Sensational headlines can grab attention
yet also unnecessarily frighten. An Atlantic
magazine article last week was headlined
“You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus.”
Sensationalism actually tends to decline
in these situations, said Peter Sandman, a
consultant and expert in risk communication.
“Reporters love to sensationalize trivia or rare
risks — think flesh-eating bacteria — to give
their audience a vicarious thrill,” Sandman said.
“But when risks get serious and widespread,
media coverage gets sober.”
The words and actions of journalists and other
public figures send signals of their own.
CNN’s Gupta has talked about people needing
to consider “social distancing” if pockets of
infection build in the United States. He has
revealed on the air that his own house is
stocked with supplies in case his family has to
remain home for any period of time.
“People could be frightened by that,” Gupta
conceded. “It’s not the intent. It’s in the way
that you convey these things.”
It was news last week, and also a little scary,
when it was revealed that a federal health
official had checked on the coronavirus
readiness of her child’s school district. Donald
G. McNeil, a science reporter at The New York
Times, attracted attention for talking about his
own preparedness on the newspaper’s podcast,
“The Daily.”
“I spend a lot of time thinking about whether
I’m being too alarmist or whether I’m not being
alarmist enough,” he said.