The media has no incentive to sensationalize coronavirus

In mid-March, three in four Republicans believed the press had exaggerated the threat of the novel coronavirus, Pew Research polling showed, while 49 percent of Democrats agreed. Since then, Americans have become substantially more likely to say the spread of COVID-19 poses a serious threat, so perhaps the media's performance wouldn't be judged so harshly were the same question asked today. Yet it seems safe to say a portion of the public would still aver that journalists have overhyped the pandemic.

That charge is not entirely false. But it is mostly false.

I realize I say that as a member of the media, but I also say it as a (pretty) normal person who would very much like to go to a restaurant and stop worrying about my family and friends' jobs and small businesses. I say it as a civil libertarian who is certain this crisis will result in long-term detriments to privacy and liberty. I say it chafing at lockdowns I think should be shortened and used to expand medical capacity. And I say it because I have a lot of good reasons to think this is not significantly a case of media sensationalism. (Early reports, in fact, tended to go too far in downplaying the threat.)

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

That isn't because such sensationalism never happens. The press is often guilty of sensationalizing, though it's important to note the press isn't a monolith: On the pandemic, as with any story, "the media" is not one thing speaking with one voice. There's considerable disagreement between and even within press outlets on the severity of the COVID-19 threat and the appropriate policy response. That has certainly been true here at The Week.

Moreover, sensationalizing is not the same as fabricating — and when I say I don't think journalists are overhyping this pandemic, I'm referring to reasonably credible news and opinion outlets, not fake news or deliberately deceptive "satire" sites. Sensationalizing, unlike fabricating, is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. I have no measurable evidence for this, but I suspect some of the pandemic coverage that strikes the average reader as threat exaggeration is simply the honest result of journalists' total immersion in this story for weeks on end. (The last column I wrote which did not touch on the pandemic was published March 6.) That immersion is happening because public demand for coronavirus content is enormous. When any topic so consumes your hours, when you are thus hit with an incessant stream of dubiously reliable data you must sift and explain as quickly and responsibly as possible, your perception of the threat will inevitably be affected.

The pandemic responses of the Trump administration and many Republican governors and members of Congress should also fund skepticism of the press exaggeration narrative. President Trump has spent years accusing the media of malicious dishonesty intended to harm the country, and much of his party has toed that line. Trump calls journalists "the enemy of the people," "human scum," and "some of the worst human beings you'll ever meet."

Yet now, after initial delay and resistance, his administration is basically on the same page as the press (generally speaking — again, not a monolith) where the pandemic is concerned. Trump did not start recommending drastic social distancing and GOP governors did not issue stay-at-home orders because they suddenly support the media and blithely follow its lead. They did it, kicking and screaming in Trump's case, because they have independent sources of data which confirm journalists' reports that COVID-19 can gravely harm public health.

The final thing I'll say on the subject of media sensationalism is something I've said before in a column from this past August: The press is primarily a business. It gives its customers, the public, what they want (or are perceived to want). That's why politicians' gaffes get coverage: People want to hear about them. People also generally want to hear about things that are exciting or shocking; "if it bleeds, it leads," as the saying goes. More accurately, if it's interesting enough to make you listen or click or buy the magazine, it's more likely to get published. That's not the only consideration in the calculation of what's newsworthy, but it is one of them.

So if we have a sensationalist media, it's because we are a sensationalist people. If sensationalism is profitable, it's because a lot of Americans click and buy sensational content.

And speaking of money, a pandemic is not good for the press. It does not benefit journalists to overhype this threat and get the country shut down. Granted, many news outlets are getting higher online traffic while much of the country is stuck at home, eager equally for signs of hope and grim confirmation that response measures are justified.

But high traffic doesn't help if there's no ad revenue, and businesses that aren't making money in a closed economy aren't spending on ads. Ad revenues have collapsed since the pandemic began; Facebook and Google alone expect to lose more than $44 billion in ad revenue this year, and media outlets will lose too. Likewise, as unemployment hurdles higher, "luxuries" like newspaper and magazine subscriptions will be among the first cuts from strained household budgets. (Wanna try six issues of The Week for free?)

Some media outlets, especially local newspapers and alt-weeklies, are already failing because of this pandemic. Their funding is disappearing. Even at outlets still functioning, journalists have been furloughed — in theory they have a job, but there's no money coming in. Why would journalists overhype a story that threatens our own livelihoods? Getting the economy back to normal as quickly as possible is in our interest as much as anyone's.

In fact, here's a truth about the news media: We are not a different class of people, whatever "the Fourth Estate" name might suggest. Yes, we're on Twitter too much. Yes, reporters are far less likely to be Republicans than the average American (though, for the record, we know that because the media itself reported it). Yes, the most prominent members of the press live in a handful of big coastal cities, and it shows.

But journalists have elderly parents at risk of COVID-19 just like everyone else. We have kids out of school and mortgages to pay. We probably want the local coffee shop back open more than most, because we do half our work there.

All the things you hate about this? We hate them too. All the visceral angst and second-guessing? We have that too. Are you tired of reading about COVID-19? I am extremely tired of writing about it — but, just as you feel an obligation to keep informed, we feel an obligation to keep up coverage.

Sometimes it does slip into sensationalism. But mostly it doesn't, because the threat this pandemic poses is real.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.