The media and the virus

There is no subject that can claim to enjoy a settled status. The depth and degree of division in the views about the subject, including what is core to it, varies among subjects but is true of every subject, including its methodology and standards of proof, with some debates arising out of such lack of unanimity even acrimonious. It is very rare that much of these trickles down to the ‘lay public’. This is true of medicine and public health too. The more esoteric the subject, the more distant are the lay public.  How many members of the public would be informed of what causes pancreatic cancer and what are various view on the subject? In fact, even within the medical community, not everyone interested in research on cancer will be well informed on all cancers, for the simple reason that the community has a tough time keeping up with the research in its own well-defined area. Rarely do they venture outside their chosen areas of research. It is simply a matter of time and efficiency.

The tempting field

The virus, to a great extent, would have been sailing in a similar boat but for the fact that it has affected the entire globe at the same time. Unlike some other epidemics, which happened to some people somewhere, Covid-19 happened here and now, everywhere and at the same time. It was going to result in a mass media interest and not restricted to scientific journals. Rather than take time to evaluate all relevant information before making any pronouncements, we have seen just the opposite.

The great American author, Arthur Miller, once said that a great newspaper is a nation talking to itself. Without laying blame at anyone’s quarters, we must accept there has been a colossal communication failure. For all the coverage of the information about the virus, the media has forgotten one essential aspect: there is a highly competitive environment for the production and distribution of knowledge and each institution and researcher or teams of researchers are vying to be seen as the fountainhead of researched knowledge and insights. Just do a simple search to read about the number of surveys, field and laboratory studies and research papers made available to the mass media since the outbreak of Covid-19.

Without casting aspersions on anyone, I can safely say that situations such as the one we are living through offer opportunities for scientists working in exclusive fields to speak to a mass audience through mass media – print, TV or social media. And there is a certain pleasure (and challenge) in reaching out to a wider audience but this can easily be misused to push through some agenda. Not to mention the number of interviews conducted with researchers from universities and research institutions apart from pharmaceutical companies. Marketing is an inevitable part of today’s research environment, whatever the subject be.

Informed media: Communicating the complex and contrast

The point is that even amongst the scientists – virologists, immunologists, epidemiologists, public health professionals, technology professionals – there has been not just lack of unanimity but sharply polarized views. The media, whether aware or not of this crucial dimension, is in the midst of this battle for supremacy, albeit played out occasionally in public. The media is normally defined as occupying a neutral space so that it can faithfully report all views in a spirit of democracy so that people can decide for themselves. But becoming an outlet for completely contradictory views without any analysis and evaluation is harmful. I remember ‘News Analysis’ used to be a regular feature in the print media but haven’t seen it in a while. Neutrality can be at home with persistent questioning.

One of the lessons of the pandemic is the need for an informed media, a media that is willing to question even those considered the world’s foremost expert on a subject, especially when there is significant and serious differences of views among acknowledged experts. And consequences for public behavior and policy. That is possible only and only if the media informs itself of at least the leading research work and its critics. If necessary, the media should resort to a practice embraced by the courts who bring an ‘amicus curiae’ – a friend of the court – who helps the court by providing information on questions of law or fact. Someone from the relevant discipline who can help the media distinguish between the wheat and the chaff. And who doesn’t have an agenda!

I think it is time to introduce a Masters in Science Journalism in India which can prepare students for a career in writing on science and scientific matters including health. You don’t have to be a genius to realise that there will be plenty of scope for such a career. Good knowledge can drive out false ‘knowledge’ but you need to give it a chance to be in circulation!

Takeaways

Competition amongst institutions to be seen as knowledgeable

Proliferation of surveys, studies, research creating a mind-boggling volume

Media is not equipped to sift through such output

Media can be equipped through a course in science journalism