Swine feeding frenzy

Swine Flu. It's "dreaded", it's "deadly", and it poses a danger to you and your family.

Or is this not even remotely the case?

I put quotes around "dreaded" and "deadly" because that's how swine flu has been described by both local and national TV newscasts, national and tabloid print, and radio. But is what's being reported actually a clear picture the facts of the flu outbreak? A look at mortality figures for this and other diseases proves it may not be, and that the tone of the reporting isn't warranted.

Thousands die in New York City every year from the simple flu strain that comes back, year after year; thousands of New Yorkers in the five boroughs. How many New Yorkers have died from swine flu so far? None.

So far, the numbers we've seen from Mexico don't indicate that swine flu is a deadlier disease that many others - heart disease isn't thought of as a pandemic, but it kills millions more in the U.S. than all strains of flu combined. Somehow, heart disease doesn't inspire the kind of media pile-on that epidemics such as West Nile Virus and Monkey Pox did. Do you remember the coverage from those "deadly" diseases? Do you remember the devastating outbreaks that followed their appearance here in the U.S.? Of course you don't; they never occurred.

I do not mean to downplay any potential danger from swine flu; it may prove a difficult opponent and an intractable disease. However, the coverage has been terribly overblown, and the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz notes the media's tendency to feed upon itself in his column today.

Clearly, there's reason to report this news, but, when an expert is quoted in one piece as saying, "We issue several health emergencies every week; take basic precautions," and the reporter framing the piece uses words and phrases like "deadly", "shocking", "terrible" to describe the disease, and "afraid for their lives" to describe the parents of schoolkids in the same report - then there's clearly an editorial judgment taking place to hype the danger.

Having had my executives at Audubon talk to the media about West Nile Virus during that outbreak several years ago taught me one important lesson in dealing with epidemics. Coverage of disease outbreaks too often depends upon heat, and if expert has light to offer, they will either be ignored, or their information is more likely to be used in context that neither benefit viewers and readers nor your expert.

I feel offering my client who is very knowledgeable on pandemics to the media now would contribute to the bonfire that's feeding on itself. His useful information and sane perspective will just get lost in the flames...