Media and H1N1 – An example of the Current State of our Media Industry in Canada

On March 19th, 2010, I had the pleasure to attend the second annual health communication workshop hosted by the department of Journalism and Exercise Science at Concordia University. The theme of this year’s workshop encompassed the debate over of the appropriateness of the media’s coverage of the H1N1 pandemic in Canada. It included presentations from media and health experts discussing their roles during the H1N1 pandemic. This was followed by an open forum debate.

The presentations and discussion surrounding this topic illuminated some issues concerning the media that affected public reaction to the H1N1 pandemic. These issues are important to highlight because they illustrate how the media works in Canada and how it impacts the types of news and information that we consume and use to make decisions that impact how we live.


There seemed to be a consensus amongst the majority of workshop attendees that there are significant issues within the media industry in Canada that created problems with information accuracy, information consistency and information that can be “trusted”, all surrounding the H1N1 pandemic. This caused a tremendous amount of public confusion and fear which lead many people to question whether H1N1 was a real threat, just an issue that was simply “overhyped” by the media to sell headlines, or a conspiracy fueled by the drug companies.

One of the issues raised was the current condition of the Canadian media industry and the business model in which it operates. The Canadian media industry, one that is dominantly profit driven, is in a period of transition and economic uncertainty. This has led to a significant amount of cutbacks especially within the production of news and information. These cutbacks have created an industry with fewer qualified reporters and journalists able to cover issues pertaining to specialized areas such as medicine. Instead, the industry relies on more journalists from a variety of backgrounds to cover more issues in a wider variety of areas with tighter deadlines. This type of industry can make it more difficult for journalists and reporters to provide concise accurate information in specialized areas especially during a period of crisis.

Some of the attendees felt that this type of media industry, one the relies of fewer specialized journalists, led to a number of inconsistent reporting regarding H1N1. For instance their were inconsistent information surrounding the definition of a pandemic and the safety of the H1N1 vaccine.

However, it was also argued that the inconsistencies communicated by the media were also a symptom of conducting real time science during a period of crisis – that is conducting research that is ongoing and evolving. Research concerning H1N1 was occurring during the height of the pandemic. Therefore, reports made one week and changed the following week were not always symptomatic of inaccurate reporting, but rather an illustration of new information being discovered regarding H1N1.

It was suggested that their was a lack of understanding, especially on the part of the media, of how research concerning H1N1 was ongoing and evolving. New information concerning H1N1 created a sense of public perception of information inaccuracy surrounding it. This was often magnified as the information spread quickly through every media outlet.

For instance, current research indicates that a sizable portion of news content (but not all) appearing in new media outlets including blogs and other social media networks (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) originate from mainstream media. These outlets tend to spread information to a wider audience at a faster rate. Therefore, any inaccuracies coming from mainstream media will be spread “virally” through other media outlets including social media. Not only can this heighten the sense of confusion surrounding critical issues but it can also be problematic during a time of crisis.

This type of media environment, according to what was discussed at the H1N1 workshop, created problems with ensuring Canadians were well informed regarding H1N1. As a consequence, their was a growing sense of confusion, skepticism and fear surrounding it.

Although these arguments are based on professional opinions and experiences, these issues are important to highlight because they place into question whether Canada has a media infrastructure that can provide reliable and accurate news information especially during a time of crisis.

Cutbacks in the production of news and information are occurring because news is one of the least profitable areas of the media industry; yet, it is one of the most important. But, that is how the business model operates -- the least profitable areas are cut and/or changed to make them more profitable which can have an impact on the quality of news and information we rely on.

Social media networks can provide wonderful opportunities to share information quickly and can be very useful tools in informing Canadians about critical issues during a crisis situation. But, these networks rely on mainstream media to provide them with accurate and meaningful content.

Is this possible given the current condition of the media industry in Canada and the business model from which it operates? Can it provide good quality news and information?

Information and news quality has always been an issue as biases, political or otherwise, have always plagued news media. This issue is also growing as the media landscape itself becomes more complex as technology allows more people to become active producers and consumers of the media. As a result, we are increasingly becoming skeptical of the information we consume regardless of where it comes from.

Although there are many reasons to be skeptical and not necessarily always trust what we read, there needs to be a number of media sources that we can trust; sources that will ensure accurate and timely content. Given the current condition of the Canadian media industry, the business model from which it operates as well as the complexity of the media environment, these sources simply do not exist.

This type of media environment can become very dangerous as we rely on news and information to make rational informed decisions especially during a period of crisis.

However, if we take an active interest in the media and how it operates; if we talk about these issues and educate ourselves, perhaps we can push for a media infrastructure that not only provides us what we want, but also push for one that we need – one that entertains, informs and connects.

To often it is argued that the nature of the media industry – an industry that relies on entertainment and infotainment to grab our attention – is natural.

But, we have to understand that the media is a human creation and, as our creation, we have the power to change it. The problems of information reliably and accuracy are not necessarily caused by the reporters; they are not necessarily caused by technology; they are not even necessarily caused by management! They are caused by the structure of the media and how we use it.

If we are taught the value of media and the potentials it can bring, perhaps we can change not only the structure of the media but also how we use it. Only then, perhaps, we will have access to accurate reliable news content that provides us the means to make rational informed decisions while minimizing confusion and fear that was witnessed during the the H1N1 pandemic.