THIS is not a commentary on the coronavirus outbreak, or related health emergencies in the past. It is about journalism, and the reportage of health, on the scale currently experienced.
What this implies is rumination, reflection, thought and action. With crises in mind, the action becomes the thought itself. Hence, to begin with, we ask some fundamental questions the likes of: What is health crisis reporting? Why do health reporting stories appear as they do?
As such, we are talking about perspectives, and more than one. Just as there are many perspectives on the concepts and the practices of the journalistic media, there are certainly more than one perspective in suggesting the entire process of reporting a health crisis — that of the genre of news, opinions and commentaries. What does information about health mean as it is being transmitted through the news media?
As we may have observed and experienced, within a given political, economic, social and cultural milieu, the media work to create and reinforce specific images of the world that surround both themselves and their audience. Even in health crisis reporting, the media rely on certain stereotypes, based on their cultural and social values, to create a picture of the world to their audience.
Should the reportage of science, health and medicine take place without culture? Cultures are specific; and universal at the same time. We need to make segregations. Cultures need not necessarily understand a phenomenon in terms of a crisis. In modern times, health and medicine have been elevated to a position that was once the province of religion and art. The role of medical knowledge and information about health reflect their importance at various levels of societal existence.
One could speak of the intellectual as well as the sociological levels. Health and medicine are seen as objective knowledge, the sources of that knowledge as emanating from the objective dimension of science and technology. A crisis in health destabilises man’s definition of himself. But what is the larger picture? One cannot assess the issues of health crisis in isolation. A health crisis is also cultural, political and economic. We can begin with climate change.
In recent times, news of global warming, more specific climate change, has become indicative of the seriousness of what is to come. A climate shift evokes a crisis of cosmic proportions conjuring both of (the Sanskrit) atman, referring to the individual consciousness in the soul, and of the (Greek) atmos and sphaira, referring to a celestial substance occupying a given space. It is borderless and transcending.
Health crises impinge upon a logic leading to how the rate of climate change is accelerating. Its consequences, as we are seeing, could become increasingly disruptive to our geography, history, culture, economy and society. A simple line of argument is that oceans will warm and glaciers will melt, causing sea levels to rise and salt water to inundate low-lying coastal areas, causing human migration, in turn moving pathogens and their transmission. A simpler one would be tourism.
But more directly, climate change, as projected more than a decade ago, would double the number of deaths related to heatwaves by this year. Prolonged heat can increase smog and the dispersal of allergens, causing respiratory symptoms, boosting the frequency and intensity of floods and droughts, causing drowning or starvation, damaging crops, contributing to food shortages and malnutrition. Entire populations are displaced.
And what has appeared is a crisis of emerging infectious diseases (EID) such as HIV in humans, Ebola in humans and gorillas, and Avian Influenza in humans and birds, and now the new coronavirus. We are witnessing a long evolutionary history, of migration, new arrivals and habitation. Any initiative by the media and members of the profession of journalism has to take a long-term view in conceiving crises not as episodes in human history, but as continuous occurrences, common and not rare.
And EIDs are not rare. Their management in terms of information and media must inherently include anticipating a problem, not responding to a crisis.
The reportage of health and the crises emanating thereof is different than other forms of reportage — like covering politics, business or sport. Accuracy is not paramount. It is an obligation. Being accurate is not sufficient.
Journalists have a responsibility to mirror a society’s needs and issues, comprehensively and proportionally. A health crisis is not only the spread of the disease, but its cure. News of a therapy, or the discovery of a new drug must be investigated. There could be possible conflicts of interests among sources of health information and those who promote it. Such conflicts may not be readily apparent.
Investigations must look at possible links. Interested parties would conveniently appear in times of crisis — researchers, public institutions, government agencies, private companies, advocacy groups, and professional organisations. And, of course, public policies.
To fail to identify possible links render journalists unwitting mouthpieces for incomplete, biased and imbalanced news and information. In times of crisis, the role of the journalist is not to become advocates for causes. But for management of information in its contexts.
The writer is a professor at the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation, International Islamic University Malaysia and the first recipient of the Honorary President Resident Fellowship at the Perdana Leadership Foundation
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times