Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010
 |  Follow Newser on Twitter   Friend Newser on Facebook   Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds   Subscribe to Newser emails Newsletters

OFF THE GRID

Don’t Shake Hands With a Mexican

Apr 28, 09 | 8:06 AM   byMichael Wolff
Get posts from Michael Wolff via email (Sample)

Follow him on Twitter @MichaelWolffNYC

Share
The main subject at yesterday’s White House press briefing, which I dropped in on, was swine flu. It seems safe to say that, prior to the moment the story broke last Friday, none of the reporters who were asking about swine flu knew anything about it. Still, they were determined to make it not just big news, but practically Watergate. Somebody actually said to Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, “What did you know and when did you know it…” Who the president might have seen on his recent trip to Mexico and his personal odds of infection were of crisis-level concern.
 
Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of Vanderbilt University’s Department of Preventative Medicine, appeared on CNBC shortly after the story broke and was asked (by a skeptical me) to give the outbreak a 1-10 rating of risk. He gave it a 2 for the public, and a 4 for healthcare professionals. I’d certainly put the media storm at a 7 or 8.
 
We are now at a SARS (remember SARS?) level of coverage, and have well-surpassed Avian flu—quite likely because swine flu sounds much worse. Both are public heath scares that failed to live up to their catastrophic billings.
 

(AP Photo)
 
Everybody loves the story of spreading disease. A fate that’s unlikely to befall you is a bullet missed. For the media, the use of the word “pandemic” is instantly elevating—no matter that, if you think about it, there is a pandemic every flu season (which, a brief search seems to indicate, kills 20,000 to 30,000 mostly old people in the US every year).
 
The problem with this story—and of the SARS and Avian stories—is the media’s inability to properly describe the actual risk levels of a worldwide health crisis. But the fact that the story is untrue, or, at the very least, grossly inexact, does not trouble anyone, because the failure of swine flu to live up to its billing is, of course, cause for cheerfulness rather than opprobrium. You can’t go wrong by over-reporting a plague—even a plague that isn’t remotely a plague. After all, nobody dies of media coverage.
 
I suppose this early and instant attention to swine flu could also be the remedy: The sheer weight of all the attention means the right steps are being taken. Worth noting that in the early years of AIDS, there was next to no media coverage.
 
Indeed, that’s the sinking sensation: We miss the real stories, while we go crazy over the trumped up ones.

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com.
8 comments
VIEWING:
 
2-bits
Apr 28, 09 9:12 AM CDT
Your site has played a good part in this over-reporting Michael. I've never seen the red highlighted text brought out so often. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
Reader60648635
Apr 28, 09 9:22 AM CDT
You obviously missed the point of the questions. Someone who shook the Presidents hand died two days later. What they wanted to know was if the Mexican authorities warned him of the presence of the flu in advance of his coming to Mexico. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
Reader38279345
Apr 28, 09 10:38 AM CDT
Michael's point is well taken: "The problem... is the media’s inability to properly describe... risk levels." And this affects politics - I love that Sen. Schumer had described necessary pandemic prep to NY Post as "porky" - appropriate for schwein flu Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
MeMayer
Apr 28, 09 2:13 PM CDT
Is one of the symptoms of swine flu pork project in stimulus bills? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Reader70623013
Apr 28, 09 4:10 PM CDT
What's with the headline? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
MeMayer
Apr 28, 09 4:18 PM CDT
This comment has been removed by Newser’s community. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
Reader71008590
Apr 28, 09 10:50 PM CDT
Journalists distort facts to sell sell sell their "processed news product"! Yeah, it's very sad. But who's going to bring the ax down on the apocalyptools when all that advertising dough for slankets and sham-wows is making sure your paychecks don't bounce? Wah wah. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
No118
May 6, 09 3:23 PM CDT
Indeed. What's with the headline? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Feb 9, 10 | 7:46 AM

It’s the Sex, Stupid   

Feb 8, 10 | 7:10 AM

For Me, Palin Scores

Feb 5, 10 | 8:39 AM

Politics Has Lost Its Power. That’s Why There’s Gridlock

Feb 4, 10 | 8:07 AM

Rupert Murdoch Is Mad as Hell

Feb 3, 10 | 8:00 AM

Sarah Palin, Inc. Has a Problem

Feb 2, 10 | 12:14 PM

Obama’s Deficit Faux-Hawk

Feb 2, 10 | 8:32 AM

Jenny Sanford, Andrew Young, Gayle Haggard Tell Everything You Always Want to Know About Sex—Other People's

Feb 1, 10 | 8:12 AM

James O’Keefe: What Did Glenn Beck Know, and When Did He Know It?

Jan 29, 10 | 7:02 AM

JD Salinger, and His Way, Are Dead

Jan 28, 10 | 6:57 AM

The iPad Is Political

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS