As Tuesday morning dawns in America there are “journalists” busy at work trying to leverage your fear into readership which translates to ad ratings. Let me explain to you what I mean and then encourage you to see through their attempts, thereby avoiding unnecessary concern or panic.
First, yes: our nation is attempting to minimize the impact of COVID-19 on its populace. According to THIS SITE, the United States now has had 4,744 confirmed Coronavirus cases. There are reportedly 4,577 active and 167 closed cases. This is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the sensationalism I’m talking about here:
That site shows 167 closed cases. 93 of the cases resulted in someone dying while 74 cases show someone recovered. The site shows 4,577 active cases with 4,565 being reported “mild condition” and 12 being classified “serious or critical.” Looking at all those numbers there are two different headlines I could craft and two different ways I could create an article about the numbers.
Option One: “More Dead than Recovered from COVID-19” Yep. That would be an accurate headline. It would surely draw lots of readership and generate mass hysteria (like we’re seeing in too many places now). If all I wanted to do was generate high readership, increase the website’s ad revenues and increase returns with a promise of “on-going updates,” that would be the route to go. It would also be irresponsible in my opinion. It would propagate more unnecessary panic behavior which does no one any good and potentially hurts my fellow law enforcement professionals.
Option Two: “Less than 1% of Current COVID-19 Cases Reported Serious or Critical” That would be the second headline and it’s completely accurate. With far less than 1% of the cases in the “serious or critical” category (actually 0.002622% - less than three per thousand infected) the information provided would be accurate and informative, but it wouldn’t be likely to draw repeat readership. It wouldn’t support or induce panic. It wouldn’t generate numbers that boost ad ratings. Of course, it also wouldn’t add to the number of people hoarding frozen food and toilet paper either.
What I’d like to encourage you to do is at least recognize when a ‘news’ article you’re reading is sensationalizing the topic. I’m going to use a syndicated news piece from our site as the example. In this article, “As Coronavirus Spreads, 7 San Francisco Bay Area Counties Ordered to Shelter in Place,” originally published in the LA Times and posted on our site via our syndication subscription, the authors have chosen words that lead readers to a specific mental image. “Shelter in place” is what we do with our children in schools now during an active shooter event. It’s a life-saving response to a deadly situation. Those people sheltering in place are in fear of immediate harm or death due to an imminent attack. That’s one heck of a bleak and scary image to have attached to a medical health article, right?
The very first paragraph ends with, “…a move that will close virtually all businesses and direct residents to remain at home for the next three weeks.” Wow. That’s a strong response. ALL businesses will be closed? People have to stay home and not go out at all for three weeks? Sounds like we’re nearing the end times. But wait…
Later in the article it’s revealed that residents can leave their homes for essential needs and, “all but essential businesses and public services would be asked to close.” Now the “shelter in place” doesn’t sound quite so horrible. So, what exactly is allowed to stay open during this “massive” shut down? Only public safety services, hospitals, grocery stores, gas stations, banks, pharmacies and restaurants that service take out or have delivery. Isn’t that most of the places you’d need to go day to day just to live your life in some ordinary fashion? What’s actually being closed (or asked to close) are bars and restaurants, movie theaters, etc.; places that are largely recreational in nature and that we can surely live without for a brief period of time, with little to no inconvenience.
That’s one example of how a story can be “spun” to sensationalize it, but if you read through the sensationalism and look for the actual facts that might be included (or might not) then it’s not as bad as was originally represented.
Let me give you a second example. I’m a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment. In the past few days it’s no secret that many governmental entities – states, counties, cities and towns – have enacted a State of Emergency. That usually requires whatever top level government executive to sign an order declaring such. For states that’s the Governor. For counties it’s usually a County Executive. For cities and towns it’s usually the Mayor.
In one city in Illinois a Mayor signed such executive order declaring a state of emergency and several ‘news’ outlets wrote stories about how she’d “given herself” the power to ban the sales of weapons and alcohol in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The articles were carefully crafted to make it sound like she had not only given herself this power – just assuming it without cause or legal justification – but that she’d actually banned those sales at the same time. Then, when you read the actual facts, all she did was sign the order placing a State of Emergency into effect. The previously existing law regulating her powers during such a State of Emergency says the mayor has the power, if necessary, to ban the sales of weapons and alcohol.
Well, let’s think about this for a minute: She didn’t give herself those powers. She signed a necessary order to put the State of Emergency into effect. First, few would argue that need as it opens availability of resources needed for the responses used. Second, the mayor didn’t write that law or sign it into effect. The powers granted in that emergency powers law for her city were put in there by a city council and previously sitting mayor (as far as we know). Third, she hasn’t used those powers to ban the sale of weapons or alcohol… so what’s the big deal? Oh, she MIGHT…
The bottom line is that there is no need for panic. Panic breeds nothing but irrational action. On the other hand, it feeds the ad revenues of all media and that’s good for their business. The mainstream media is the ONE source of information that will never let a good crisis go to waste. Read between the lines. Seek out the good information underneath all of the colorful rhetoric that does no one any good. And, better yet, don’t repeat and share the sensationalism. Talk calmly and comment rationally where you see it.
