Ok, what I’d like to address is the issue of the Ebola Outbreak in Africa. I would
like to compare two independent articles from the Colombian Journalism review,
and the Atlantic Monthly, titled: “No, Ebola is not spreading to the US” written by
Nicola Pring and “The recovering Americans and the ‘top secret’ Ebola
treatment” written by James Hamblin. This comparative study will show rather
the argumentative techniques conveyed in views journalism, but rather the
reality vs media representation events conveyed across these two articles.
James Hamblin’s article is more of a factual and descriptive chain of
stories and circumstances relating to the issue of Ebola, then a more
opinionated commentary style, which is seen more, so in Nicola Pring’s
article. The intention of the article for its directed audience is pretty
clear. It is an obvious response to try and revoke fear out of millions of
Americans who have been inundated with news from the media that the
US is the next target for the spread of Ebola. It also subtly condemns
whilst factually explaining the existence of a new antibody vaccine at the
time. Hamblin uses a pretty effective example story for the main body of
his article, which in a unique was gives hope to the reader if they are
fearful of the disease, or do not know much about how it operates, and its
reality in America. The main body of the article focuses on the
development of a new monoclonal antibody, which is believed to of been
the reason behind healing two American aid workers working with Ebola
infected patients in Liberia, Africa. Patient number 1, ‘Kent Brantly’ was
described in the article as being in a ‘grave condition’ in which the
Atlantic Monthly quoted the infected victim ‘between labored breaths:’ “I
am going to die.” The article starts of this way to draw attention to the
seriousness of the epidemic and to highlight a sense of urgency. Luckily,
we the audience’s minds can be finally put at ease with the introduction to
a new vaccine that will help cure the disease.
“But the on Saturday, we saw images of Brantly’s heroic return to U.S soil,
walking with minimal assistance from an ambulance into an isolation unit
at Emory University hospital.”
Hamblin uses the term ‘heroic return’ to appeal to emotion in hopeful
expectation of the audiences reaction to the sentence, as one of relief and
empowerment towards the seriousness of Ebola. ‘Walking with minimal
assistance’ paints a pretty picture of heroism likewise, and gives strong
backing to the effectiveness of this newly developed vaccine. Hamblin to
goes on in the article by quoting one of the doctors at the scene, who
called it ‘miraculous.’ The use of this term, further highlights the author’s
intention to bring significance to the vaccine. The article is not structured
in a factual reiteration style like normal factual articles. It is clearly
heavily media represented. According to the lecture, “information
orientated media texts don’t simply describe or record what happened or
what was said…they may be written from particular perspectives which
reflect the values and interests of particular individuals, institutions or
social groupings.”
In this case, the Atlantic Monthly is trying to do two things. Install fear,
and provide an un-clear but possible solution to the epidemic, with in my
opinion with the ultimate aim of capturing the audience in their
fingertips, with the intention of having them dependent on further
information in future days/weeks.
Straight after starting the article on a positive note, the next sentence
directly and purposely shifts the mood of the audience to one of fear.
“The outbreak is moving faster than our efforts to control it” Dr. Margaret
Chan, director of the world health organization said. In this instance,
there is no surprise or coincidence that Hamblin appeals to a higher
authority relating to the epidemic. The single quote also challenges and
juxtaposes the intentions of the article (to push forward the idea of a
possible vaccine). The new trial vaccine, which supposedly cured Kent
Brantly, is an example of an effort to control the disease essentially, so
why would Hamblin say that Ebola is spreading faster then their control
efforts, if they were trying to endorse a possible solution? The answer. A
total dependent audience on the trial vaccine as the only solution. Here,
he may raise questions and suspicions in the audiences minds such as ‘if it
already worked, it must be the only solution.’ If you ask me, a wellrehearsed strategy used in the structure of the article. Dr. Chan goes on to
say: “If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences can be
catastrophic in terms of lost lives, but also severe socio-economical
disruption and a high risk of spread to other countries.”
Again, Hamblin points to the significance of the vaccine being presented
as ‘top secret’, to perhaps being the only means of curability of the
disease. However in this article, not once does Hamblin agree with the
implementation of the vaccine, rather just structures his article to largely
condemn other news companies portrayal of the antibody, such as CNN,
who praised the vaccine in their reports stating: “Secret Serum Likely
Saved Ebola Patients.” Hamblin’s central claim is basically stating that
Americans shouldn’t put all their hopes in a trial vaccine, which isn’t even
legal, or comemricialised yet, let alone in abundant supply in terms of
production.
According to Dr. Fauci of the U.S. National institute of Allergy and
Infectious Disease, “ we’re hearing that the administration of this cocktail
of antibodies improved both Dr. Brantly and Ms. Writebol, but you know, we
don’t know that…proving effectiveness would require a much larger group
of patients being compared to an untreated group. And we don’t know if
that they weren’t getting better anyway.”
