There is a huge difference between quality and mediocre media. The most visible one is the quality media’s ability to move beyond current issues and discover their true meanings for society.

Last week’s Economist confirmed my opinion. With its leader on bird-flu, the publication uncovered the British media’s dependence on people’s fears. As the author notes, “the British press does love a good panic”¹ – but bad news also sell newspapers. Instead of reporting what is actually happening, stories are embroidered to justify a disturbing but yet attractive headline.

When it comes to media frenzy, diseases seem indeed to be tailor-made. Take, for instance, BSE and SARS which have long been a constant source for front-page stories. Once the victims of these diseases faded, so did the coverage. Therefore, I was pleased to see that these shortcomings of media mediocrity were revealed by another publication.

But the leader not only confirmed what I already knew. It took the debate to another level by stating what we should really be worried about. And that is the lack of investment in those countries where these diseases are widespread. Containment has to start there. But our awareness seems to be limited to the society we live in. As long as we are not directly affected, there is no reason for us to care.

I admit that I never made that step before. To me, thinking about the double standards of mass media seemed sophisticated enough. But I never considered that our society has to invest in other, poorer societies to prevent diseases like bird-flu. 

Only quality media can provide us with this awareness.