Swine Flu: Is Matt Drudge a National Hero?
Image by johnmuk via Flickr
Over the weekend, you probably read something about Swine Flu, the new deadly porcine super-epidemic that’s going to kill us all. But, depending on where you get your news, you saw very different types of coverage.
Let’s take two extreme examples: The Drudge Report vs. The New York Times. Say, you woke up Saturday morning and wanted to know the news…
Here’s what greeted you over at Drudge: “OUTBREAK: NO PLAN TO CLOSE BORDERS.”
And here’s what greeted you in the Times’ print edition: “”
No, that’s not a typo. The Saturday New York Times’ front page had no mention of Swine Flu (by Sunday, they had a bottom-of-the-page story on it — below a story about Wall Street pay and a Pulitzer-bait feature on immigration). Drudge, meanwhile, had a banner headline, photo, and 13 this-is-super-panic-worthy, above-the-banner links. By Sunday night, he’s upgraded his headline to:
One of these news outlets considers itself a good, responsible global citizen. One sees itself as the sensationalist voice of the common man. But which one was actually doing the most social good?
The argument for the Times’ approach, of course, is that it’s best not to sow panic. What could be more sensible? Panic = bad.
But let me propose an alternative: When it comes to epidemics, panic is a rational and socially beneficial response.
Swine Flu, like most of our super-deadly epidemics, is probably being overblown by the media. Our brains are pretty bad at assessing risk — we worry about flying (which is safe), while we love driving (which kills far more people); we worry about terrorism (which kills virtually no one), while we die of heart disease (No. 1 killer in the United States) — and so we vastly overestimate the chances that we, personally, might get swine flu.
But, and here’s the big but: This wildly irrational risk estimate encourages the exact sort of behavior that could stem the spread of an epidemic disease.
While some actions we take based on crazy estimates of risk (Y2K shelters, avoiding flying, being afraid to go on the subway) have next to no social value, and some real social and personal costs, panicked responses to Swine Flu could actually help slow down or halt its spread.
Say that tomorrow, panicked, every parent in New York City decided to pull their kids out of school for a week. I’m not recommending anyone do this, but what would the result be? Well, kids would miss a lot of school. Parents would have to work from home or make other childcare arrangements. But what else would happen? Kids wouldn’t get Swine Flu (at least it wouldn’t be spread at school).
The same basic principle would apply to people avoiding mass-attendance events (which Mexico City has banned), people putting off travel to Mexico (which I’m sure many are doing), people wearing masks around for a few days (which far fewer people are likely to do), etc.
These choices might not be optimal economically. But, from an evolutionary perspective, we as a species would be doing a pretty awesome job at stomping out a deadly infectious disease.
I haven’t seen academic study of the usefulness of panic in fighting epidemics (though this transcript of a talk on communicating risk during an epidemic is a good start). And I’m sure there are limits to this theory (such as, if people started turning up at emergency rooms convinced that they had Swine Flu, thus mingling with people who actually do have it). But it seems clear that when it comes to stopping an epidemic in its tracks, a little panic could go a long way.
UPDATE (4/27/09, 1:06 p.m.): I’ve added some thoughts in response to all of your comments here.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I’m not sure the benefit of endulging the anxiety du jour is worth the costs you’re so readily discounting. Pulling kids from school, cancelled travel, missed work days, the toll on medical workers because people are convinced the merest sniffle is the onset of swine flu… it’s just not worth it.
Turi McNamee’s piece in T/S on the subject provides some more perspective: http://trueslant.com/turimcnamee/2009/04/26/swine-flu-nothing-new/
Lots of fair points in the comments here. I respond to some of them in a new post.
Check the blog’s main page.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ryan don’t you think you might be a tad over the top on this one?
“Swine Flu, like most of our super-deadly epidemics, is probably being overblown by the media.” It’s an influenza virus, not the black death. By all accounts I’ve read approx 1,000 cases have been reported in Mexico and I think 68 people have died, that’s hardly “super-deadly epidemic” status. I suspect those 68 were probably of the standard most at risk group, the very young, the elderly, and the chronically ill. Not exactly cause for panic in my book.
