« KABC Los Angeles Interview | Main | Hillary, Polls and Blogs: Her Possible Blog Strategies »

Bird Flu Blogging: Truth to Power

UPDATED: 01/09/06

Big media are not as big as we need them to be. A thousand reporters herd to the Michael Jackson trial, but not enough seek out places where really important news is breaking. The number of fulltime foreign correspondents working for so called "major networks" and newspapers has decreased in recent years [1] as has the amount of of money and resources mainstream media spends on foreign newsgathering. [2] Tom Fenton, the veteran foreign correspondent for The Baltimore Sun and CBS News just noted: "American news organizations [have] so depleted the ranks of hard news reporters over the years that they suddenly had to send out whatever lifestyle, fashion, and gossip types they could muster on a moment's notice." [3]

The mainstream reporter, as well, often stays in capitals and major cities. Bloggers, however, can specialize, look at nooks and crannies big media don't care or don't know about, or don't have any focus on.

Take Bird Flu: Those two words are getting major big media coverage and government attention.

Here is one item covered by the BBC of a few days ago.

Two teenagers in Turkey have died of bird flu, Turkish officials say, in the first cases outside South-East Asia.

CNN reported: "TURKISH BOY" dies from Bird Flu.

CBS: Also, now, as of today reported a third death in the same family.

MSNBC reports new cases in the Turkish capital.

The stories are treated as a medical item. Important--but nonpolitical. But there is one factor missing. Southeastern Turkey is a Kurdish region.

Why is this vital information?

Vladimir "van Wilgenburg" a young Dutch student and journalist blogs "From Holland to Kurdistan," independently studying news from the Kurdish region of Iraq and the Kurdish lands in Iran, Syria and Turkey. He reveals an important detail of the Bird Flu story: The first family hit by the flu and the deaths were ethnic Kurds, a people long persecuted by the Turkish government.

This is his report on "Turkish state not helping Kurds dying from flu (Saturday, January 07, 2006):

Due to extreme poverty, many [Kurds] have chosen to eat their sick animals rather than bury them in lime pits. Several residents said Turkish authorities had failed to properly inform the Kurdish-speaking community about what bird flu is and how it spreads to humans.

"Do you know what we can do against bird flu?" three students from a vocational medical school asked an AFP photographer on the mud-covered streets of the town, where donkeys compete for space with motorised vehicles.

"People are trying to learn what is going on from television, but most do not know Turkish fluently, they speak only Kurdish," said a high school student who only identified himself as Erhan. Some, meanwhile, appeared to have taken official warnings to heart. "I do not eat poultry. I stay away from poultry and I do not let passengers with live poultry in their hands into my car," 30-year-old taxi driver Hakan Capan said.

Others took a more fatalistic aproach to the threat. Nuri Akatar, a 35-year-old self-employed father of eight, said two of his children fell sick after his wife cut up sick poultry and cooked them, but underlined that he was sure it was not bird flu. "We went to the doctor who said we were not in danger. If something happens to a member of my family, there is nothing I can do, I will leave it up to Allah," he said.

Farm minister said bird flu had been detected in two wild ducks near the capital, Ankara, nearly 1,000km west of infected areas. "The disease has been identified in two wild ducks near a dam at Nallihan (about 100km west of Ankara)," Agriculture Minister Mehdi Eker told a televised news conference called to brief reporters on the situation in eastern Turkey [ Nort-Kurdistan].

The discovery suggests migratory birds may be spreading the disease across the large country, as experts had warned.

Kurdish family in vain

Wails echoed from the home of the devastated Kocyigit family, a simple concrete structure built high above this Kurdish town. Beneath snow-covered mountains nearby, an open grave awaited.

The family has lost three of its four children this week to bird flu or suspected bird flu: 14-year-old Mehmet Kocyigit and his sisters 15-year-old Fatma and 11-year-old Hulya. The fourth was hospitalized.

The doctor who treated the Kocyigit children said they most likely contracted the virus while playing with the heads of chickens who had died of bird flu. The children had reportedly tossed the chicken heads like balls inside their house.

As teams dressed in protective suits went home to home rounding up poultry for destruction, mourners trekked up the hill to the Kocyigit house. They took off their shoes before entering to sit with the children's grieving mother. The father stayed at the hospital with their last remaining child until late afternoon, when he came back to bury his third child in a week.

