Sensationalist Non-News Harms Health and Transit

Evan Manvel

The Oregonian is eager to sell newspapers. As a subscriber who's seen my rates go up time and again, I feel their pain of falling revenues in my pocketbook. I want to see our newspapers succeed, as a vibrant fourth estate plays a critical role in society, one that can't be played as effectively by bloggers.

That doesn't excuse today's Oregonian sensationalist framing of a story about germs on TriMet. For those who missed it, be glad. For the story, the O asked PSU biology students to do a study and found - gasp! - germs on buses. It was splashed as the front-page story.

The story irresponsibly contributes to the perceptions of buses as dirty, unhealthy modes of transportation. Yet, because most transit riders walk to the bus, riding transit actually contributes to one's personal health, rather than threatening it. Unfortunately, the story - that theoretically aims to promote public health - may do the opposite, pushing people into their cars. And that, in turn, could cause further cuts in cleaning frequencies or transit service.

After the set-up and explanation of the perceived problem, the story notes:

John Townes, Oregon Health & Sciences University director of infection prevention and control, wasn't alarmed by the findings. The risk of being infected by harmful bacteria on public transit, he said, is probably no greater than it is at a movie theater or shopping mall.

"If you could put on some microscopic eyeglasses," Townes said, "you'd see bacteria are everywhere in the environment. We're fortunate to have immune systems that protect us from germs, and healthy, intact skin is an important part of that protection."

One might think the local director of infection prevention saying the findings were no big deal would cause the editors to drop the story, or at least to push it to inside the Metro section. Instead, they blew the story into a front-page above the fold story, inserting a large, fearmongering graphic and big headline. And the jumpline? "Please see YUCK, page A6."

To his credit, reporter Joseph Rose wrote the full story. He notes the concerns of a PSU microbiologist, how some of the germs may include the sometimes dangerous MRSA, and how cleaning schedules are being reduced. He explains TriMet is moving to vinyl seating that traps many fewer germs. And he quotes Townes, an authority, who explains the story is not news, and "many people walk around with [MRSA] living on their skin and in their noses."

Until there's evidence demonstrating people are getting seriously sick from the bus, or riding transit is more dangerous than going to the shopping mall or a movie theater, I chalk the story up to anti-transit sensationalism. That's bad for our personal health, and the health of the region.

There are real stories out there. You've got my backing to get them.

Update: There's a summary of readers' responses over at Oregonlive, as well as a poll asking readers how worried they are.

Update #2: Two takes from O staff, interesting in contrast:

Anna Griffin tweeted: "Criticizing papers for putting interesting stories on A1 is silly. We want people to buy the product. That's smart biz, not sensationalism."

Joe Rose wrote (in part): "At no point during the careful planning and planning of this story did a editor or business manager push me to get the story done because we needed to 'sell newspapers.' That's Hollywood. Those conversations and thoughts don't drive in real newsrooms."

To be clear, I wasn't arguing a conversation - about pushing the story to sell papers - specifically happened here. I'm worried about the effects of sensationalizing something the most prominent expert cited says is no big deal. There's a difficult balance between a need/desire to make the story more attractive to readers (eyeballs bring in income for newspapers, which are usually for-profit businesses) and the need to be a responsible fourth estate, educating the public and helping us make informed choices. I think this story was presented in a way that missed that balance.

I also think reporters sometimes evaluate stories on their whole, thinking readers ingest the whole thing, where as a communications consultant I'm more likely to ask: who won the quick impression? If the headline and images tell a story, I care a lot less about what's buried late in the story.

By Evan Manvel July 14, 2011