Our View-Media should find antidote for sensationalism bug

We rely on the media for everything these days. Whether checking baseball scores or seeing if Lindsay Lohan was partying at some chic New York nightclub, the non-stop information bombardment is readily available via satellite TV, Internet or iPhone. It’s hilarious how people act as if they’ve lost a limb when their BlackBerry goes missing.

This unhealthy addiction can backfire, especially in cases where non-stop media coverage creates hysteria. The latest rage barraging the airwaves and cyberspace is, of course, the swine flu — or N1H1.

At least “Octomom” is getting some time off.

There is no doubt that this new influenza needs to be covered by the media. As of Sunday, msnbc.com reported that U.S. cases jumped to 226 and as many as 30 states had reported presence of the disease. Cal State Long Beach even had a scare last week when a student living on campus was diagnosed with a “probable positive” case of the swine flu, which turned out to more “positive” than “probable.”

It is problematic when people do nothing but watch CNN for seven days straight, waiting in horror for the bottom to drop out.

A common cliché in the media is, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Deaths are a forceful headline and will compel people to read or watch it. The swine flu, much like the O.J. Simpson trial or the SARS epidemic, involves lives being lost and will, therefore, propel news sources to overly report on the matter.

This is why we must not saturate our brains with the non-stop news attack! Of course, it’s important to be aware of what’s going on, but it’s vital to get back to that spreadsheet or communications presentation once you’ve informed yourself about the happenings of the world.

Can you imagine the countless hours we’ve lost at school or work when we’ve obsessively researched sensational stories on the Web instead of finishing tasks?

It is important for the media to report news in a responsible way. While most media outlets have been fairly responsible in their reporting of the potential pandemic, there have been countless examples of sensationalized headlines and scare tactics used merely to gain readership.

Take for example the headline from The New York Times that read, “Standing Shoulder to Shoulder With Fear of the Flu.” The photo below the headline showed several people holding onto the highest point of a subway pole and all had tense looks on their faces.

In all fairness, the article stated that “although 25 percent of people surveyed nationally said they were worried about getting swine flu, only 4 percent stayed off trains, subways or buses because of flu concerns.”

This information, of course, showed up about halfway down the article, as the old inverted pyramid template advises journalists to put the most interesting information at the top and then trickle down.

There is a better way to cover this issue. Yes, the World Health Organization has advised to avoid crowded spaces, but The New York Times article could’ve been about how New Yorkers who depend on the subway can proactively prevent spreading the disease.

Instead, the writer felt it necessary to use fear tactics in a city that would absolutely shut down if people avoided public transportation.

It is up to both the media and consumers to not fuel the fire of serious issues. After all, it wouldn’t be constantly aired if it wasn’t constantly watched.