Hulya was buried later Friday in a simple, small grave in the corner of the cemetery beside her siblings. An imam wearing a mask and rubber gloves presided.

We're suffering," said an uncle of the children, Hasan Kocyigit.

The Kocyigits were a typical Dogubayazit family -- Kurdish, poor, dependent on and living closely with their livestock.

Bird flu does not easily infect humans, experts say. Eating cooked chicken is not considered risky. Health officials have said only those who had been in close contact with poultry were at risk. In Dogubayazit, that's nearly everyone. On the main streets of this town of 56,000 near the Iranian border, cars and trucks compete with carts bearing live animals and with flocks of sheep.

The people of Dogubayazit, 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) east of Ankara, are accustomed to living near their animals, and often it is the children who deal most with them. The people have seen their animals sicken before, but until now never thought it could put them in danger. "They knew the animals were sick, but who knew it would kill them?" Hasan Kocyigit said.

Language Barrier

Education is key to controlling the spread of the virus. That is hampered here by poverty and the inability of many in this largely Kurdish town -- especially women -- to speak Turkish.

Less than three months ago, Turkey tackled a large outbreak of the same deadly virus in a village in the west. No one there got sick, and the country was praised for its effective response.

Here in the east, things have been different. [Reference to the Kurdish area]

Trudging over the hilltops toward other houses of brick, concrete and stone, neighbor Ahmet Tastan, father of nine, translated from Kurdish to Turkish for his wife and other women worried they or their children would become sick.

They said they did not speak Turkish well enough to deal with doctors, and complained that the local hospital could not do anything for them, and that a larger one in Van where the Kocyigit children were treated was too far away.

....There is no trust among Kurds for the Turkish state and their policies

Or go to the Kurdish blog "Rasti":

"Enforced poverty of Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, as well as lack of services, have been part of the policies of the Turkish state used to wipe out the existence of the Kurdish people. Are these policies now beginning to bear fruit for the Turks? What they could not do with all their armies, they are permitting a tiny virus to do."

See also report in Kurdish media.

What a difference a blog or two makes: a political angle is brought in that probably contributed to the disease breakout in the first place. Where are the reporters for the networks, the big media? Why is this not the major press angle of the story?

Part of the propaganda of commercial media is that they keep us in touch with, as one slogan goes, "the news you need"; one network program even promises, "Give us 23 minutes and we'll give you the world;" The New York Times' most recent slogan is "everywhere you can't be." But the "world" and the "where" we tend to see in mainstream media is narrow, selective, episodic, torn from context. I illustrate this fact by asking my students to name more than two wars going on in the world today. Most can cite conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my surveys, Vietnam, China, and "Africa" trail distantly behind. In fact, there are about 40 wars raging in various parts of the planet. Some objectively are huge news stories--1 million dead in the Sudan, 3.9 million killed in the Congo--but they receive scant coverage, while others are given saturation coverage. The Congo War is presently killing 38,000 people a month!

study found that during a 15 month period the ratio of reports on ABC news from Iraq versus the Congo was 4997 to 4!

Why the disparity in news coverage of between say one missing American teenager in Aruba and tens of thousands dead in the Congo? The reasons are complex, political and logistical, but the result is that the herd chases its own tails (and tales). If Iraq is the big story, then all the lenses go to Iraq, Congo be damned. Meanwhile the U.S. mainstream media diverts into issues that we would all agree are quite trivial in the scope of the economy or world peace--the Michael Jackson trial, for example.

The blowback for such inattention can be fatal. On August 24, 2001, I wrote an editorial printed on the MSNBC Web site about the then wall-to-wall coverage of the missing intern from Congressman Gary Condit's office. [*no longer online.] I pointed out that a Nielsen-estimated 24 million Americans had watched Connie Chung's interview with Condit. I contrasted this immensity of news coverage with the fact that, according to United Nations reports, up to 60 million female children are "missing," that is, presumed killed by parents who don't want daughters. Also, 585,000 young women die annually of complications from pregnancy and childbirth; more children died last year from malnutrition than died during the era of the black plague in medieval Europe. Finally, according to the Save the Children organization, "in Asia, one mother in 19 sees her child die in the first year of life."