This assessment of the disease is perfectly positioned in the last
paragraph of the article, to sum up the authors central claim on the issue.
This positions the reader to take the authors stance, however enlighten
them about the future possibilities, which may exist. So like I said from
start, revoke fear, as-well keep an element of anxiety in the readers mind,
keeping them dependent on the Atlantic Monthly for further knowledge
into the crisis.
The report also subtly hints to other outside issues in-extricably linked to
the crisis such as in-equality between rich and poor. Why is the vaccine
being tested on American people, and not on the majority of the infected
living in parts of Africa? Hamblin points out this connection in the article:
“But to say that it was a secret implies a frigid American exceptionalism;
that the people of West Africa are dying in droves while a classified cure
lies in wait.”
On the other hand, the article titled: “No, Ebola is not spreading to the US’
in the Columbian Journal Review, written by Nicola Pring, expresses a
different take on the presence of Ebola in the US and the need for a cure
as seen in Hamblin’s assessment of the Ebola outbreak crisis, and
possesses a central attitude and claim in her writings, that the media is
portraying Ebola in a way as basic scare tactics.
The first sentence of the piece re-affirms this.
“Infectious disease outbreaks usually afford news outlets the opportunity to
post dramatic, attention grabbing headlines, and the recent outbreak in
West Africa was no exception.”
Pring goes on to talk about in the first couple of stanzas, about the news
headlines many newspaper and news companies are adopting in order to
spark un-necessary fear into the minds of readers. Some of the examples
she supplies, tell us a lot about the tactics she believes news industries
are using to try and sell a story. Some examples she includes in her article
consist of: “A terrifying fight against the deadliest virus on Earth: Medic
reveals true horror of Ebola outbreak as incurable disease liquefies victims
from the inside.” If I had to pick four significant terms used in this headline
used to spark fear, it would be very easy to figure out. Three terms, which
are purposely positioned in the headline, are: deadliest, horror, incurable
and liquefies; the latter to paint a jaw clinching image in the mind of the
reader. Why are these terms exaggerated into one headline? To inform
the public about the seriousness of the disease? Well, certainly one could
argue yes. But in reality? No. It is cleverly manipulated to scare the
reader. Why? Well let’s look at the article in more depth.
Pring covers her commentary style analysis in a kind of response to
Chinese whispers un-folding of the issue across multiple news companies.
For e.g: “Doctors without borders calls this event ‘unprecedented’ ...so
worrisome, ABC news felt, that it published an article with the scare
headline, “Ebola, Crossing Borders in Africa, Could land in US.”
This sort of news journalism is very common in western media
organisations, as one of their major roles is to spread panic.
For example, if we take a short reflection to what global issues are taking place at
the moment around the world, we can make a general assumption on how the
discourse is being presented.
Is it being covered consensually across the all the nations? Or is it being altered
to suit the intentions of the host nation covering the event. In the case of the
Ebola outbreak, it is of course being portrayed differently across the world,
especially when comparing its coverage in Africa and other powerful western
nations like the USA. This leads me into my next point, which is discussed in the
reading, ‘the world imposing itself on national audiences.’ (Hellman & Riegert,
2012, p. 158).
This idea explores the notion on (us) and our dependency on media platforms as
a destination for the accessibility of information, in which we desire to keep up
to date with any news of crisis’ around the world, which could be a potential be a
threat to us.
According to Hellman and Riegert (2012), “One view of such centers of power is
that these are based around a handful of Western media conglomerates that
influence transnational media structures of power, in collaboration with local
media institutions and elites.
So basically in Summing up the above quote; the Western powers have all the
authority.
This is what Pring is trying to get across in her article. The Ebola outbreak can be
covered in any way in which it pleases, depending on the inside intentions of the
news company.
Pring continues to use examples of people in high authority to strengthen her
position on the medias use of ‘scare tactics’ on the Ebola outbreak, rather looking
at it as a realistic threat to people living inside the US.
Dr. Daniel G. Bausch, a councilor with the American Society of Tropical Medicine
and Hygiene stated: “ the press often sort of likes a sort of more purely
mysterious idea that the disease emerges from the forest and wreaks havoc, and
goes back into the forest.” He goes on further to sum up Pring’s conclusions
based upon her central claim for the majority of the piece, in saying: “you have to
have very direct contact with people in order to get it…that’s the biggest
misrepresentation that incites a lot of panic.”
To conclude with, both articles are good examples of views journalism, which
convey the use of reality Vs media representation of the Ebola outbreak crisis,
which is affecting West Africa, and looks to threaten the rest of the world.
Words: 1919
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/ebola_coverage.php
2. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/the-secret-ebolatreatment/375525/
3. Hellman, M. and Riegert, K. (2012). "Emerging
Transnational News Spheres in Global Crisis Reporting"
URL
From Volkmer, I. (Ed.) Handbook of Global
Media Research. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 156-174.