Social’s Time to Shine with Ebola Surveillance.

Photo Courtesy of Tommy Trenchard

Photo Courtesy of Tommy Trenchard

Why Social Media Will Be Critical for Ebola Surveillance.

The Ebola virus disease is real. As of October 14, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone have lost over 4,500 citizens to the virus and the mortality rate continues to multiply. Outside west Africa, America and Spain strengthen their preparedness in light of serious errors in standard operating procedures. The European Union heightens their preparations with possible new cases arising in France and Spain respectively.

There is no doubt; Ebola is a very serious medical event needing responsible story telling. Media have (a degree of) accountability to ethically inform the public with balanced and culpable reporting.

In which universe?

As before and always, broadcast and print deafen our senses hourly within a framework of fear and apprehension. For many, this seems like déjà vu. Media professed countless stories of doom and gloom in 2001 and 2003 (H5N1), 2002 (SARS) and 2009 (H1N1) viral outbreaks. Each of these influenza pandemics were wrapped with the same predictable means of anxiety and fear.

Let’s face it, news-gathering is driven by advertising revenues and ‘if it bleed it leads.’ We get that.

But what about the new (media) kid on the block?

Is social media merely a ‘media vector’ glad-handing news reports on Twitter et al? Is it not the time for social to stand apart from traditional media and provide a new purpose when telling the pandemic story? The public deserve more stories detailing how the world is managing the issue. Not countless minutes of video loops and talking heads proclaiming why no one is doing anything and how much money is being spent.

The time is now for social to take centre stage by telling the story everyone really wants to hear – surveillance.

After all, social media is the public’s media!


Top reasons why social will help control Ebola

Events Based Surveillance

Bioterrorism remains the number one issue for event-based surveillance (EBS) within the American and European governments. Recently billions has been poured into biodefense in something called a Biosurveillance Ecosystem.  An American early warning detection system wired to analyze and track bioterrorism in the U.S.. Something newly minted Ebola czar @RonaldKlain will tap into, right?

In the 2012 Olympic Games the U.K. implemented an EBS to great success and is now a standard in EBS technology and benchmark code for future algorithms. Considering public participation is imperative with good EBS data, let’s hear some these stories!

As with past pandemics, online giants as Google provided search tools as Google’s flu trends which mapped out influenza hot spots for early warning. Yes, Google was leery on giving away flu search terms as to ward off hackers, but clearly Rihanna or other celebrities have learned and will not claim flu-like indices on their Twitter handles regarding Ebola, right?

Twitter

The world’s largest ‘micro-blogging’ platform now rings in half a billion tweets a day. Plus, as of March of this year, mobile apps have overtaken PC internet usage. This gives Twitter a huge capacity to broadcast from literally, anywhere. Equally, at 140 characters, the communication is more succinct and offers phraseology conducive to behaviour tracking. Past influenzas has underscored the importance of developing algorithms to parse off the Twitter slang and offer accurate data outside of Google search terms.

Twitter also offers Geo-tagging (GPS tagged tweets) relaying real-time metadata. Gone are the days of helicopters following white Broncos, now we can accurately plot a virus’ virulent path by tracking photos from mobile devices.

Crowd Sourcing

Invaluable towards the tracking and eventual capture of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects; crowd sourcing is growing as a premier surveillance tool. Groups as crowdbreaks.com rely on public data to help track STDs, influenza, tuberculosis amongst other maladies. This beta site is funded by Salathé Group, CIDD, Penn State University and Health Map and is actively positioned for social integration.

People Have the Power

Social will help the world react to Ebola in a positive and proactive manner. Not by proliferating fear through misinformed tweets, but by uniting together with their devices as one true mechanism to track, analyze and ultimately beat this horrible and devastating disease.

Patty Smith sang it best, “People have the power!”

Footnote: This blog entry supports all the dedicated and selfless work rendered by the hundreds of medical workers in west Africa and around the world. In death there will be triumph and on behalf of all patients suffering from Ebola, thank you.

