Analyzing News Media: H1N1 and the Dynamics of Fear

The first pandemic since 1968's Hong Kong Flu, H1N1 became the subject of national discussion in the US during early 2009 (Blippitt.com). As a matter of global concern, mass media was left to decide how such a pandemic would be framed within the predefined structure of news media. This essay will seek to explore the ways in which the media has covered the virus, specifically as it relates to the rhetorical framework of fear-driven reporting. Lastly, a case study in organizational response will be presented regarding the reporting and framing of the H1N1 virus.

American news media is heavily oriented toward an entertainment style of broadcasting. Given this method of delivery, news media is forced to juggle audience interests with ethical reporting in such a way that news remains entertaining/engaging without the integrity of the content being compromised. This is especially true in terms of medical reporting, as the subject matter lends itself to a sense of reflexive sensationalism, with reporters overstating medical concerns and emergencies for their ratings' sake.

An examination of search density as performed through Google Trends reveals that public interest in the H1N1 virus can be accurately approximated as hitting its peak during the early part of the second quarter of 2009. By browsing the archives of the media during the top peak month (May, 2009), one finds a neutrality in terms of reporting style (sans the constant death tolls, projections, and panic-inducing titles mentioned later) as at this point media organizations were still struggling with the framing of this issue. Words such as "pandemic" had been mentioned, but currently not enough solid information existed to appropriately articulate a rhetorically precise response.

However, moving into the month of June, one begins to see a pattern emerge. Phrases such as "deaths rise," "infected countries," "spring up" begin to see the story shift from one of basic information to one of immediate danger. It becomes common for specific death tolls to be reported directly into article titles, along with city names, emphasizing the supposed endless reach of the virus.

The framing of such a growing global virus was especially of concern in negotiating the perceived reputations of the various news media. Fox proclaims, "We report, you decide." CNN has the voice of James Earl Jones reassuring listeners nearly every commercial break: "CNN. The most trusted name in news." MSNBC avoids slogans in favor of personalities, trotting out figures such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, inviting the audience to be reassured by the presence rather than the slogan.

The H1N1 virus provided a unique opportunity to examine audience responses to the various outlets. Given the mostly non-political context, individuals would be more likely to tune in for quality of information and organizational trust than mere political affiliation. Running a global search on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC in connection with "H1N1" shows CNN being searched over three times as often during any given period, seemingly affirming their claim to being the "most trusted name in news."

After being officially labeled a "pandemic," mainstream news media began approaching the subject similarly to the way in which one reports a natural disaster. Discussions regarding cures/vaccines were generally limited until late July, with the majority of focus being on prevention. Such prevention focus would serve to both re-instate a sense of fear and encourage the audience to engage with H1N1-related texts at a higher rate, given that these sources positioned themselves as the authority on personal flu prevention.

Interestingly, the fact that H1N1 has accounted for over half of all flu cases since 2006 (Center for Disease Control) is entirely ignored in favor of treating this virus as a new threat. Such framing allows the issue of time to become a major factor, as most media outlets began employing a sort of underhanded "ticking bomb" scenario. As with most disaster scenarios, once the public began showing a lack of extreme interest due to saturation, the issue of vaccination became much more apparent.

Such framing could arguably be best described behavioristically. While media effects are hotly debated, the relevance of television texts and contexts in relation to the audience's conscious and unconscious responses are usually not. Marketers realize the psychological effectiveness of both capitalizing on fear-driven emotion and controlling the audience's negotiation of this information through a low availability heuristic in terms of media diversity. The reality of tone and framing directly correlating to audience response can be seen in the survey conducted by a group of researchers regarding fear-inducing messages. Research showed a direct correlation between a fear-inducing tone (angry tone) and audience action (Alberts, p.48).

This issue of fear-framing brings to the forefront the larger component of rhetorical dimensions and construction. Taking for instance soundtrack, one can literally hear the difference in target demographics between television news broadcasts. Fox News often leads into its shows with a hyper-urgent rock track, sometimes fading out on wall known classic rock songs. CNN uses a great deal of insistent yet restrained instrumental pieces, but often codes its shows to reach both the 18-24 and gay demographics. (It's not unusual to hear a Lady GaGa, Beyonce, or Madonna track/reference slyly contained within broadcasts.) MSNBC takes the stylings of the more traditional instrumental track (such as CNN's) and infuses it with a sort of modern sensibility, which, when coupled with the on-screen graphics, overtly courts a college-age demographic.

Relating something as simple as soundtrack to a medical issue as H1N1 may seem a stretch, but in terms of viewership, these elements are intricately connected. Stations which adhere more closely to the Fox model are often predisposed to reporting such disaster scenarios, whereas a station such as MSNBC, with its upbeat soundtrack and often-playful on-screen antics, can become surprisingly uncomfortable when the tone gets serious.