I wondered if we couldn't find some way to escape from the spiral of silliness, triviality, and "human interest" sensation that had become the news business, or at least instill a sense of relativity.

A few weeks later, on September 11, 2001, we were all reminded that important events and issues occurring in distant lands can explode in our backyard if we ignore them. Who can cheerlead for such a system of selecting "what is news"? Who will mourn its passing? Again, blogs may not be the only answer, but the mainstream media are the problem, and the many good, conscientious, honest reporters trapped within the system know it.

Let's hope the bird flu is not the biggest blowback of all...

[1] Stephen Hess, "Media Mavens," Society, 33, no. 3 (1996): 70-8.

[2] Daniel Riffe and Ariamie Budianto, "The shrinking world of network news," International Communication Bulletin, 37, Spring, 2001: 18-35.

[3] Tom Fenton, Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger to Us All. (NY: Regan, 2005): 63. 

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    David Perlmutter at PolicyByBlog points to blogger Vladimir van Wilgenberg who focuses on the Kurdish territories of the Middle East and brings a new dimension to the bird flu outbreak in Turkey: ... Due to extreme poverty, many [Kurds] have...

Reader Comments (58)

When it comes to “Bird Flu” and other epidemics people seem to see the least amount of media coverage until it involves American citizens. At any time when you turn on the news you will see more coverage about Hollywood stars and what dramatic experience they had shopping than thousands of people dying from bird flu or wars. The media does what it needs to do for ratings, even when it has to do with people dying all over the planet. The one thing that absolutely bothers me is what happens when the bird flu comes to America. Instead of covering the bird flu and making people realize this is a huge deal, we are busy worrying about movie stars and other pointless things. The media needs to get its priorities straight and report what is affecting the people of this country.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterError159
This very informative blog on the bird flu made me feel very naive about what is going on in the world. It has previously been brought to my attention that the mainstream media does only like to chase the more entertaining stories to maintain more viewers, however, this blog made me realize the extent of it. It might be true that Americans are more conserned with what our country is involved with, but that does not mean that we should be left in the dark about other issues around the world. In my oppinion, it is obvious that if the news media would educate its viewers more on foreign issues such as the bird flu, we might be more inclined to do something to help.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commenternews123
I would have to agree that the media only covers those instances that either most affect the people in the U.S. or have something to do with the entertainment industry. The media is there to communicate these events to the public, but with so much going on in the world, like the many different wars, who decides what is shown and what is not. It is the media’s job to deliver the news to us, but we can’t be lazy about finding the information either. Things such as these types of web logs and other news websites on the internet discuss these rather global epidemics. Although they should probably be made more apparent, they do exist and maybe we are the ones that need to try to change the focus onto the more important events occurring today.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterbiggiesmallz13
The media always airs what the public wants to see and not what we need to see. Instead of preparing us for a possible national crisis that could easily strike in the near future, they continue to report on Brad and Angelina’s pregnancy. Brad and Angelina are receiving more media coverage just because they are having a baby than the thousands of people dying in another country. The flu is spreading across the Turkish nation and can easily find its way into America. If it happens to find its way into the country, are Americans prepared and well educated on the flu, and is our government prepared? I do not put the full blame on the media. The majority of Americans would change the channel from a report on the bird flu in order to watch who Jennifer Anniston is seen at the beach with and what her friends say about her new love.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commentercperri
We, as Americans, are too self-absorbed to worry about the problems of other impoverished countries. Although I can’t say that I am an avid reader of the newspaper, I do get around to reading it every now and then. I must say that I have never found a humanitarian piece to be so informing. I have read a few articles on the bird flu, but found the information to be lax and futile; whereas the information provided in this blog was actually informing. I recall the last newspaper article that I read concerning the bird flu. A Turkish doctor was complaining about the amount of media coverage that the epidemic was receiving. He said that it was not enough for Americans that people from his country were contracting the virus; they were not interested in covering the story until people began dying. I think that this doctor said it perfectly. We are not interested in hearing about any event until the outcome is devastating. I do think it would be beneficial to our youth if they were exposed to situations like these, rather than the celebrity saga. Perhaps, if we were exposed to situations like these at an earlier age, we would do more than sigh about them over our diner.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterBurt03
