This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Ebola in the news
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
At the risk of breaking the rule of never picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel and paper by the ton (referring to the news media), in our opinion, much of the early coverage of Ebola in the United States was disappointing.
The Ebola outbreak is a horrendous occurrence and truly a challenge to the health care system in the US and the world. It also presented the opportunity for ill-conceived communication and often misinformation by the news media and social networks. Television and talk radio hosts particularly became fixated on the story. The amount of coverage increased to the point that some national television anchors felt it necessary to ask for comments from multiple “experts,” politicians, political appointees, and even political strategists. Many of these individuals answered questions or gave opinions in areas way beyond their qualifications. In addition, some bona fide experts made statements that certainly, at best, seemed ill advised even though true. A statement such as, “Respiratory spread is possible or we can’t exclude it,” while true — because virtually anything is possible — led to headlines stressing the dangers of respiratory spread, which did nothing but add to the panic. A much better answer would have been, “There is no scientific evidence that respiratory spread occurs.” Between us, we have observed many serious outbreaks of new diseases over the years and cannot remember the extent of second-guessing and uninformed opinions getting headline news such as occurred with Ebola. Criticisms of the public health response too often occurred from those same politicians who caused cutbacks in the public health infrastructure. One thing that has changed over time is the growing prominence of Facebook, blogs, Twitter, and other social media, and the plethora of email “news” from questionable sources and the accompanying perceived need for television to keep up with these sources with “breaking news” and harping on a topic ad infinitum. These are instant, as opposed to the former more thought-out, now less read, print news.
While some of the opinions from nonexperts may occasionally have merit, many were cringe-worthy. Statements such as, “We should close the Mexican border to prevent Ebola from entering the US,” and, “They say all it takes is direct contact to get this. If you listen carefully, they say being three feet from someone is direct contact. That’s not what most Americans think is direct contact,” became headline news. Talk radio hosts made comments like, “There is not a sane reason to take 3,000 or 4,000 troops and send them into a hot Ebola zone without expecting at least one of them to come back with Ebola, unless you want to infect the nation with Ebola.”
Keith S. Kaye
The medical reporters for the major newspapers and the medical experts for national television networks usually got it right, either because of their own expertise or because they checked reliable sources. The more political outlets tended to bend stories to make points that were attractive to their audiences.
Helen Branswell of The Canadian Press is a respected medical reporter who carefully researches anything she prints. This is her paraphrased response on ProMED-mail as to where she found reliable news about Ebola:
- The World Health Organization is crucial for up-to-date information.
- ProMED-mail is critical for trying to keep on top of things.
- The Journal of Science (Science Journals) has some of the best English language science writers on the planet, and they are particularly strong on infectious diseases. The full stories appear weekly in the journal, but they put things up quickly on Science Insider.
- Dr. Richard Besser was an acting director of the CDC at one time, and is now chief health and medical editor at ABC News.
- Follow Kai Kupferschmidt, a science writer, on Twitter; he’s phenomenal. It’s hard to follow Ebola on Twitter right now because it’s moving so fast, but this is a good place to start.
Unfortunately, not all reporters were as careful.
In addition, two authorities that in our view acquitted themselves extremely well were Drs. Anthony Fauci and William Schaffner. Not only are they knowledgeable, but they were circumspect in what they said. The major damage that Ebola will do in this country will be to cause undue fear and anxiety that can result in ill-advised, knee-jerk decisions made under the rubric, “out of an abundance of caution.” The 21-day quarantine decision in the states of New York (quickly reversed) and New Jersey may turn out to be a good example of such an unwise precipitous reaction. Voices of reason like Fauci and Schaffner help bring sanity.
Donald Kaye
The most frightening outbreak that the older of us personally lived through in the US as physicians was the Asian influenza A(H2N2) pandemic of 1957-58, which killed about 70,000 Americans. Early in the epidemic, young, apparently healthy adults were dying of rapidly progressive pneumonia; it was later recognized that many had underlying rheumatic heart disease or pulmonary disease. There was fear among the public, and initially there was no vaccine for caregivers who were being exposed to a respiratory virus. However, unlike the US Ebola “epidemic” with its two cases acquired thus far in the country, there was little of what we see today of medical reporting that is often more political and sensational than it is factual.
What we as ID specialists can do is stick to the facts and best scientific information available when we are interviewed. At times, a microphone or recording machine brings out a tendency to say too much and render opinions that are subject to misinterpretation or overinterpretation. Perhaps the best advice is that given by lawyers — answer the question and then stop talking.
For more information:
Donald Kaye, MD, is a professor of medicine at Drexel University College of Medicine, associate editor of ProMED-mail, section editor of news for Clinical Infectious Diseases and an Infectious Disease News Editorial Board member.
Keith S. Kaye, MD, is a professor of medicine and corporate director, department of infection prevention, hospital epidemiology and antibiotic stewardship, Detroit Medical Center and Wayne State University, and an Infectious Disease News Editorial Board member.
Disclosures: Kaye and Kaye report no relevant financial disclosures.