No abstract

In 2009, the outbreak of a new flu virus in Mexico developed into the first pandemic in more than 40 years. For years the world had been warned about such a catastrophic global epidemic, but influenza A/H1N1 (also called swine flu or Mexican flu) turned out to be even milder than the common flu. This study is based on a content analysis of newspaper and television coverage from April to December 2009, and focuses on the volume and the content of the news coverage of the pandemic in the Netherlands. The research shows that media coverage was intensive and alarming, especially during the first and third stages of the epidemic. As it turns out, news sources had about the same share of alarming messages as the media. Therefore, although the media were indeed alarming in their coverage, they were so on the authority of their sources, the experts and the public health officials.

News often seems to develop a life of its own, creating huge news waves on one specific story or topic. The term ‘media-hype’ is often used in popular debate about this kind of self-inflating media coverage, but the concept has never made it into the scientific discourse, mainly because of its implicit value judgements. However, by excluding criteria like ‘exaggeration’ and ‘distortion’ and by focusing on the process of amplification and magnification during these media-generated news waves, the concept can become a valuable tool for news research. A theoretical framework of media-hype is developed in this article, not only to analyse the specific dynamic of media-hype, but also to deal with the role it plays in the process of framing and social amplification. A content analysis of media coverage of ‘senseless’ street violence in the Netherlands is used to evaluate the consequences of media-hype for the role the media play in society.

The media's coverage of risk issues is often criticized for neglecting the scientific perspective on risk. This criticism, however, ignores the social context in which journalists operate: they have to report on people's worries about health-threatening issues and they have to cover actions taken by the government to address these worries. The media have to report on such issues, irrespective of the fact that in terms of scientific risk assessment the risk may be negligible. In this article, a new evaluation model for media coverage of risk is developed on the basis of a content analysis of two risk issues — universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) base stations and fine particle pollution (FPP) — and extensive consultation with prominent journalists, scientists and stakeholders in the Netherlands. The model defines criteria regarding sources, frames, amplification, risk perception, scientific data and the language used in the coverage. This approach offers a concrete starting point for the reporters who cover these issues in the daily news pages.

No abstract