Scientific vs. Mass Media Articles

The Zika virus has been talked about nonstop for the past few months by the mass media. The virus has laced the Olympics with fear. Officials, athletes, tourists, and natives all have fears about contracting the virus. Some athletes have even dropped out of the competition solely based on the virus. However, the truth is that not much has been discovered about the disease. Little is known about the effect the virus has on the carriers. This being said, doctors are working on a vaccine for Zika. So why are all of these people still fearing for their lives? All four of those discourse communities (Wardle and Downs 795) seem to agree that they all will contract the virus and bring it back to where that athlete originates from. However, that is not true. The virus is only spread through mosquitoes and sexual intercourse. Both of those infection means can be avoided, or at least fought off. The mass media has played the public into believing that the Zika virus will be the next plague. Most stories that are intended for mass-consumption include scary numbers, negative information, and the feeling that the readers are on their own to fix whatever the problem may be. However, scientific journals show that the Zika virus is not as large of a problem as the media and rumors make it out to be. These journals do not show the scary numbers that invoke fear into the hearts of the readers, but instead give the public enough information so that they can form their own decisions on the topics. Mass media articles often play with the fear of their audience, while scientific journals allow the readers to form their own opinions, as shown through the content, framing, and word choice of the respective pieces.

To begin, the authors of mass media articles include large numbers that are meant to overwhelm the audience so that they are less prone to make an argument. For example, an article by Alexandra Sifferlin that was published by TIME Magazine states, “But since its invasion in Brazil last year, the Zika virus has torn through Latin America , likely infecting millions”. The author of the article uses verbs such as torn to induce the feeling of fear into the audience. At first glance, the reader can tell that the virus has infected millions of people within Brazil alone in a short period of time. This can immediately set the reader into a state of shock that a virus can infect so many within such a short time period. However, considering the fact that the virus is spread through mosquitos and sexual intercourse, it should not be a surprise that Brazil has become a problem in an area where mosquitos and criminals both run rampant. Also, Sifferlin includes facts such as, “Puerto Rico has already reported more than 700 confirmed cases, including 89 pregnant women, and one person has died from the disease”, to try to show the reader that the virus has infected a great quantity of people outside of Brazil. However, when computed, only about thirteen percent of the infected group was pregnant, and only .14% of people actually died from the virus. Sifferlin presented these numbers in a way that force the audience to feel the way she wants them to about these facts. By doing so, the audience will not know how few people are actually affected by this disease. Meanwhile, the scientific journals do not throw such large numbers at the audience all at once. These journals take their time and explain the meaning of each number rather than overwhelm the reader. For example, one article by Adrija Hajra, Dhrubajyoti Bandyopadhyay, and Shyamal Kumar Hajra refers to the amount of illnesses caused by disease recorded in October of 2013, which was ten-thousand, but then continues to explain that there were also two diseases included in that count as well (125). Because the reader has been given all of the information possible, the rhetors (Wardle and Downs 801) allow the audience time to interpret that data how they would like.

Mass media articles also use a common tactic known as framing. Ferzli, Gardner, and Jones address the framing methods of the media in an article out of American Biology Teacher. One explanation expresses that, “The media packages the same content differently by selecting different words, images, phrases, and presentation styles to focus the receivers on certain aspects of an issue and to help them make sense of its potential complexity” (333). The media uses these tactics so that the audience has no choice but to immediately think the same way as the reporter that wrote the article. Without being provided any other information, the reader may feel like they are not educated enough to make their own assumption. Sifferlin uses this tactic throughout the paper by not providing any positive information. For instance, Sifferlin states that, “Other states, like North Carolina, have eliminated mosquito-control programs in recent years and are now in the position of having to start from scratch….” Although she is only referencing a specific state (North Carolina), she leaves the audience to wonder what other states have eliminated their mosquito control programs. Again, she plays off of the fear of the audience, while also giving them no other option other than to worry if their state government has taken any measurements to prevent the virus. However, the scientific journal does not use framing at all. In the article by Bandyopadhyay, Hajra, and Hajra, they make a harsh statement saying that, “There is no particular treatment for ZIKV infection” (125). Although they make a very negative notion, they back it up by using the rest of the paragraph to explain that it can be fought through “Taking rest, maintaining adequate hydration, and appropriate nutrition…” (125). By giving an explanation of what some things the individual can do to help maintain their health, Hajra, Bandyopadhyay, and Hajra give their audience the sense that there is hope in fighting this virus. The mass media article, however, puts blame onto scientists by claiming that, “There are no approved drugs or vaccines for Zika, mainly because scientists long assumed the virus was so benign that it wasn’t worth the resources required to investigate treatment” (Sifferlin). Through a reading of both articles, one can see an obvious difference in that the mass media article does not allow the reader to make their own judgements, but the scientific article simply shows the facts and allows the audience to form their own opinion. One reason that the scientific authors do not use framing are the constraints placed upon their writing. Esther M. Van Dijk explains that scientific articles must follow nine specific themes. Scientific articles must include:

