I think it's because no politician or Gov't official wants to be accused of not doing enough after the fact a la Katrina.

All of our schools in our county got closed today, for the next two weeks. We canceled our Wed night children's activities, as did all the other churches in our area.

We've got several confirmed cases in our area.

And you know what they say...A pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure. (Right? :)

That's what the media does. We were all supposed to die a week ago Thursday from global warming, if you remember.

And before that we were to die from killer bees, or was it Legionnaires disease, or nuclear holocaust, and other whatnot. I've been hearing about the apocalypse right around the corner for all my life.

They live to get people scared, so we'll spend all our time glued to the TV.

Good questions Jared.

I think it's because the term "News" implies "News you care about"

And alternately I think the media gets criticized when it shows us "news we should care about" because they are pushing their agenda. And they get criticized when they show us news we do care about, because then we hear endless amounts of Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton.

Like the Health care problem, I think there's plenty of blame to go around. Media/gov't/public all play a part.

Seriously, though something like this is tough. What if it does turn out to be a major problem, and the media didn't talk about it much. Would people be mad at them then? I think the Media is obligated to report this stuff..especially locally. Our schools are being shut down in my area. We need to know what's going on!

This morning while watching the news about all the schools that were being shut down and all the abundance of caution and precautions that were being taken, the reporter on the scene of nothing said that in light of all that was being done (A LOT) the gov't clearly thought in this case an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and he signed off.

Two thoughts went through my head. First, what is it with journalists and cliche's? Second, he was inaccurate. In light of all he just said, he should have closed with "in this case the gov't believes a hundred pounds of prevention is worth an ounce of cure."

I think the drama on the news has less to do with the severity of the disease and more to do with the fact that it is relatively out of control.

While malaria kills thousands, it is relatively regional and controlled, on a macro level. Yes - we don't get malaria in North America and there might be a hint of ethnicism going on here, but I think the drama with swine flu is the idea that we're being attacked and no one really knows where it's coming from, how bad its consequences are and, therefore, what to do with the situation.

Only a handful of people die from this disease (and all of those deaths were contracted outside of our borders), but we've shut down complete school districts, all athletics in the state of Texas (which is actually a large undertaking) and our Vice President is recommending that we don't enter into any confined space such as subways, airplanes, buses, etc. Basically, don't go anywhere unless you're driving yourself and your destination doesn't include classrooms or other confined places (yes, he said we should not go into classrooms - yet my finals remain as scheduled?).

So the news is going overboard. That's not really news, is it? Still, I think that this time around, it is more of a case of the news reflecting reality than making up the drama on their own. It seems like either our government knows something we do not know and is taking vast steps to protect all of us, or they're going crazy. And the news feeds on crazy like Samson feeds on honey from the inside of a lion carcass. (Without regard for appropriateness or dignity - can you tell I'm studying Judges right now?)

So malaria isn't a new threat attacking from out of nowhere. It is more deadly, more severe and more important, but we know everything there is to know about it. We even know how to get rid of it, as we've done successfully here in the US, yet we do nothing. Sometimes the most successful news is the reporting of what no one knows on the scene of nothing. This is one of those cases where as soon as we know something, the drama will go away. Ironically, as soon as there is news, there will be no more news.

I changed my mind again. I'm with Jared totally now.

And here's why: I saw something on the news this morning. It was an interview with some high, knowledgable doctor lady.

She said that the regular flu kills thousands in the U.S. every year. THOUSANDS!

What makes this different is only that it is a "new strain" and we are watching biology in real time which has never happened before. She said this is how nature works. Diseases mutate and change and spread through the population until the population develops an immunity.

The only difference this time is knowledge and awareness of it as it happens.

I think the media gets criticized when it shows us "news we should care about" because they are pushing their agenda. And they get criticized when they show us news we do care about, because then we hear endless amounts of Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton.


Beautifully said

Right now, I mean, right now, I'm having to decide whether or not to have services Sunday.

Sigh.

Everything in our area is now closed. Schools, daycares, Little league, a local playpark called "Emerald Rainbow" etc...

I think this is one of those cases where I will get criticized no matter what.

Shrode, what's everyone else doing?
Do the opposite and maybe you'll get on the news, gaining some free publicity for your church. :-)

(Make sure you were a mask in your interview for added effect.)

Whenever there's a crisis there are HUGE profits to be made both politically and financially. Yes the media is in the business of creating, maintaining, and prolonging crises on local and national levels. More and more the media IS the news, a condition that used to be anathema to journalists with any integrity. Not any more.

Now that they're in bed with the administration, the congress, and the judicial branch, we are going to see more and more molehills presented as mountains and mountains presented as planets.

Gore's success has inebriated the lot of them and they can't get enough.

I'm not saying this isn't serious. It is. Precisely because of the unknown variables. But watching the liberal politicians getting all shivery with goosebumps at the thrill of cashing in is disgusting to the nth. I have to shower after every news cast anymore.

I think the reason a lot of people are going nutso about swine flu right now is because they think it threatens white Americans.

1) the last time I checked, malaria didn't get on an airplane and travel world-wide.

2) it isn't that it's threatening white Americans, it's that it may end up threatening those we care about (no matter what ethnic group they belong to).

