Influenza Derek

On 1 July, I took part in a panel discussion at the World Conference of Science Journalists on the topic of whether the media had overexaggerated the threat of 'swine flu'. Here are my opening comments:

'My favourite satirical website, The Daily Mash has a story in response to the advice from doctors not to hold swine flu parties. The story has doctors warning that all children's parties are a stupid idea, reminding readers what happened to the widescreen TV last time. The story also describes the threat from swine flu as having been upgraded from 'elaborate hoax' to 'about as bad as a badger attack'.

This indicates the cynicism that media reporting of epidemics attracts. From mad cow disease and bird flu to SARS and West Nile virus, we've seen a pattern emerge in which diseases are presented to us as if they're the Black Death only to find they're nothing of the sort. In relation to swine flu, we've seen sensationalist hack reporting - get an expert to say a scary number and present it as if this is a real possibility rather than the worst case scenario. More often, we've seen more balanced reporting, but as part and parcel of coverage that amounts to overkill, and quite often highly speculative overkill. Alongside some lazy reporting, there are plenty of individual journalists producing well-informed copy but in the context of over-the-top, blanket coverage, the subtleties are often lost.

Journalists need to take some responsibility for all of this. If the truth is that we don't have any real idea what is happening, then we should say 'we don't know' and we shouldn't make it the top story. We live in a time when judging what is important is tricky, and the media plays an important role in that. If a story is the lead item for days on end, then it doesn't matter really how cautious and balanced the actual content, the implication - the body language of the story, if you like - suggests we should be alarmed. If this is repeated from one health panic to the next, then a certain amount of cynicism is bound to result.

But I'd also like to make a few points, which I've only really got time to assert, to put this situation into context because it would totally wrong to blame the media alone for what has happened.

Firstly, we need to separate the reality of disease - which may or may not be serious - from our predisposition to expect the worst. We live in a period where risk and fear have become central to the way we understand the world. We seem to be almost on the lookout for the next bad thing that might happen. Not only do we treat every new potential disease as an epidemic, we have stretched the term epidemic to include things that are not in themselves diseases. I think the way in which an average increase in weight in the Western world has been redefined as the obesity epidemic is symptomatic of this outlook.

In her book, AIDS and its Metaphors, the late American commentator Susan Sontag described this very well. She talked about the 'striking readiness of so many to envisage the most far-reaching of catastrophes'. This was not so much Apocalypse Now as Apocalypse From Now On.

Secondly, we need to understand the different ways in which the authorities respond. In terms of practical action - monitoring infections, analysing new pathogens, taking steps to create a vaccine and so forth - I think this is all fairly sensible. I think we may have been mugged about on the size of the Tamiflu order but that's about it. On the other hand, the decision to issue a leaflet to every home in the country was a waste of time and money - the contents of it were trite and unhelpful because we weren't yet in a position to give a sensible assessment of how dangerous swine flu might be. It was a matter of being seen to be doing something, even if the result was likely to be more alarm.

As for the debate about what phase the infection was at and whether we officially have a pandemic was both ridiculous and surreal. Most people quite reasonably assume that 'pandemic' means something akin to 'uncontrollable plague' rather than merely being a description of how wide the geographic spread of infection has become. And the talk of phase 5 and phase 6 is rather like the escalation of a nuclear incident to Defcon 1. Nor was Margaret Chan's comment that swine flu is a threat to all of humanity particularly constructive.

But governments and health quangos rely on winding us up ever so often to justify their existence.

If we are to stop this kind of thing, we need to have a much more honest and hard-headed approach to outbreaks like this. I believe that the media and the authorities need to take considerable responsibility for failings in this area. To overhype disease is simply counterproductive, both in relation to whatever the current problem is and in ensuring cooperation and speedy responses from the public in the future. But tackling the wider climate in which we appear overly sensitive to every kind of risk is going to be much harder.'

One common theme of the discussion afterwards was the controversy over the naming of H1N1/Swine/Mexican flu. Mike Gannatt, a former high-level press secretary and risk communicator within government, speculated that perhaps we needed some kind of automated naming system. I suggested we copy the hurricane model, and give new influenza viruses names, in which case this one could be Influenza Derek.

Sadly, the woman from the WHO in the audience didn't realise I was joking and said she would bring the suggestion back to her bosses... Still, if you can name the thing that flooded New Orleans 'Katrina', who's to say it's a stupid idea?