Also I’m not sure we can ascribe interest in the public’s safety to Drudge, I’m sure stoking the fires of bigotry against Mexican nationals here in the US might have something to do with it too.
It’s nice to know my brain is working the way nature designed it to. Now where can I get some Tamiflu?
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian, do you always assume the worst of anyone who prescribes to a right-leaning point of view, or do you just not like drudgereport? Just because Matt Drudge is considered a conservative voice you automatically jump to the conclusion that he is a rich white person concerned only with keeping America rich and white?
Not that I know Drudge personally, because that may very well be his viewpoint, but I think it would be a stretch to come to that conclusion based solely on his website, considering that it gathers news from all sorts of different websites, regardless of political viewpoint.
To address your concern about the percentage of people affected by this, just so you know, 68/1000 is 6.8%, and if this is carried out at this rate you are looking at almost 7% of a population being affected by a virus, which I would consider substantial. And as someone who has a young child, her safety and well-being is always a concern for me, so while Ryan’s posting might be a bit high-strung, I don’t think this particular strain of influenza is something that should just be swept under the rug and forgotten. And just to prove that I am a rational right-winger, I won’t make any sly comments about liberals and sweeping Timothy Geithner’s tax problems under the rug.
In response to another comment. See in context »Philip is safe to assume math wasn’t your strongest subject in school. .68% not 6.8%
In response to another comment. See in context »I stand corrected-and a little embarassed (my wife is a math teacher).
I do stand by my other comments though, that you neglected to answer. Do you really believe Matt Drudge is a bigot, or are you just saying that because he is rumored to be a conservative?
In response to another comment. See in context »“Matt Drudge is a bigot”
Having never met the man I can’t answer you with any certainty. However I can say with certainty that he has no problem exploiting the bigotry of others. So in my book it’s six of one, half a dozen of another (more math, sorry!).
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually you get the aw shit. 68/1000=.068 or if expressed as a percentage is 6.8%.
Is it safe to assume that you didn’t check your work by using the calculator that comes with the computer you typed your response on?
In response to another comment. See in context »68/1000 is 6.8%. Think about it logically. 68/100 is 68%. Percent = “out of 100″. Move the decimal point over one for 68/1000 = 6.8%.
In response to another comment. See in context »So I guess I was right. My wife will be so proud.
In response to another comment. See in context »And your wife should be proud, I’m sure some former math teachers of mine will be disgusted in me!
In response to another comment. See in context »Leave it to a blogger to herald the work of a link aggregator, rather than those on the ground doing the actual work.
Nearly every single swine flu story Drudge has highlighted these past few days was created by a dreaded “MSM” outlet.
Keep killing off your journalism industry, and it doesn’t matter how many Matt Drudges you have sitting around. There won’t be any content for them to point to.
Well, as a fellow blogger, I count one against the aggregators here:
http://trueslant.com/donovan/2009/04/25/drudge-reports-nonsense-pigs/
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree with you completely, and I’d like to point out that out of the four headlines about bird flu on the T/S homepage, not one is an actual news piece- just commentary and comparisons between different modes of coverage that do not add to anyone’s knowledge.
Meanwhile, the Mexican press is busy tracing the source of the outbreak, asking questions and digging for real information. How quaint.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] I read the coverage of Swine Flu. So far we have conspiracy theories, an unprepared government, weird press coverage, social psychology lessons, and we’re being educated on epidemiology and [...]
The Saturday New York Times’ front page had no mention of Swine Flu
There was some art on the issue at least.
I can just see managing editor now…
“Swine flu, huh? What, when you cough, you sound like a pig? nah…let’s put in some Michelle Obama magazine covers.”
[...] While some actions we take based on crazy estimates of risk (Y2K shelters, avoiding flying, being afraid to go on the subway) have next to no social value, and some real social and personal costs, panicked responses to Swine Flu could actually help slow down or halt its spread. via Ryan Sager. [...]
[...] There are some good comments coming in, and there’s a lot of debate as to whether my proposed “panic is good” model holds any water. [...]