Simply put news companies are now being run by network executives. The result of this is less coverage for things that really matter, and more coverage of sensational stories. Stories that seem sexy to president’s of these news companies. With more and more cable news channels popping up through the years, the news companies find themselves in direct competition. They have become less concerned with accuracy, world matters, and legitimate pressing matters. They now simply want to beat the other company to the next sensation. They don’t want to commit to a story that would require in-depth research. They don’t have time for that. The closes they usually come is a story about the local Burger King serving bad hamburgers. If it doesn’t bring in viewers it doesn’t go on air. The news of the day is not dictated by the importance of the story. It is dictated by whatever the news director wants to show. What ever benefits his point of view, in this way the news is skewed toward whatever the news director wants us to pay attention to. This could be to the benefit of a political party or maybe even a corporate sponsor or partner. So it can be no surprise important facts like those shown in this blog are missed. With more large corporations comes less reporters out there independently looking for a story. There are more stories and less news companies ready to go out and find them. Money now dictates news and this is the result.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commentertaco45
Reading this blog makes you really question what we see on the news. The news often revolves around subjects that seem very unimportant to us and that are just on the news because it’s a good story or because it will provide us with some form of entertainment. I guess you can’t really blame people in the news for trying to focus their attention to what the people want to hear about, but at the same time we should be much more informed about other situations going on around the world than we are. I know that many Americans can get stuck on the fact that there is a girl missing in Aruba because it is a good story, but the bottom line is that a story such as this should not receive the amount of media attention that it has compared to some of the other events going on around the world.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterMOOSE
The clash of entertainment versus news is something that has been in my mind since my high school journalism class. Providing fast, accurate, and diverse news is only a secondary objective of the news media. The primary objective is self-preservation. The various media outlets must make money if they are to survive. Money comes from advertising and depends largely, if not entirely, on the size of the audience. I, like many people, don’t have the time or attention span to sit down and read/watch hours of hard news. I’d rather just get the general facts, and maybe more detailed information if something is interesting. After a long day of work or school, most people want to just sit back and relax. They want to be entertained. So, there is an ideological, if not ethical, dilemma between the presentation of factual certainty and the need to provide bold, fast, entertaining news. Unfortunately, both are necessary. If a news service is not entertaining enough to hold an audience, it will not be around much longer. Likewise, if a news service is too sensational and lacks some reasonable amount of accuracy, it will lose credibility and lose much of its audience as well. In the current paid-by-advertisement system, the only solution appears to be a compromise between the two. Be accurate enough to maintain a credible image while being entertaining enough to get the ratings.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterInVinoVeritas
I feel this piece is a very informative work and brings much needed attention to the problems in today's media. It made me realize how much our news today primarily focuses on only what affects the United States. As the title suggests, the "World News" needs to spend more time and coverage on actual world news instead of trivial matters such as the latest celebrity scandals. I liked this article because it allows the reader to relate by actually gave examples of how this disease is affecting families. This was very informative and I enjoyed it.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commenteremily1439
I do agree strongly with the fact that the mainstream media isn't giving us everything, but only what "we need". For example, I have heard many things about the bird flu, but nothing as in depth as the previous blog.
An argument such as this brings questions of other instances of this around the world such as the many wars that occurring at this moment, even though a large percentage of the American population have no idea of whats happening.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commenteregusalus
This blog was interesting to me. I'm quite embarrassed to say that I wasn't really completely aware that the media decides what people will and will not be reminded/made aware of. One specific example that I believe is a "sums it all up" way to prove this, is the war going on in Iraq. We know when our people die in Iraq, who they were, and where they are from. It is, in the jist of things, sad that the media writes the story that the people want to hear, and not, for example, the story that the people need to hear. I wonder though, what would happen if the media changed completely to focusing solely on the 'important' story. What would happen if they gave us a more 'spread out' sense of that was going on 'where we can't be'. I assume that the media would probably have a hard time making the money they are currently making because a large amount of people would probably lose interest. I guess the thing that makes me wonder is: is the media wrong? or are we to blame? The media only plays off of what we show them. If the war in Iraq is what we want to hear, then that's what we are told. If people are changing that channel when talk of Africa or other places and events that aren't considered buzz-worthy, then what would make the media want to speak about it? I guess what I'm saying is the media may be wrong for it's coverage, but essentially we allow them to be that way.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commentersmartgirlmc