(1) scientific methods and critical testing…; (2) creativity; (3) historical development of scientific knowledge; (4) science and questioning…; (5) diversity of scientific thinking (no one method); (6) analysis and interpretation of data; (7) science and certainty (tentativeness); (8) hypothesis and prediction; and (9) cooperation and collaboration. (Van Dijk 1091)

By following these constraints, any framing that would have been done by the authors are systematically eliminated from the essay. By interpreting the data, the scientists make the data easier to read for the average audience member, giving the audience of a scientific peer reviewed article even more of a chance to form their own opinion.

Finally, mass media articles also use a specific language so that the audience again has no choice but to believe exactly what the author wants them to. In Sifferlin’s article, she repeatedly refers to the virus as a disease. She does this so that the reader has an even worse perception of what the virus is and how much it actually matters. However, in the article by Hajra, Bandyopadhyay, and Hajra, they refer to Zika as both a disease and virus, playing down any claims that the Zika virus will be the next plague. Although Hajra, Bandyopadhyay, and Hajra do reference Zika as a disease at a couple points throughout the article, they do provide evidence that Zika should be treated as a virus rather than as a disease (viruses can only be vaccinated while diseases need to be cured). By doing so, Hajra, Bandyopadhyay, and Hajra address the importance of the need for something to be done to prevent the spread of the disease, while also showing that the Zika virus has been played up to look worse than the virus really is by the mass media. That being said, Sifferlin does refer to the work being done at the National Institutes of Health to create a vaccine, but does not address the difference between a vaccine and a cure. Again, this is Sifferlin framing her article so that the audience will have no choice but to believe her when she tells them that Zika is a disease. If she had referred to the difference between a vaccine and a cure, more of her audience might question her credibility because she would be contradicting herself by trying to play on the fear of the audience, while also showing that there is some hope.

In summary, the mass media will often play with their audience’s emotions so that the audience will believe them, while scientific peer-reviewed articles allow their audience to form their own opinions, as shown through the content, framing, and word choice of each piece. As shown, we as an audience need to do research on our own so that we can be fully educated on each decision before we make that decision so we may strive for the best possible outcome. If we do not act before our decisions are made, we are allowing our society to be controlled by the mass media. We, as a society, as well as generation by generation, will lose our individuality and uniqueness because there would not be any new social movements to change our society or our laws so that it more fits the beliefs of our generation.

 

Works Cited

Gardner, Grant E., M. Gail Jones, and Miriam Ferzli. “Popular Media in the Biology Classroom: Viewing Popular Science Skeptically.” American Biology Teacher 71.6 (2009): 332-335. Printed Handout.

Hajra, Adrija, Dhrubajyoti Bandyopadhyay, and Shyamal Kumar Hajra. “Pika Virus: A Global Threat to Humanity: Comprehensive Review and Current Developments.” American Journal of Medical Sciences 8.3 (2016): n. pag. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 July 2016.

Sifferlin, Alexandra. “What You Need To Know About Zika + How To Beat The Virus-And The Mosquitos That Carry It. (Cover Story).” Time 187.18 (2016): 32-38. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 July 2016.

Van Dijk, Esther M. “Science Education.” Portraying Real Science in Science Communication (2011): 1086-1100. Printed Handout.

Wardle, Elizabeth A., and Doug Downs. Writing about Writing: A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. Print.