3) that means that it may end up threatening those who God has given us the duty to care for...

4) I work with a population that includes immuno-compromised people, I don't see racism in being extra-vigilant.

5) and that also means that if our government has been put into place by God and has the job of watching over the safety and security of the citizens, our government would merely doing its job if it stays vigilant and takes measures if needed.

Sorry, I'm not looking under that rock for racism.

Jared,

I both see and agree with your point, and have reservations.

You're right. We should care more and be doing more to take care of those far away who are dying (in far greater numbers than what we experience here).

And, yes, the media is - at least to this point - way overblowing this. They aren't helped by our gaffe-machine Vice President either.

But . . .

(and I know you despise "yes, buts", so bear with me :-)

For most of history, most people were only aware of problems and dangers close to home. It's only in recent generations that it's even been possible to know much about what's going on on the other side of the globe. Now we have the entire world, full of tragedy, to think about and hear about. And yet human nature remains: it's sin, I know, but I am saddened by the death of a child in Africa, but completely alarmed by a danger to my own children (note: I'm not alarmed at all yet about swine flu).

I know I need to work on that. But I'm with Ellen - there was a racial component in your original post that I don't think is there.

If your point is that we are guilty of the sin of self interest, then I agree.

I'm guilty as charged.

I agree with you, Jared.

What should we do?

Human problem, I think. But we should focus on our responsibility, I think, rather than play the "well, they don't think about us" game.

And actually they do. Churches in Asia and Latin America are sending missionaries here more and more because we're not evangelizing. We're a mission field for the places where Christianity is really on fire.

But to answer your question about what we can do:
The post was about the panic. I'd suggest we educate ourselves and "worry" just as much about the 2/3 world as we do ours.

And then there are mosquito net programs we can support, places we can go if we have the time and money to see in person what's happening, missionaries we can support, and churches (starting with our own) we can urge to devote more resources and focus toward our neighbors and less towards ourselves.

I think, rather than play the "well, they don't think about us" game.

I hope you don't think that's where I'm at - I shouldn't have brought that up. I admit I'm not doing what I should for the rest of the world. But I'm not in the "just let the heathens die" camp.

Good suggestions.

Also, for the record, I'm anti-panic as well, and have been for years. I think the panic we hear on the news about, well, everything is ridiculous.

I think it's complicated, but I think Jared is largely right. I heard someone say -- and I think this was Os Guinness, but don't take my word for it -- that American news agencies basically had a formula for how much time to devote to a story about death/destruction/disease etc. A story that affected one American was worth a story that affected about 10 Europeans. And that was worth a story that affected about 100 folks anywhere else.
And then, of course, the more hysteria the media can create over this, the more tightly we will glue ourselves to the TV screens, and the more they can charge their sponsors for air time. "The business of newspapers [or networks, or internet new sites, or ...] is business!"

More info:
I heard this morning that the regular flu kills 30-35,000 Americans every year.
(Swine flu has so far killed 0 Americans, and >30 worldwide so far.)

Clearly we should be wearing masks 24/7. :-)

A whole lot of children die from another common malady (dehydration due to diarrhea) that can be solved with some very inexpensive (pennies) rehydration treatment.

We don't know how good we've got it. Maybe that's why we freak out.

It doesn't help that the WHO has upped the level to 5 (Imminent Pandemic). I don't understand these things, but I guess it could get a lot worse.

Les, I tend to agree on the family thing, and I have written about the myth of evangelical and conservative apathy and such elsewhere.

But my whole point here isn't that we shouldn't care about ourselves. My point is that WE'RE FINE.
I was trying to say, before the convo went a million different directions, that the swine flu is not a threat to us. At least, not any ways near the sense that malaria is a threat to our neighbors.

I don't know about caring for ourselves first being from God. He says "think of God and neighbor first" too many times for me to be as gung-ho about that. But I get your point.

I hope others have understood that my point was not that we should care about some people more than others or not care about certain people or base our care on location or skin color.
My point was that we are more concerned about a statistical non-threat than we are a statistical threat b/c we believe the non-threat threatens us.

It's not like we were knocking ourselves out thinking about malaria when swine flu diverted our attention. We were obsessed with American Idol or something.

I don't want to belittle the malaria problem at all, nor do I want to defend the sensationalist reporting on swine flu, but I do think the new flu is more news-worthy than malaria. First because of its novelty, second because of its direct relevance to us, and third because of the potential death-toll. Sure, it hasn't killed many people yet, but neither did the first wave of the flu epidemic in 1918. AFAIK The second wave was the deadly one, and it killed more people than WW1 did. To be honest, you'd probably be best off catching swine flu now while it's benign and building an immunity. :) (should point out that I am not a medical doctor, a second deadly wave is unlikely, and please do not panic!) I've avoided the media coverage of swine flu, so I have no idea whether this is common knowledge or not; apologies if I'm being redundant.

Please consider donating to Oxfam to provide mosquito nets for Africa. In my opinion, it makes the biggest difference for the least money/politics. Also consider water management schemes which are a lot more difficult to judge, unfortunately there are some out there which are a waste of time and money, but mosquitoes breed especially well in flood waters.