The Salience of The Media

Prompted by the ABC Fora episode on Thursday night titled 'Why you don't need to worry about swine flu' (Available at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/player.html?&videoURL=http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/fora/ussc_health_full.mp4&videoTitle=MP4), I am taking a glance at the salience and agenda setting effect they have on the general public.

For instance, the 'swine flu epidemic' has been blown out of proportion by the media, causing histeria among the general popultion. The number of worldwide cases of swine flu (confirmed) numbers around 140 553 (22nd of July, 2009; RhizaLabs) and the death rate from this is around .8%, with these deaths usually linked to pre-existing conditions. The seasonal flu alone kills 36 000 per year people in the United States ALONE. It is almost impossible to determine the seasonal flu infection rates; because it isn't often recorded. The point being, the infection rate for swine flu is only .8%, or 1 per 125 people who have been infected. The total infection rate to date is 0.0022% of the world population.

Dealing purely with Australian statistics though (so we can compare apples with apples) swine flu has infected 14 836 people, with 38 deaths over approximately 3 months. The leading cause of death in Australia (2007) was Ischaemic heart disease (arterial blockages of the heart, and heart attacks), killing 22 729 people (2007), but this rarely (if ever) makes the news. The second largest killer was stroke, with 11 491 deaths as a result, but again it fails to receive a citation in the media.

It is also apparent in other issues, like the Beaconsfield Mine collapse (which took place over two weeks); the media's agenda moved away from this story, and subsequently it wasn't in the public interest anymore; it was old news. The reason swine flu has continued to be in the oublic interest for so long is that it is a rapidly developing story, and can directly effect anyone from the population. The Beaconsfield story fell out of favour because of the almost stagnant nature of the story, but when there were break throughs (such as the discovery and subsequent contact with and of Todd Russell and Brant Webb) public interest re-ignighted.

It has happened again and again with the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan, the War on Terror, Japanese whaling in the Southern Oceans, the Black Saturday fires, these are just Australian stories! International stories like the Burmese protests, the Bangladeshi cyclone, the Indonesian tsunami, hurricane Katrina... the list goes on.

Many with elements significant human sacrifice or massive loss of life. But the Australian media aren't interested in the rebuilding, the reconstruction efforts (not just physical, but emotional also). Would it benifit our culture if instead of 1/2 an hour on 'news' (10 minutes of news, 10 minutes of sport, 5 of advertisements, and 5 of weather) we had an hour of proper news (Such as The News Hour with Jim Lehrer) and more focus was on the neighbours' backyard, not just our own? If the media followed through the stories they present, if they WERE less salient, if it wasn't just 'doom an gloom' but the happy, NEWSWORTHY stories in the world. We would be a wiser, more intelligent, more interesting and more accepting culture!

But without the public pushing to for this the Australian media will continue to get softer. But that's another post!

References:

Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2007. 3303.0 - Causes of Death, Australia, 2007. (Leading Causes of Death) (Updated at: AEDST 11:30AM, 18/03/09)
Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/9982A795F3C13BE2CA25757C001EF4D9?opendocument
[Last Accessed: 23/07/09]

Rhiza Laborotories, 2009. FluTracker (Updated at: EDT 12:24AM 22/07/09)
Available at: http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/
[Last Accessed: 23/07/09]