Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

[Mamabird]

Hi,

With all the media reports regarding H1N1 it is important to be able to identify weak or bad reporting, and those that are simply repeating a public perception message, and those based in hysteria. It is also good to be able to pick out a badly informed government spokesperson, doctor, health department worker.

I have a couple of rules that I use as queues that set off warning bells when I see them in the media or anywhere;

1. Patient went to hospital or doctor and was told they had novel H1N1 the same day. There is a rapid test to identify if a patient has influenza but there is no rapid test that identifies the novel H1N1 strain. Without a clinical test which takes a number of days the diagnosis is a guess and it could be any influenza strain. It may be a reasonable guess, but a guess none the less. So if people are quoted as saying I had novel H1N1 and it was nothing, but did not have confirmed testing of same it could have been anything.
   
2. Any story that indicates the novel H1N1 strain is similar to seasonal flu. Seasonal flu does not cause pediatric death/hospitalizations in the height of summer.
   
3. Any story that indicates the early flu season is a surprise. Anybody simply not repeating knows how different this flu season is and nothing is a surprise.
   
4. Any story that indicates handwashing and cough/sneeze etiquette is sufficient to slowing down the pandemic. Research has shown that handwashing is statisticly insignifigant in preventing the spread of inlfuenza. We all have had the flu and we all know that sometimes sneezes happen to quickly to reach a sleeve or tissue. The only thing that curbs influenza spread is isolation for those not in hospital.
   
5. Any story that indicates that keeping schools open is the safest thing to do. This may be part of the ecominic recovery plan (children in school parents can work), but nobody in their right mind would keep a school open while pandemic raged in the community. With a 40% infection rate and 20% severe complication rate workers will be in short supply during the flu peak in mid October.
   
6. Any story that indicates there will vaccine in place to protect populations. Vaccine protection will only come onboard (two injections, two weeks apart, two weeks to produce antibodies) in Nov-Dec, and then only for small numbers of risk groups. The peak of the influenza season this year is expected hit mid October so the vaccine will be too late.
   
7. Any story that pits official government bodies press releases that are in conflict. A good government speaks with one voice in a crisis, when there are multiple conflicting voices it only sews confusion. Confusion is only sewn to establish plausible deniabiltiy for when things get bad. These sorts of things can appear over days. For example PCAST issued a press release on Monday that the CDC refuted on Tuesday, however the CDC was well represented on the PCAST working group that made the Monday press release. Suspicious.

These are a few that I use and I am sure many of you have others.

Tom

Then about all that is left is the funny papers. Good luck, T.

 

[Mamabird]

Re: Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

Yes most of the mass media is little better than funny papers in getting out good factual information. Media is no longer populated by journalists, but by "repeaters" who fear losing access if they do not repeat what they are told blindly. No hard quesitons, no balance, no factual understandig of what they are writing, no pragmatic research into statements made, simple blind repeating even if it is total nonsense.

That is why it is critical people learn how to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Tom.

Wouldn't it be nice if they could all be like Helen?

 

[mixin]

Re: Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

For my local newspaper, the reporters are often independent conrtactors paid to cover news stories in their towns. There is very little research or investigative reporting done on the story. The editors are usually the ones who find and correct discrepancies.

When I was reporting, we were paid a set amount for a feature story, govt. meeting, fire/police reports, etc. and it wasn't very good pay. I could easily spend 2 hours including the drive to and from the interview, the interview itself and writing the story...for $25.00 before taxes and expenses.

It would indeed be a good thing if they were all like Helen :tiphat:

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

......That is why it is critical people learn how to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Tom.

So what are you proposing?

If every news source had an adequate staff of good well-paid investigative journalist, what would the price of a paper be? Would people pay that price?

Do you think we'd be better off with no newspapers, TV, internet news, etc.?

Personally, I'm going to be thankful that much of the world has a free press, rather than 100% government propaganda machine. I'll do my best to learn a little more about subjects that interest me. I think most people are aware that reporting isn't perfect, and they attempt to filter the news accordingly.

.

 

[mixin]

Re: Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

Reporters see their job as "reporting" what is being said. Nothing more unless the editors see something really out of whack.

They aren't allowed to inject personal opinions or bias (supposedly); although coverage in general can be biased depending on which way the newspaper leans.

You really can't blame the reporters for reporting what's being said, as long as it's done accurately.

Can you imagine if some reporter "re-wrote" a presidential interview based on the reporter's opinion of the topic?

I was told to write to a 5th grade level regarding the style -not- the content. People generally want their news in plain English, to the point, easy to understand.

 

[Commonground]

Re: Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

I probably post one story for every 20 or 25 stories that I read. I do get sick of the repeated info...and sometimes...I do only put in excerpts.

 

[mixin]

Re: Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

Commonground,
I really appreciate it when you do that; I know it takes far more time to read 20 articles and pick out any new info from each one, than it does to just post all 20 articles and make the reader find the little bit of new info.

As for Tom's #7, I'm really glad when both sides of an issue are printed. It gives me the opportunity to judge for myself where the truth lies.

 

[snatamur]

Re: Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

The CDC and WHO are not on the same page right now.
There was a blurb by the CDC on CSPAN "open phones" early this AM, about how everything would be ok if the H1N1 didn't change, and the new warning by WHO about the "new" straight to the lungs, flu.:magnify:

 

[Commonground]

Re: Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

yes, snatamur, who would have thought it would come to pass?

mixin, I'm glad you said that. One never knows....

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Identifying poor media reports or "repeaters" regarding influenza

I probably post one story for every 20 or 25 stories that I read. I do get sick of the repeated info...and sometimes...I do only put in excerpts.

I do the same. I ask myself "is this story going to add anything new or be a further explanation?" If not, I don't post it.

.