A plea to media reporting on Ebola

MUCH of the devastation
caused by Ebola is
attributable to the
severity of the virus and is
exacerbated by poor medical
infrastructure in certain
affected countries. But some
of the harm is a result of
misinformation. There is no
clearer example of this than
the collateral damage felt by
other African countries, some
of which lie thousands of miles
from the outbreak.
To date, only six of Africa’s
53 countries have reported
cases of Ebola. The World
Health Organisation has
confirmed that Ebola is
stabilised and contained in
Nigeria and Senegal while
experts agree that the DRC
is tackling a strain of the
virus that is unrelated to
those experienced in other
countries. Thus the epidemic
is currently only prevalent in
three nations: Guinea, Sierra
Leone and Liberia. Presenting
the outbreak as gripping
West Africa is ill-advised as
it categorises unaffected
countries into the disaster.
Worse still is grouping the
whole of Africa, pooling north,
south and east Africa into a
crisis that may never arrive.
This association results in
unjust economic implications.
If this stereotype is
perpetuated it will have severe
economic repercussions.
Lack of detail and careless
reporting pulls an entire
continent into a calamity that
is, in reality, concentrated in a
very specific part of Africa.
To provide clarity on the
scope of the virus, it is
necessary to grasp the
vastness of Africa. London,
Madrid and Paris are closer
to the epicentre of the Ebola
outbreak than Nairobi, Arusha,
Johannesburg and Cape
Town. Africa is large enough
to contain India, Mexico,
Peru, France, Spain, Papua
New Guinea, Sweden, Japan,
Germany, Norway, Italy, New
Zealand, United Kingdom,
Nepal, Bangladesh and
Greece. Couple a widespread
misconception of Africa’s size
with the careless reporting
of Ebola as a ‘West African’
or ‘African’ issue and the
consequences are dire.
Irresponsible reporting can
have an enormous economic
impact on countries already
suffering economically.
Generalised and inaccurate
reporting places huge strain on
the travel industry as irrational
fears and hysteria translate
into cancelled bookings,
nervous travellers and lost
revenue for many businesses.
When the reality is that most
travel to Africa carries no more
threat of contracting Ebola
than domestic travel in the
USA or travel within Europe.
As the founder and ceo of one
of Africa’s largest online tour
operators, I would never allow
our clients’ safety or security
to be placed at risk.
It is unfortunate to detract
– even for a moment – from
the true victims, who, of
course, are the individuals
who have lost their lives or
loved ones to the epidemic
and the countries and medical
personnel that are tasked with
protecting their citizens. It is,
however, necessary to address
unfounded fear because
history tells us that the harm
connected to life-threatening
viruses normally far exceeds
the actual threat. Put
differently, panic and confusion
aid the virus, magnifying its
destruction.
The responsibility of
managing this collateral
damage falls squarely on
journalists and reporters who
should discourage hysteria in
favour of educating viewers
and readers about the
whereabouts and extent of
the virus. Why not report on
the countries in Africa that
are unaffected and assuage
concerns about travel to
eastern and southern Africa?
Herein lies the choice: be
part of the solution or add
fuel to a fire that needn’t
be detrimental to an entire
continent.