is how it has opened up another discussion of “Is the government doing enough?” I don’t know the answer. I’ve had swine flu and lived through it to write this blog. But here’s a discussion between David Fidler, a professor at Indiana University and online readers of the Post that may add a little bit more to your understanding.

One thing is for sure, politics has not been entirely left out of the media's reporting on H1 N1. Stories like the Post's are all over broadcast news and commentary shows as well as the blog-o-sphere. What I want to do is – once again – take a critical look at what the coverage of the swine flu pandemic looks like this week. For reference, I’ll be referring to the links above.

What they got right

• The Post in particular does a great job of putting forward a source on the issue of epidemiology and health care in their published dialogue on government action (I’ll touch this point a little more below).
• I found the Post story about Tamiflu shortage to be very well written with a particularly engaging lead. This makes me wonder if it was also a part of their print copy for the day.
• This isn’t breaking news, but the Times does a very thorough job of reporting for the city of New York; good sources, good facts, good reporting.

Toss up

• Both of these outlets (excepting the online discussion from the Post) take a decidedly anecdotal voice in there reporting in their stories. All use parents and common individuals to help tell the story of the dilemma common people are facing. I call this a toss up because it is an important side of the story but anecdotal “infotainment” tends be looked at disapprovingly in some circles.
  

Where they missed the mark

• As I mentioned above, one of my biggest knocks about the coverage of pandemic disease is the hysteria it creates in individuals. By framing these stories in different ways (schools, medicine shortages) the Post and Times continue to pervade the public with H1 N1 worry.
• As much as David Fidler may know about global health, he is simply not an authority on politics. In one answer to a question specifically about the politics of government provision of vaccines, he provides a good answer but one that should be looked at in particular (the question is from Washington D.C). This seems to be an example of media in general prancing out experts that may not actually be able to address the question as well as someone else. Granting them some leniency because of financial and other constraints, I would have preferred to see a panel.
• Some information should just be left out of a story. In particular, I mean the second paragraph of the Times article. If there is no city-wide figure, why say that the number is “between 5 and 50 percent of parents”? Seems like kind of a rough estimation to me.

As you can see, the media doesn't really do many favors when it comes to reporting on pandemic disease, short of providing the basic information. With H1 N1 in gerneral they seem to be looking at it more and more through the lense of government response to the out break. What with vaccine being delayed, then arriving, then having problems, then being delivered again, it starts to make you wonder if this will be President Obama's Katrina (that is another discussion entirely). One thing is certain, infotainment is still lying just a few lines below the lead.

(photo credit: allword-news.co.uk)

Hey, Supreme Leader, your disregard for human dignity is showing!

By Andrew Baker

Sometimes injustice comes cloaked in a shroud of false evidence and hear-say. This time it slapped us across our collective face. According to an October 10^th New York Times article, the Iranian government plans to execute 3 citizens that were arrest amongst many others for protesting Iran’s June 12^th presidential election. Go read the Times article here . I didn’t know the fate of those mentioned in the story at the time I drafted this but I can be sure that what they are being executed for offends one of the most important tenants of a democratic government, the free ability to dissent and protest. American’s tend to be suckers for a good revolution – it’s a part of our national identity. Our political restlessness has to be at least a contributing reason for the amount of coverage this event received over the summer. We saw compelling images of young people peacefully demonstrating in the streets. Some were beaten or shot to death by Iranian “peace keepers.” Four months later we finally hear something about the fate of those that stood up. I want to take a critical look at the story mentioned above from the Times - see how they did at reporting this matter that should be close to all American’s hearts

What they got right

• To my knowledge they were the first to report on this issue (maybe its just cause I get their RSS feed) and they provided their readership with a good piece of reporting.
• They also gave a really detailed account of the status of the remained incarcerated.
• Because getting the truth from state media in Iran can be a real stumbling block, they seem to have done a pretty good job of getting perspectives from other sources – I’ll touch on the short-comings of this later.
• They seem to do an effective job reintroducing the importance of the issue at hand by reconstructing the events of June.

Where they missed the mark

• Even granting a little leniency, some of the sources the Times uses don’t hold up to the smell test. One being a “Reform-aligned website” another being an unnamed Iranian government official.
• Some of their reports aren’t backed at all by identifiable sources; namely, the parts of the article that mention abuse to inmates seem to lack some clout.
• I don’t mind as much that they provided the American perspective on the issue, again a function of lacking sources close to the situation. But if they are going to show the American perspective (Amnesty International) they should have at least tried to obtain comment from at least one official in the Obama administration. I think it could have strengthened the story.

Although not an exhaustive list from a media expert, I hope this provided a little depth to the issue. I’ll try to provide some type of critical evaluation of news reports on important issues throughout the life of the blog.

(photo credit: vimooz.com)

Mission Statement

The focus of our discourse will be centered around the affects of media on politics and vice verse. However, we also hope to provide critical evaluation of reporting practices and hope to give some meaningful analysis of how these current events will affect our political climate. We hope to maintain a standard of post-partisanship and contribute to the blog-o-sphere in a meaningful way; to mature the public discourse instead of standing idly by as it continually slides into petty bickering and name calling. Through our conduct we hope to, at least in a small way, change these red states and blue states (and the attitudes there within) to Shades of Purple.