To counter misinformation over coronavirus, journalists need to embrace a public service mission
- Credit: Archant
In an era of anonymous sources and divisive press briefings, can the media and journalists rise to the occasion of responsible reporting over the coronavirus outbreak?
As COVID-19 spreads globally, so has misinformation about how to counter it. From politicians downplaying the risk it poses to public health to journalists tweeting false claims about who can be infected, reporting the coronavirus reminds us of the importance of accurate and impartial journalism.
In the UK, broadcasters have generally been cautious in their coverage of the global pandemic. We have seen more health experts appear on breakfast sofas and news bulletins, explaining the science behind the COVID-19 and offering practical advice about how to minimise catching the virus and avoiding ways of spreading it.
You may also want to watch:
The 'your questions answered' feature of broadcast news has become a more prominent part of coverage, with journalists directly responding to their audiences fears and anxieties, rather than the traditional top-down approach. Fact checking has also come to the fore, with the BBC's Reality Check and Channel 4's Fact Check almost exclusively focused on challenging the many dubious claims circulating online.
- 1 Minister terminates interview after suggesting public's age and weight to blame for UK's high death toll
- 2 European parliament agrees to add British overseas territories to post-Brexit tax haven blacklist
- 3 This picture of Boris Johnson on the phone to Joe Biden has caused a stir
- 4 Telegraph columnist blames Angela Merkel for Brexit
- 5 Nigel Farage loses nearly 50,000 followers after Twitter suspends QAnon accounts
- 6 Former Brexit Party MEP dies in diving accident in the Bahamas
- 7 Bob Geldof takes swipe at No 10 saying 'lying is second nature' to them
- 8 Brexiteer calls for UK to save Eurostar - by buying it and renaming it 'Britstar'
- 9 The greatest failure of government in our lifetime
- 10 Pro-Brexit fishing campaigner says Boris Johnson's deal has left her with 'no fish'
TV news audiences have spiked as people turn to trusted sources of information. According to Channel 4's news editor, Ben de Pear, its audience size doubled over the last week.
Similarly, according to the BBC news press office, its audiences for broadcast and online output has significantly increased.
For UK broadcasters, reporting the government's comparative approach to combating the spread of COVID-19 is a difficult balancing act. The government's response, while developing on an almost daily basis, remains less stringent than many other countries which have imposed strict lockdowns and closed pubs, restaurants and places of public gathering.
To what extent should broadcasters be questioning this strategy? How far should they be accepting what the government's medical and scientific advisers are saying, while challenging them and presenting alternative expert voices – for example representatives of the World Health Organization – who may be recommending a different response?
When it comes to questioning the government's strategy, editors will need to make difficult judgements about which expert voices they include – and exclude – given how closely people are following the news to find out what advice to follow.
In order to maintain the public trust's in official health guidance and information, broadcasters could stop the use of 'anonymous government sources'. So, for example, on March 14 ITV's political editor, Robert Peston, broke a story via his blog about people over 70 being quarantined for four months in 'wartime-style mobilisation to combat coronavirus'. It was leaked just in time to make the Sunday newspapers, but was not announced by the prime minister or one of his scientific experts but an anonymous 'senior government source'.
Given the significant alarm this caused for millions of people, Peston should have sacrificed his 'scoop' for the greater good of asking the government to accurately put this key development on the public record. The political practice of using 'sources' to deliver briefings to key journalists is nothing new – it's been going on for many years and is known in the industry as 'kite-flying'.
By briefing journalists anonymously, it opens up a space for the policy to be debated while also allowing government ministers to distance themselves from it under journalistic questioning or public pressure. But during a major health emergency of this kind, where public trust is so important, it looks deeply irresponsible.
Now more than ever, journalists and broadcasters could take a stand and resist these private briefings for the sake of clearer and more accurate government information.
It didn't help that when the UK's health secretary, Matthew Hancock, wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph about the government's response to COVID-19, the newspaper published it behind a paywall where only subscribers could see it. By contrast, the Washington Post – which usually adheres to a strict paywall – made its analysis of the spread of the virus freely available. To be fair to the Telegraph, it later made Hancock's article generally available – but only after criticism on social media.
This matters because if only people motivated enough to subscribe to a newspaper access vital health information, it risks alienating huge swaths of the population who also need to understand what government decisions are made and the reasoning behind them. The government's media strategists need to be aware of that and prioritise media platforms available to the whole country.
The government's decision to hold daily press conferences represents a more transparent way of keeping the public informed of the latest developments and its decision making. The press conferences will feature the prime minister or his senior ministers. Chief medical adviser Chris Whitty, and Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, will also 'routinely' attend the briefings.
It remains to be seen how far the UK population will trust and follow the government's guidance. While one poll found the majority of people trusted the advice and guidance about COVID-19 from the goverment's chief medical officer and the director general of the World Health Organization, just over a third of people extended the same level of trust to the prime minister and health secretary. Of course, faith in the goverment's advisers may change as the nation compares the UK's response to other countries.
As the public's most trusted source of news in the UK, broadcasters will play a critical role in both conveying and questioning the government's strategy of dealing with the coronavirus. This is a major test of broadcasting's public service role – to impartially report the facts, while robustly holding the government to account.
• Stephen Cushion is a chair professor at Cardiff University. This article first appeared at theconversation.com.
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.