John K. Bromley

Advertisements

Hold On. Where are the Facts Ma’am?

How can we trust media when they get the facts wrong and don’t use subject matter experts?

Dragnet’s Jack Webb said it best, ‘All We Want Are The Facts.’ A simple question based on extracting the truth while at the same time building trust. Yes, the 50’s was a completely different time. Attaining the truth was a regular non-occurrence due to a cold war instilling a culture of neurosis and paranoia in both entertainment and news broadcasting. Surely fifty odds years later we have broken down those barriers and are getting our news from a trustworthy source. Right?

It sure doesn’t look that way.

The recent CNN reporting of a ‘Top Secret Ebola Serum Given to U.S. Patients’ piece represents an unfortunate example of how ‘scoop’ trumps ethics in news broadcasting. You will notice the lead uses a term – ‘top secret.’ Top secret eh… Are they saying that only U.S. patients are able to use this serum? A CIA and M6 backed regime are transporting it now as we watch?

Here we go again…

In media planning we all strive to move away from the use of sensational jargon when writing our headlines. In this case not essentially an ethical misstep, but certainly an issue management faux pas. Using an exclusive and emotional term as ‘top secret’ in a highly apprehensive story as the Ebola crisis in Africa, was seen by many, most prolifically medical experts, as irresponsible, sensational and not looking at the facts.

Reuters’ health expert Andrew M. Seaman, quickly dispatched a tweet with the headline: Experimental Not Equal to Secret in an attempt to inject professional credibility and reduce panic to CNN’s story.

The question arises for media experts to ask,

‘Is the practice of using sensational language ethical and acceptable in news reporting?’

In this example, does the medical community view broadcast ethics through a finer lens than mainstream media? Is that important?

You bet it is. It should be common practice to follow the medical example when writing highly sensitive and emotive stories. You would be hard pressed to find a doctor readily using phrasing as ‘top secret’ in their report as it delivers a message of secrecy, exclusivity and privilege. Doctors are the stanchest advocates for equal access to cures and remedies and actively support a universal application to treating maladies, illnesses et al. Certainly not something akin to top secret.

At the end of the day, it’s all about selling advertising time on the broadcast. We get this, but at what cost to the public?

Does this mean mainstream news broadcasting will continue to circumvent media relations’ best practices as using real facts and subject matter experts to attain ratings?

In media relations, we are often tasked to check our facts not once, but twice, and to always have an expert ready to back them up. No expert to corroborate the facts. No interview. This rings true in all stories that are based in subject matters needing the facts checked and validated by industry experts. After all, as communications professionals it is our credibility on the line, right?

Let’s look at the other major U.S. news network, Fox; recognized for its conservative editorial and lip service to the far right. Fox has been caught recently not fact checking or to that matter, bringing in experts to corroborate their editorial scripting. In punditfact.com Fox News is cited many times for their on-air talent making unfounded and sometime ridiculous statements. Ludicrous yes, but sad in the fact that a whole whack of folks watching them think what the talent is saying is gospel.

Has all this unethical news reporting hurt the trust scores at the major networks?

CNN’s credibility in light of recent gaffs still rings in with a remarkable 60% honest and reliable and thereby trusted compared to Fox at 60% false or partially false. Edelman’s 2014 Trust Barometer has mainstream media broadcast sitting at 65% trusted. Conversely, most western nations range at a lower rate of trust compared to last year.

So there you have it. Just the facts. As blogged about in ‘Who Says News is Dead’ broadcast news is far from going the way of the dodo but at a level much lower than before.

Joe Friday knew that truth has the ability to show itself when the facts are clearly presented. Let’s hope the producers of major news gathering affiliates will somehow have the foresight to catch Joe Friday one late night and hear those essential words in his most famous speech: ‘A quirk in the Law.’

John K. Bromley