I read a lot of Ebola coverage this week. There was an outbreak in fishing village in Sierra Leone, violence broke out in Guinea as children returned to school, researchers from Montana found that the virus can survive for up to seven days in a dead body, Liberian officials reported that $3.1 million in Ebola funds are missing, and the CDC released a report on Dallas' county's response to the Ebola outbreak last fall.
The tone of many of the articles I read included some frustration on the part of experts. It seems doctors and other health care professionals and government officials are concerned that Ebola is becoming less of a pressing issue for people. But, doctors are warning that the disease will continue unless the number of victims drops to zero.
This is my first week using a Google Alert, so I'll get a better sense of the volume soon, but it seems that there are about 10 news articles a day on Ebola. The main players such as the New York Times, NPR and ABC show up, but there are also many smaller outlets running articles on the Montana study, for example.
All of the articles I read this week used an expert frame. The Detroit Free Press picked up an AP video/story that included an interview with a local Red Cross worker. He lamented the fact that local families believe all the rumors and don't trust the experts; however, the reporters did not include any interviews with local families. Many of the articles include sources such as doctors, donors (Paul Allen) and responders (Red Cross, WHO, Liberian government). It would have been nice to have read a story that included a voice of someone who had experienced Ebola first- or second-hand. I did read a lot of stories on the New York Times about the burial teams, children who recovered and families torn apart, but this week didn't see any coverage like that.
The word that really stuck out to me this week was in the New York Times story about the missing $3.1 million in Ebola funding in Liberia. The sentence read: "The country of six million has had almost 11,000 Ebola cases and 3,363 deaths during the epidemic, which has raged in West Africa for nearly a year." I like the use of the word "rage" here. It's strong and effective and characterizes the tenor of the epidemic.
I didn't see much of a social response on the stories this week. Not even the NYT article had a comment.
My own response to these articles is that the epidemic is still a great threat, but the level of panic in the U.S. and around the world seems to have lessened. I wonder how this will affect coverage. I think it'll result in fewer infographics, less in-depth reporting and more stuff on the wire. It also seems like people will rely more on the expert frame, like I saw this week, and that people on the front line will continue advocating for more assistance. They will continue sounding the warning beacons, but the question is: Will people listen? Will they take a proactive or reactive approach and only throw money after it's too late?
The tone of many of the articles I read included some frustration on the part of experts. It seems doctors and other health care professionals and government officials are concerned that Ebola is becoming less of a pressing issue for people. But, doctors are warning that the disease will continue unless the number of victims drops to zero.
This is my first week using a Google Alert, so I'll get a better sense of the volume soon, but it seems that there are about 10 news articles a day on Ebola. The main players such as the New York Times, NPR and ABC show up, but there are also many smaller outlets running articles on the Montana study, for example.
All of the articles I read this week used an expert frame. The Detroit Free Press picked up an AP video/story that included an interview with a local Red Cross worker. He lamented the fact that local families believe all the rumors and don't trust the experts; however, the reporters did not include any interviews with local families. Many of the articles include sources such as doctors, donors (Paul Allen) and responders (Red Cross, WHO, Liberian government). It would have been nice to have read a story that included a voice of someone who had experienced Ebola first- or second-hand. I did read a lot of stories on the New York Times about the burial teams, children who recovered and families torn apart, but this week didn't see any coverage like that.
The word that really stuck out to me this week was in the New York Times story about the missing $3.1 million in Ebola funding in Liberia. The sentence read: "The country of six million has had almost 11,000 Ebola cases and 3,363 deaths during the epidemic, which has raged in West Africa for nearly a year." I like the use of the word "rage" here. It's strong and effective and characterizes the tenor of the epidemic.
I didn't see much of a social response on the stories this week. Not even the NYT article had a comment.
My own response to these articles is that the epidemic is still a great threat, but the level of panic in the U.S. and around the world seems to have lessened. I wonder how this will affect coverage. I think it'll result in fewer infographics, less in-depth reporting and more stuff on the wire. It also seems like people will rely more on the expert frame, like I saw this week, and that people on the front line will continue advocating for more assistance. They will continue sounding the warning beacons, but the question is: Will people listen? Will they take a proactive or reactive approach and only throw money after it's too late?
No comments:
Post a Comment