Before I read this article my opinion on blogs and anyone who wasted their time on them was just that, a waste. However, now I find myself asking what have I been missing? I am not surprised in the least that the networks don’t cover as much as they should. It was my opinion that the only way to find out about the rest of the world was to find books on them or visit the place. Now my eyes have been opened and I plan on devoting much more time with this new tool learning what is going on around the world. Knowledge is power, and the more I know the more I can share with others and maybe if enough people start hearing about it the networks might start doing their job better.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterSt. Aiden
Mainstream media is primarily focused on bringing information to the masses, therefore, the media preference of the majority will be presented to the public. The American public, as a whole, wants to see a spouse homicide or anything to do with a celebrity. The majority of the American public does not care about or want to see the problems of Turkey or anyone else besides themselves. I would not look at mainstream media as dignified or as always relevant but as popular. This is my first blogging, but I can see how a blogger or any person who wants specific, dignified, and important information could get exasperated with mainstream media. Mainstream media has a strong business concern. In this case, it is their constituents, the American public, who are to blame for the selfish and immaterial media coverage of the United States.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterBLUEBIRD
I think that the way mainstream media doesn't report the full truth all the time is horrible. I think that the fault goes to both the news organizations and to the individual journalists as well. The organizations have a responsibility to make money. This gives them an incentive to spend less on international news coverage and to try and make things as exciting as possible by not telling all aspects of the news. The individual journalists have the most responsibility to make sure that the American public gets the truth since they are the only ones with access to it. Unless we want to be uneducated about what is going on in other parts of the world we must show the media organizations that we are more interested than they seem to think we are. Only then will they be willing to do more to give us the full story in the future.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterblogsarefun2006
Very interesting indeed is the way the media decides for us all what is deemed worthy news. It seems like everyday we get flooded with more information than we can handle and who is to say that the new being reported is the news that is most relevant and pertinent to our own lives. It also blows my mind about the conflict in the Congo. While I was aware of the conflict I never knew how huge the fighting had become. What an enormous death toll. It just goes to show that we do follow our own tails the rest of the world aside. Good Stuff.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commentermcbeaver9
This blog is interesting because just last night I was reading an article in Self magazine concerning the Bird Flu and America. The article focused on how the disease would affect Americans and only lightly touched on the state of the rest of the world. The media is concerned with the current world “super-power”. If Americans are in the area or are going to be greatly affected by the situation, then obviously we want to read about it. Most young people (teens—early thirties) are so preoccupied with getting ahead in today’s world that they simply don’t care about anything that does not directly affect them or have an impact on their immediate surroundings. The media knows this. In the race for ratings and readership the media understands they must give the news that the people will want to read. For example, undernourished children in Cambodia are only interesting when Angelina Jolie adopts another child from the region or goes to volunteer with those children. Overall, I think the media needs to realize that the world as a whole needs to be covered, not only what concerns Americans.
January 25, 2006 | Unregistered Commentertexasbelle311
I agree that the media isn't always trustworthy with the news they report or don't report. In today's day and age, we (or at least most of us) want to know what is going on, not just in our community, but in the world. But since we cannot travel around the world and see for ourselves what is happening, we must rely on the news and the media to inform us. Because of this, it is their responsibility to give us a true account of the goings on in other places. Deciding what is important for us to know about and what details aren't, isn't their place. As with the Bird Flu news, the smallest detail might prove the most valuable information for someone. We should be able to trust that the news we are receiving is not biased and truely keeps us well informed.
January 27, 2006 | Unregistered Commentersparrow
In my opinion I feel that the media never shows the real deal on anything. No matter who you are or where you live, the news should be the one place that you know exactly what is going on in the world. What is the point in watching the news then?
The people living in the areas affected by the bird flu should know the specific areas to stay away from. Not having that appropriate knowledge could cost someone or many thier lives. If we cannot listen to the news and trust that they are giving us, as a whole, all of the inside scoop then what else do we go to?
February 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commentermac48

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.