How to bust myths & curb panic — a 6-point guide for journalists covering coronavirus

There’s been a flood of information about coronavirus, with social media easing the proliferation of rumours. It’s a battle journalists have to fight.

A Delhi bus is disinfected to prevent the spread of COVID-19 | Suraj Singh Bisht | ThePrint

New Delhi: Reduce panic. Stick to hard facts. Bust myths. Collaborate with other journalists. Don’t get carried away. Epidemic scholars and seasoned healthcare journalists have issued a series of advisories and guidance for mediapersons covering COVID-19 as the pandemic continues to ring alarm bells around the world.

There has been a flood of information about the coronavirus pandemic, with social media easing the proliferation of rumours and misinformation (no matter the shares on that viral post, drinking lots of water is unlikely to flush out the virus). 

At such a time, the job of journalists becomes harder as they seek to emphasise the urgency of the situation while mitigating any possibility of unnecessary panic. So, here’s what experts suggest the media should do to get the COVID-19 story right.

Stick to cold, hard facts

In an essay for Scientific American, professors of epidemiology (branch of medicine dealing with diseases) Bill Hanage and Marc Lipstich argue, “Good reporting and science have to distinguish legitimate sources of information from no end of rumors, half-truths, financially motivated promotions of snake-oil remedies and politically motivated propaganda”.

In order to do so, they suggest breaking down the information available into three categories: A) what we know is true B) what we think is true C) opinions and speculation.

According to the scholars, the most sought-after COVID-19-centric information lies in the second category — as these are “fact-based assessments that also depend on inference, extrapolation or educated interpretation of facts that reflect an individual’s view of what is most likely to be going on”. For example, what is the extent of transmission outside China? No one has an exact answer yet but figures from different countries can offer a rough estimate.

Be a myth-buster

In the times of social media, when tweets can go viral in minutes, journalists find themselves on the frontlines of fighting fake news every day. 

Writing for Poynter, professor of journalism Al Tompkins had an interesting suggestion for journalists looking to bust myths on coronavirus, especially regarding prevention.

“I thought how interesting it would be to travel about my day, even for a few hours, alongside an expert in virus prevention and let them document the many ways I may have exposed myself to my germy environment,” writes Tompkins.

Other advice from Tompkins includes avoiding the use of adjectives such as “lethal” and “deadly” for the virus. “Stick to cold hard facts,” he says.

Don’t rely on one expert

Given that research regarding COVID-19 is still at a very nascent stage, scholars and journalists advise approaching a large number of experts when you are required to interpret new information.

“When reporting on new health topics such as the COVID-19, which experts worldwide are scrambling to understand, it’s a good idea to interview multiple researchers,” says Bill Hanage, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard in this Journalist’s Resource piece.

“Call four or five independent scientists. If they all say roughly the same thing, then that’s really worth something putting in your reporting,” he added.

The International Journalists’ Network (IJN), a mediawatch organisation set up by the Washington-based non-profit International Center for Journalists (ICJ), says, “Once you identify an expert, interrogate their biases and don’t take their work at face value. Not only does this help, you understand their worldview, it also strengthens your story.”

State the numbers right

Journalist Caroline Chen, who has previously covered major epidemics such as Ebola and Zika and witnessed the SARS outbreak first-hand while growing up in Hong Kong, has vital advice for journalists when it comes to reporting figures and projections.

For instance, “mortality rates”. “The mortality rate is an awfully squishy number that’s being reported as if it’s a stone-cold fact,” Chen writes, pointing out that this figure is often only derived from laboratory-confirmed cases, a technique that tends to leave out patients who couldn’t access tests.

Journalists citing this figure should always mention that the rate depends on “reported cases”, as the World Health Organization (WHO) does. The mortality rate for coronavirus is not just 3.4 per cent — it is 3.4 per cent of reported cases.

Taking another example, Chen suggests it might be misleading to talk about the number of “testing kits” the government plans on introducing. A better approach, she says, is to focus on how many individuals can avail of the tests.

Don’t ignore less-exciting stories 

Many journalists with experience covering disease outbreaks stress the need to focus on “less-exciting stories”.

“Focus your efforts on answering your audience’s questions. Use Google Trends to better understand what type of information people are looking for, and then produce quality content they can turn to in order to find answers,” advises IJN.

Emily Baumgaertner — the medical reporter for the Los Angeles Times — says this means journalists might need to write a full-page story on washing hands. It’s OK, she adds. 

Collaborate, don’t duplicate 

Dan Gillmor, who works at the Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, advises a fundamental overhaul of how media functions during times of pandemics.

He argues that there is an urgent need for major media houses to collaborate and constantly work towards creating a “public good” — rising above simple reportage and helping the fight against COVID-19. Moreover, he stresses that collaboration is necessary to ensure resources are not wasted in the duplication of stories.

“There might have been a time, back in the days when the journalism business was making monopoly and oligopoly profits, when this vast duplication of effort would have seemed sensible,” he says. “Today, in a time of dwindling resources for journalism overall, it is insane — and a vast disservice to the public.”