Today, my sister got back from a mission trip in Ghana, Africa.
When the news of the Ebola outbreak was spreading last week, she had
been there for about four days. I was immediately concerned and with my
parents being the only ones talking to her, I had no idea what the
current situation was in the community she was in. I had personally
never heard of the seriousness of Ebola, so I searched all over the
internet for information and statistics on the disease.
Since it is easily spread by blood and body fluids, with some people
even claiming it can be spread by a cough, I was naturally worried for
her health. After reassuring myself it was very unlikely for the disease
to spread to Ghana, I was very interested to see how the media
portrayed the outbreak around the world.
Most of the
immediate information I receive regarding updates related to the virus
come from Twitter. I follow WSBTV, so when the American patients were
returning to the US last week and yesterday morning, I could follow
their arrivals very easily. The backlash about bringing the Americans to
Emory has also been present all over Facebook. Because I "like" the 11
Alive news page, many of the top stories appearing on my timeline have
to do with the care of these patients. On these articles, there have
been harsh comments from people around the US responding negatively to
their transfer home. Although I haven't been able to watch CNN live, on
their US online homepage, there is whole section specifically dedicated
to the virus. Whereas, when I went to the BBC homepage, the Ebola
outbreak isn't mentioned once.
Noticing this difference, I
asked my sister today what the reports were like in Africa regarding the
virus. She said that they only knew about the virus from parents
calling their children on her mission trip checking up on them and
mentioning the disease. They would have had no idea that something like
that was spreading if it hadn't been from news from the US. She also
told me: "The only time I remember hearing about it was at an Internet
cafe when these guys were on their Facebook and seeing people with
pictures of it on there".
When I asked her whether it was on
local news or in their newspapers she told me she hadn't noticed it.
Also, she said that when she was waiting at the airport it was the first
time she actually saw live reporting about it, but it was through a CNN
coverage. When I went online to try to find some examples of Ghanaian
media content, two of their TV stations, TV3 and GBC Ghana (government
run news), the Ebola outbreak wasn't mentioned at all in bold letters
like it was on CNN.
Although this is just my sister's account of what she noticed while being over there, I think it does
show the importance we place on media content in comparison to how other
countries do. With our advanced research and the capabilities of the
CDC, I think the emphasis on learning more about Ebola makes sense, but
it also is drastically scaring some of the American public when it
shouldn't be.
I agree with you, Caroline, that we are now more than ever an information-driven (or maybe information-dependent) society, particularly depending on technology as much as we do. I've definitely felt a little out of touch with the world just living here for the past month and not having Internet access everywhere I go. I never realized how much of my news I got from idly scrolling through Twitter (like you, I follow news accounts because it's just so easy to get news that way), and when a big news story comes out, I've found that I'm just as likely to hear about it through other people as through the Internet. That's actually how I heard about the ebola story for the first time. I'm still glued to Twitter, but through my computer for the most part.
ReplyDeleteI also think, though, that this latest American freakout is indicative of how U.S.-centric even our international news coverage is. I'm not saying that there's no reason to be concerned at all, but we've heard about these cases largely because the victims are American and they are being treated in America. It's kind of an international story, but it's also national news. If it were in someone else's backyard, I think our news coverage might be a little more BBC-esque. That's not to say we're necessarily a selfish culture; it's just a fact of news coverage that it's more salient to us the more immediate it is. I also think if the patients were being treated in Britain, we would definitely see a dedicated section on the BBC website.
That being said, I am surprised no ebola stories made their homepage.
I completely agree that we rely heavily on news coverage in our country in comparison to others, especially Ghana. You would think that Ghana would have much more extensive coverage of the story, considering that they are much closer to the source of the outbreak than we are. Regardless, I think that this is a prime example of how the Mean World Syndrome can contribute to agenda setting. News broadcasters know that the public will respond strongly to stories like the Ebola ones, and so most of their coverage time becomes dedicated to that. I also think that cultivation plays a role. In our society, we have hundreds of shows dedicated to doctors, lawyers, and hospitals. Not to mention all of the epidemic movies that come out, showing an apolocypitic society after the outbreak of some man-killing disease. To some extent, I think that events like these give credit in people's minds to media featuring serous diseases. We see these things happening on a screen and part of us wants to think it could potentially happen in real life, giving credit to the beliefs we have formed from the media.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, and like Erin, I too have felt out of touch being over here and not as involved in social media and U.S. news in general. I think that the news media blows some issues out of proportion (the missing Malaysian flight), and that it can be dangerous if the public is reliant purely on the news media for information. It would give the viewers a skewed sense of reality. Unlike you, when I was poking around BBC I found an article on the Ebola virus outbreak on their homepage. However, I did notice that is wildly different than the coverage CNN has given the issue. In the BBC article I felt like it conveyed a calm-here-are-the-facts tone, and did not give the reader a sense of urgency about the Ebola virus affecting them, but in the CNN article I felt a sense of urgency and it seemed to convert a tone of immanent danger. Maybe CNN dramatizes their pieces on purpose, but after comparing this issue to others I have read over here I now feel more hesitant to solely rely on U.S. news media for some issues.
ReplyDelete