Towards more informed media coverage of Ebola

Media interest in the Ebola outbreak in west Africa has been extensive but to what extent has it been helpful and informative? A recent Lancet editorial¹ evaluated media coverage of Ebola. Reporting has been prolific, especially since a very small number of cases of Ebola occurred in the US and Europe. In the US, for example, much airtime has been given to the nine confirmed American cases of Ebola and relatively little to the massive human crisis in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. There have been in the region of 5,000 deaths and 14,000 cases in west Africa.

Television news channels such as CNN and Sky News rely on a continuous stream of ‘breaking news’. This tends to emphasise the recent over the important and the sensational over the rational. In print media, tabloid reporting has often been poorly informed by science. Some sources have accurate guidance aimed at those most in need, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, and the BBC’s WhatsApp Ebola service. However, overall, the media has contributed to misunderstandings about the risks of exposure and where the causes and threats of Ebola lie. The Lancet editorial points out that analysis of social media traffic also illustrates unbalance. In October, there were more than 21 million tweets about Ebola in the US, compared with 13,480 about Ebola in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone combined.

So what can doctors and scientists do to attempt to redress the balance and promote considered and informed discussion? Recently, The Lancet set up a Twitter chat where infectious disease experts David Heymann and David Mabey joined a team at The Lancet’s offices to participate in a live Twitter conversation. The journal developed 12 broad questions for #LancetEbola while monitoring incoming tweets. During an hour-long discussion, there were 308,818 impressions (the total number of times tweets were viewed) and new ideas emanated from the experts and audience alike.

The discussion opened by asking Profs Heymann and Mabey to comment on the current situation in west Africa, and subsequent questions focused on Africa’s immediate needs, local challenges, cultural issues, and opportunities for treatment and prevention. The experts’ responses included: “The absolute key is getting the community on board: there are dangers in parachuting western health workers into countries” and “Local solutions to local problems need Africans training Africans. DRC supporting Guinea. Good regional solidarity – a wealth of experience within Africa”. Twitter users echoed this: “Co-operation and partnership between Africans” and “We need to help Africans strengthen their own capacity”. Moving onto vaccines, Prof Mabey said: “Getting funding for Ebola research has been very difficult in the past. Traditionally, biodefense money has been used to fund”, which led Twitter to discuss the use of vaccines outside the framework of randomised trials. Questioned on priorities for the next 60 days, Prof Mabey said “More beds in Freetown, train doctors, nurses, higher standard of supportive care. Promote positive African activities”, and Prof Heymann added “and concentrate on community…while learning from local successes”.

During a health crisis such as Ebola, social media has the potential to bring experts together in a democratic forum with global participation, albeit among people who have internet access. Hospital Doctor of Ireland agrees with The Lancet that to create the conditions to defeat Ebola, this kind of global engagement is much in need.

Reference

1. The medium and the message of Ebola. Editorial. Lancet 2014; 384 (9955):1641