Now that the Ebola virus is in the U.S., how should local journalists tackle the issue? In a letter to the Association of Health Care Journalists, Rebecca Catalanello, a health writer for The Times-Picayune, writes:
"I'm desperately seeking smart(er) ways to cover Ebola on the local level in a community where the risk so far appears to be so minimal.
Other than calling our hospitals, airports, government officials, etc., and getting a litany of 'we're prepared' statements (which I have done), I am trying to figure out what, if anything, I should be doing at this point that can add meaningful coverage without fueling additional fears and just blending into the noise."
"The Dallas experience is informing my questions here—and the local reporters involved in that coverage seem to be doing a great job—but my editors feel it's premature to write about things like how we would handle a dead Ebola-stricken body, etc. ….which, yeah, it probably is?" she writes. "I'm curious, and I guess it's worth asking about now. But maybe not for a story? It just doesn't seem right to be writing nothing… but what should I be doing at this point?"
Kim Krisberg, a public health reporter in Austin, had this suggestion: "Preparedness funding! Overall, public health preparedness funding is down, which significantly impacts training, exercises, partnership-building, lab capacity, etc. Ebola is today's outbreak, but there will most definitely be another... and another and another. This kind of funding tends to ebb and flow with the latest outbreak/disaster, and by any account, that's not a good way to build a responsive, resilient public health system. I know this is 'big picture' stuff, but it may be interesting for readers to learn what they got for all those millions in public preparedness funds, how they've helped the Ebola response and why/or why not those funds should be sustained."
No comments:
Post a Comment