Headline Diplomat eJournal – Issue 1, Series 2
The perilous lenses of COVID-19: The sociopolitical impact
Catherine Hamilton, Content Writer, Headline Diplomat, LUDCI.eu, LinkedIn
When the first fragments of coronavirus news slipped through the media sieve, it was presented as a distant – if voracious – threat, which had made its way through China after originating in Wuhan at the end of December 2019.
By March, however, the coronavirus had penetrated Europe, wreaking havoc in Northern Italy, and those living throughout the continent began to feel the first quivers of fear, as we each began to hear of anecdotal horror stories that were siphoned through mainstream media.
Even the most respected channels of journalism reported of patients ‘gasping for air’ as a result of the Italian hospitals’ lack of sufficient resources – specifically, ventilators – which meant that they were unable to effectively combat the coronavirus. The same journalistic outlet described the affected patients as being ‘left to die’.
It is not uncommon for tabloids, newspapers, and other breeds of publication to use emotive language such as this. In fact, it would be difficult to find any article that is completely devoid of emotive, emotion-inducing language, designed to grip and strike a chord in the reader, regardless of the subject matter.
Regarding the coronavirus, it would be fair to say that it would be impossible to find an article which does not – to some extent – manipulate the reader with emotive language, inciting much of the panic, anxiety, and stress which has pervaded the public consciousness since COVID-19 presented itself as a threat.
Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, Professor of journalism at Cardiff University, has studied emotions in journalism for a decade, especially in relation to the coverage of disasters and crises. She describes fear as a ‘shared and social emotion’ which ‘shapes our reactions to ongoing events’.
Wahl-Jorgensen reports that fear has played a huge role in the coverage of the coronavirus outbreak, noting that about 1/10 of articles written about the pandemic use the words ‘fear’ or synonymous words.
The professor also noted that tabloid news outlets were ‘more likely to use fear-inducing language’ such as killer virus, or deadly disease.
In addition to using fear-inducing, emotive chord-striking language, the continuous coverage of the coronavirus – the volume of which has amassed to 23 times more than the coverage for the 2018 Ebola epidemic, according to Time Magazine – has ensured that the public has little room to not think about the virus.
The BBC has devoted 83% of its coverage to information relating to the coronavirus, while a third of the articles from The Guardian cover the topic, and this figure is replicated across news outlets throughout the world.
In such an unprecedented time, there is pressure on the media to produce new reports on the virus every single day, and each day the public is informed of the number of new cases and deaths, keeping the threat on the surface of every individual conscious.
There is immense pressure on the media to report new information on the coronavirus daily, despite the uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the virus. Numerous contradictions and discrepancies have occurred throughout the coverage timeline as a result, leading to public distrust in the media, and causing the public to search for information elsewhere as a result.
The volume of coverage, the fear-inducing language – which grossly exacerbates the severity or ‘deadliness’ of the virus – and the perceived lack of understanding of the coronavirus by health officials and by the media, all contributed to public panic.
Despite the immense impact of the media on the public mind, it must be highlighted that this irresponsible use of emotive language has contributed to an out of proportion panic. Worldwide, there have been less than 4000 deaths from the virus, despite its rapid and far-reaching spread, while there are hundreds of thousands of influenza-caused deaths annually.
The public has collectively developed an addiction to news relating to COVID-19, so scaremongering headlines and emotive language incites a higher number of reads per article, and more sales of newspapers and online subscriptions. By inciting fear, the media is able to increase their audience and, in turn, the profit they make from this public disaster.
Adding fuel to the fire, the existence of social media – which has not been available to previous generations facing a pandemic – has allowed the public to spread rumours and misinformation, while bogus news outlets follow suit.
The result of the media’s constant, emotive coverage, coupled with the public’s penchant for social media discussion, has meant that it has been impossible to avoid the topic, adding to the panic and stress people have felt during this time.
Conclusion:
There is no doubt that the outbreak of the coronavirus incited fear and panic into the population, especially in March when the threat for each country became imminent. Resultantly, the public swarmed to supermarkets, hoarding toiletries and non-perishables, creating shortages across the globe. This does not however take away the media’s responsibility to use their power to educate and inform. In contrast, during the coronavirus outbreak, these outlets have used their influence to spark public panic across all ages and demographics.
Featured photo by Jeremy Bishop, Pexels