Networks which adhere to the CNN code of perceived neutrality often have the highest ease of reporting such content, but holding viewers can prove difficult when a relatively even-toned character, such as Wolf Blitzer, relays potentially life-threatening news in a nearly identical tone to the one he used to describe a Senate hearing. While the lack of sensationalism would be applauded by many, the fact that no one on the screen is declaring impending death leaves less of a reason for viewers to tune in for survival tips. Such a disparity in style tends to pull viewers away from the sanity of Blitzer's Situation Room or Anderson Cooper 360 and toward the pointed and dystopian rhetoric of The O'Reilly Factor.

Surprisingly, the media has done little to connect the epidemic to the political discourse around the national healthcare debate. The connection is so apparent, one has to assume that the decision to not merge the stories is a deliberate one. Realistically, the reason for this is most likely tied to perceived social position and deliberate social structuring (Alberts, 315). Given the highly politicized and polarizing nature of the healthcare debate, introducing a political bent on a medical issue would most likely isolate a certain segment of viewers, reducing network shares.

Rhetorically speaking, the positioning of the H1N1 virus within the media is interesting. Given the unfamiliarity of most major news media sources during the initial outbreak, reporters were often scrambling merely to derive the information. Issues of rhetorical framing were hardly at the forefront. However, given a few weeks to a month's time, framing became a central focus of the debate. Language was carefully chosen and fear properly articulated for maximum impact. By this time, the "swine flu" (as it was termed) was no longer new, and therefore it now needed an edge.

Words like "pandemic" and "rapidly spreading" became less descriptors than panic-inducing buzz-words, with flashing "BREAKING NEWS!" banners, feigned somberness, and tips on everything from how to cough to what public places to avoid. H1N1 became a trend as much as a general trend. And audience's responded in kind. Anecdotally, I could offer countless instances of near-bragging about knowing someone who "had swine flu," or even individuals bragging about having possibly caught it themselves. H1N1 became a sort of shared philic displeasure, a mass community experience, contextually negotiated in such a way that the presence of this virus was arguably a positive experience for those indirectly effected.

A case in point would be CNN's recent coverage of the H1N1 virus. Originally, the story was broken as described, with the natural confusion and neutrality afforded any unexpected event. Then came the trend of death announcing, flashing the numbers and locations on the screen of those killed by the flu.

However, mid-July has offered little in terms of new information as the world attempts to secure this pandemic, so the organizational response has been increasingly creative. Rather than the all-out headline panic of last month, the approach has been a more subtle impending disaster. Articles now contain titles such as "Study: H1N1 virus more severely affects pregnant women" (women's health) or "Military planning for H1N1 outbreak" (national security compromise) or "Swine flu a worry for summer camps" (children at risk; family unrest).

The story has been framed and reframed in every possible way. But even more interestingly, it is becoming apparent that the story is soon to be relatively discarded. CNN has begun focusing the majority of its discussion of the "swine flu" in terms of vaccination (cure). Given the increasing disinterest due to higher public awareness, the only element left in the narrative is the happy ending.

From a textual analyses standpoint, one could easily argue that the news follows a specific narrative. A critical theorist would likely attribute this narrative construct to a complex interrelationship of the news media to a capitalist economic agenda in which news must sell to be viable (Alberts, pp. 52-3). Most viewers do not want to tune into a show without a happy ending, much less a show in which the unhappy ending leaves them as the doomed subjects. That glimmer of hope can be expected at the end of virtually any news broadcast. CNN simply can't give its audience an unhappy ending, so for now, the "most trusted name in news" has essentially pat the audience on the back and told them that everything will be alright.

It is important to note that during this entire process, CNN has extended its hand way beyond the television set and into the homes of viewers. Larry King wants viewers to make their thoughts known on his blog, while Anderson Cooper practically begs the audience to text their thoughts to his resident medical expert, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. And all of these figures want the audience to know that they're within arms length. Viewers need only to log onto CNN to establish an instant personal-seeming connection with any number of CNN figureheads. All of this serves to reconstruct the narrative, but by dismissing the passive audience role for a much more active one.

As can be seen, the media response to such an event as the H1N1 virus is both intricate and highly calculated. By exploring the basic coverage through the lenses of rhetorical dimensions and organizational responses, especially as they relate to the concept of organized fear, one can see a clear communication pattern emerge. Whether or not this approach is entirely ethical or beneficial is often debated, but one cannot deny its heavy impact within the capitalistic structure of the American media system.

Also, by examining the intricacies of such reporting, audiences equip themselves with the knowledge needed to positively effect the mainstream media as savvy consumers. While capitalism is often accused of disallowing the consumers to make decisions regarding production, consumers do have the ability to increase competition by removing the profit from those items they find lacking. The discussion of H1N1 and the capitalization of fear is mainly a starting discussion point for the larger conversation that needs to be had regarding our stake in the mainstream news media as both consumers and producers of media.

References -

Alberts, Jess K., et all. Human Communication in Society. (2007) Pearson Education, Inc. Saddle River, NJ.

"H1N1 - It's Official" (2009) Blippitt http://www.blippitt.com/h1n1-pandemic-official >

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/ >

Google Trends. (2009) http://www.google.com/trends>

CNN (2009) http://www.cnn.com>

Fox News (2009) http://www.foxnews.com>

MSNBC (2009) http://www.msn.msnbc.com>