Staying informed about the recently developed COVID-19 crisis–a crisis that has kept thousands in their homes, sent thousands to their deathbeds, and made millions terrified of the unforeseeable future–is an act of bravery.
Not as brave as the thousands of medical workers risking their lives on the front lines of this pandemic, but many people underestimate the courage needed to keep reading the news every morning. To watch the numbers of infected cases in your area grow exponentially. To watch the death toll slowly increase with every new day. It is not an easy thing to do–especially for individuals coping with mental health conditions and disorders.
Hence why I’ve tried keeping a comfortable distance from articles about COVID-19, particularly in my area. Some days, I will skim through articles explaining the virus’s spread and the precautions still needed before the quarantine can end. Other days I will watch The New York Times’s Coronavirus map get increasingly redder (and add new features like tracking cases by district). But sometimes, the only thing I want to know is if it is still safe in my area to walk outside and then I shut out all other coverage.
Now I’m not advocating for being uninformed–that is a whole other danger that puts yourself and those around you at risk. Nor should anyone use the “coverage” on social media as a replacement for articles from real media websites (that is asking for the 2016 election misinformation catastrophe all over again). But for someone with diagnosed anxiety and health concerns that put me at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, reading about the pandemic always comes with a risk.
But as I’ve been slowly exposing myself to more and more coverage as the pandemic continues, I’ve noticed a stark difference in how my local news has approached the subject. Nearly every article focuses on my direct community or my state. I understand the importance of proximity with news stories, but amidst a pandemic, I assumed the rules might change a bit.
For instance, the Peoria Journal Star ran serval articles involving COVID-19 in the past 48 hours but all of them focused on our local community. How are hospitals responding, how are grocery stores responding, how many cases have been reported–etc. The only story taking place outside the community was one involving Chicago and even it was framed on how it would impact the local community.
Is this the role of local news organizations at this time? It would make sense–hundreds are reporting on the national front, but only a select few sources are personalizing their stories to my area. This allows for a balance in coverage as if the news is functioning as a cohesive unit so none are left in the dark.
Is it an attempt to stay non-partisan? Many aspects of the outbreak have been politicized and many media organizations are feeding into rhetoric on the borderline of a conspiracy theory. This approach allows individuals to understand the importance of maintaining social distancing without being overtly biased towards a specific political alignment.
But a part of me is still . . . disappointed? Concerned? Irrationally upset? I understand the national news media is fulfilling a role and local organizations can then tailor their reporting, but a part of it feels narcissistic. We are in the midst of a national crisis and I expected a level of community from our media to bring us national coverage and local coverage in the same subscription package. To those who don’t have access to national coverage and prefer their local media stations, what levels of the news are they missing?
Perhaps with the news media, like many other aspects of our society, I am relearning the cold hard truth: capitalism is still king.
Brenna Fuhr 