[...] « Previous Post Swine Flu: Is Matt Drudge a National Hero? (click to read article) April 27th, 2009 by CJB Posted in Legal, World, Business Trackback [...]
[...] media, vertical news aggregators, and user-generated prediction markets (a la HubDub) — starting Friday, April 24, [...]
All the good things about panic that you point have been encouraged/enforced by Mexican govt since start of crisis (no school, stay home, extra higiene…) It is unclear how many and to what degree they would have happened spontaneously. The spontaneous ones we’ve seen in DF all seem to belong to dark side of panic: emergency purchases of anti-viral drug drain precious stocks, hospitals are overloaded, rumor spreads, mistrust…
[...] On: Swine Flu: Is Matt Drudge a National Hero? [...]
In your swine flu article, you said, “it’s best not to SOW panic [emphasis added].” So, is that supposed to be a pun? Sow panic: what happens when the wolf blows down her straw house. Also, what did the master seamstress say upon seeing her protege’s pig-ugly creation? Rip what you have sewn.
[...] of the Buggers to Blame – Is Matt Drudge a hero? How Drudge drove (prefigured?) the media’s wild coverage of the swine [...]
A lot of you guys are digressing off the topic, which is why is Drudge reporting this when the New York Times is not?
Heres my thought-old school print journalism is dead, and the NYT is the head zombie-dead but still stumbling along. They sold their soul to the liberals decades ago and they have been dying ever since. They haven’t broke a substantive story in my adult life and they really don’t want to, they are just a liberal mouthpiece.
It has already been reported and confirmed that the White House Chief of Staff confers weekly with Paul Begala (CNN contributor) and George Stephanopolous (CNN contributor) on how the White House should spin events for positive media coverage, so it is reasonable to think that the same type of contact goes on with the NYT. The White House would not want them to comment on the flu scare because it isn’t a positive for Obama if they do.
Drudge is someone they can’t control, at least not yet.
This type of thing is another nail in the coffin of old media.
RIP Journalism-you died in 2009 and no one noticed.
“They haven’t broke a substantive story in my adult life and they really don’t want to, they are just a liberal mouthpiece.”
So what big story in your lifetime did the print journalists miss? Cause they broke lots of big stories.
Those bound by journalistic ethics cannot make statements without multiple sources and citations so statements like, “It has already been reported and confirmed that the White House Chief of Staff confers weekly with Paul Begala (CNN contributor) and George Stephanopolous (CNN contributor) on how the White House should spin events for positive media coverage, so it is reasonable to think that the same type of contact goes on with the NYT.” How do you know this and what is the source of this story or theory? Besides the fact that the White House has a communications office, as did every modern president in history that talks to the media. For reporters this office is called a source. You see real reporters like those at the Times and Wall Street Journal have to stand by what they print, they search for facts as a base for their stories. Stories which are picked up by bloggers and TV and radio. Now some on the internet and television and radio consider themselves as opinion makers, they tend to just mix a piece here and there and draw conclusions from thin air. If print journalism dies the country will suffer, all of the country, liberals, conservatives, non-voters and bloggers because news will become, as it staggering towards, fiction.
However if you want to see if you missed some substantive stories you might go to this site, http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat they have a list of interesting and important stories that served the public good.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Maybe. If we’re all dead by next week? Maybe not! Which of the Buggers to Blame – Is Matt Drudge a hero? How Drudge drove (prefigured?) the media’s wild coverage of the swine [...]
[...] blog has taken a look at the value of irrational panic, when it comes to epidemic diseases. But, of course, that panic is still irrational. In a case such [...]
[...] in the week, Ryan Sager posted an article about the role of panic in pandemic prevention. Here’s an excerpt: Swine Flu, like most of our super-deadly epidemics, is probably being [...]
äåìîíòàæ çäàíèé…
äåìîíòàæ çäàíèé…
[...] millennium health innovation? Well, this blog’s already made its stance clear on the value of panic. Happy hunting, iPhone-armed bug [...]
So who is Matt Drudge and if he is copying or citing other work how can he be “reporting”.
[...] Swine Flu: Is Matt Drudge a National Hero?: Not the first question that would jump to most people’s minds. But still a legitimate one. [...]