Coronavirus: Let’s flatten the hype curve

The rise of political hate in journalism, often seen in the social media sneering of reporters, is damaging trust in media.

Combined with a lack of humility from journalists looking to score points against medical professionals and politicians facing unprecedented challenges, it is time for editors and executive ­producers to read their staff the riot act.

Not every story is about “speaking truth to power”. Often the media’s role is best served when it simply sees itself as what it originally was — a medium for the transmission of information.

Who really cares what some young political reporter thinks of the latest plans by national Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy? Readers and viewers want to know what Dr Murphy thinks. Some of the harshest media critics in the past week seem still not to understand the basics about our national response to COVID-19, even though the idea of “flattening the curve” has been around for a month.

By last Thursday The Sydney Morning Herald and Mike Carlton seemed to have grasped why the government was not yet shutting schools: up to a third of crucial health workers would be drastically affected by such a move. Some, such as this paper’s Peter van Onselen, were still struggling with this idea.

The situation may change following the Easter school holidays, but not everything needs to happen at once, as Dr Murphy has made clear.

Many journalists still seem to think the task is to eliminate the coronavirus. That won’t be happening any time soon; slowing the rate of transmission so our health system can cope is the best we can hope for.

Humility, like resilience, is a much undervalued quality. Many journalists need big doses of both. No government, scientist or reporter yet knows how the COVID-19 pandemic will pan out, what the final infection and death rates will be or even how long the virus will last.

As this newspaper reported last Wednesday, researchers in Singapore believe the virus is already weakening. That story reminded readers the SARS outbreak in 2003 ended when that related virus lost potency.

Reporters discussing the virus and associated financial and economic contagions must understand policymakers everywhere do not yet know what they don’t know. Audiences dislike reporters demanding instant answers to the unanswerable and resorting to “could have been” examples: the pandemic could have been different if we had followed this country or that.

Some of the journalists criticising Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his national cabinet were at the forefront of the pile-on when Morrison banned flights from China on February 1. They saw racial undertones in what has proven a brilliant decision for a country with so many direct flights to and from the source of the virus. Imagine had Italy, whose northern fashion industry around Milan has direct links with fashion manufacturing in China, taken such early action.

US journalists similarly criticise US President Donald Trump for referring to the virus as “the Chinese coronavirus”. People who doubt Trump’s description should read a piece on one of the world’s best political websites, RealClearPolitics, by Michael Auslin, a fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Published on March 18, “Beijing fears COVID-19 is turning point for China, globalisation” details the role of China’s leadership in initially covering up the virus and now spreading disinformation about its source and number of infections. On the ABC’s Q&A last ­Monday night, former Labor staffer and AIDS activist Bill Bowtell was given free rein to accuse the government of downplaying the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bowtell wanted far more drastic measures to lock down Australian society, and yet only three weeks earlier he had been a speaker at a Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras public event at the ­National Arts School.

Some journalists disgraced themselves when news emerged last Friday week that Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton had been hospitalised with COVID-19. Some on Twitter said he deserved it.There was little self-awareness as reporters joined the Dutton pile-on, even though some were people who claim it is hate speech to refer to a person as “he” or “she” if they prefer the gender-neutral pronoun “they”. Never mind Dutton, a former police sergeant with an impeccable record of public service, has a wife and three children.

Occasional ABC talent, author, Fairfax columnist and gay activist Benjamin Law tweeted: “I am screaming” at the Dutton news. His followers were celebrating, wanting Dutton to be sent to Christmas Island, opening a bottle of “Corona beer” to cheer the news and generally speaking about karma. Law did not call out their hate speech.

Prominent retired former Canberra political correspondent Mungo MacCallum wrote for both former Gough Whitlam staffer John Menadue’s JohnMenadue.com and The Monthly, taking aim at Dutton: “It would be harsh and uncaring to admit a modicum of satisfaction at the news that Peter Dutton has contracted coronavirus,” one piece began. It concluded: “ … Peter Dutton assures us that he is feeling fine and will be back at work in a couple of weeks. In the meantime he will be dealing with his repressive portfolio in the comfort of his well-appointed hotel room. Oh well, you can’t win them all.”

This is what passes for journalism today. And Dutton worked from home after hospital.

Mike Carlton on March 13 tweeted Dutton “to Christmas Island”, while Guardian columnist Van Badham used the Dutton diagnosis to suggest Morrison had almost certainly contracted the virus from Dutton during that week’s cabinet meeting. He had not, and as Dr Murphy made clear, Morrison’s meeting 72 hours before the Dutton diagnosis did not fit the criteria for testing.

Badham, who had been urging Morrison to go back to Hawaii, wrote, “Wait — Scott Morrison was in a cabinet meeting with Dutton while Dutton was infectious … and Morrison’s still planning on heading to the footy … to what? Be the first Australian prime ministerial plague bearer?”

Back to the humility mentioned in the second paragraph.

“Some Coronavirus Humility” was published in New York’s City Journal on March 16 by Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson argues we are unlikely to understand the dimensions of the pandemic until it is over. He discusses systemic failings in understanding of swine flu epidemics in 1976 and 2009. In 1977, in the face of predictions of up to 60 million US infections and 500,000 deaths, a largely unproven vaccine was rushed to market. About 450 people had adverse reactions, contracting the “crippling Guillain-Barre Syndrome”. This is seen as the birth of the anti-vaxxer movement.

Humility? There is nothing wrong with leaders admitting we don’t know everything about COVID-19. Changing their positions as circumstances change is logical. Considering the effects of shutdowns on the poor, the elderly, key health workers and our economy is essential.