The Media’s Role in the COVID-19 Pandemic

In 2019, a novel pathogen emerged, and within weeks, led to the rise of the largest global crisis known to date. The speedy spread of COVID-19 became a source of public worry as the unknowns regarding the virus created a state of panic—and mass media spearheaded the spread of both information and misinformation.

Article Analysis—Double Masking

Double Masking, a trend similar to many of the innovative ways that emerged to better protect oneself amidst the COVID outbreak, caught the attention of several popular news outlets at the beginning of 2021. The suggested preventative action, was said in an NPR coronavirus live update article to offer more protection than regular mask wearing.

The role of the media, in any case, is to dispense truthful, honorable and transparent information to the public—as both a means to inform and to provide a sense of accountability to those in power. This continues to stand true in the case of the mass media coverage of the coronavirus.

In this particular situation, the article at hand exists as yet another measure to be taken along with a sea of others. In this regard, I find it to be both a helpful and reliable option/suggestion, considering the article is supported by data research suggesting that double masking has been tested and proven to be safer.

On the other hand, an article by MedPage Today covers an opposing viewpoint, as stated in their headline: Double Masking is a Double Distraction. Perhaps… however, no matter how valid the argument, the column speaks using language that polarizes people into groups of “mask-wearers” and “anti-mask wearers.” This type of language does one thing—it arouses a political response to a virus that in and of itself is not political.

Political opinions, nonetheless, pervade the modern public health sphere, vastly impeding progress towards population health, achieving unity for the greater good, and protecting one another.

This column opens a door to conflict on the terms of a mere option—double masking.

It is normalized for media corporations to disagree and headlines to be discussed in polarizing terms. Normalized to the point of numbness and a sense of detachment. These discussions are deemed “essential,” but at what cost?

The global pandemic has undeniably been muddied by the diffusion of misinformation and conspiracy, primarily regarding its origins and preventative measures such as vaccination, social distancing and mask wearing. Belief in misinformation or conspiratorial narratives, however, may not be mutually exclusive from belief in the narrative reflecting scientific consensus. The first article, obtaining and sharing scientific data, is still analyzed through the eyes of skeptics.

Action taken to prevent COVID-19 misinformation might be achieved by taking concrete steps to improve trust in science and scientists, such as building understanding of the scientific process and supporting open science initiatives. Until then, science will be battling disbelief and misinformation will find its way into the least political of things.