Media Laws: Vaccine Whispers
With the UAE on its way back to normality, could it be that tighter media laws & restrictions could be a major contributor in overcoming COVID-19?
It would be more than appropriate to label the year that was 2020, as well as the continued trauma that is predicted to continue through to 2021, as a period of uncertainty. It’s no surprise that we are more engaged with our phones, headline news and social media probably more so than ever. However, it is hard to ignore the rumours that circulate our life today, which could be having increased damaging effect on the way we view the world we live in.
In her recent TED talk, Anthropologist Heidi Larson draws detailed attention to how medical rumours originate, spread and fuel resistance to vaccines worldwide, as well as their relation to political and social turbulence. The main issue highlighted in relation to these rumours, is that they stem from broken trust with Government powers and world leaders. Using the Polio vaccine as an example, rumours regarding the safety of the vaccine led to the Kano state boycotting the programme, which resulted in the disease spreading to 20 more countries — all at the cost of a rumour.
My favourite rumour regarding the latest news of the new coronavirus vaccine in the UK, is that the government or special intelligence is rolling out the vaccine as a way to micro-chip the population and track our every move. No offence Karen, but I’m not sure MI5 are worried about your recent trip to Homebase. However, with so much information at our disposal it has become almost impossible to know who to trust. I’m going to explore the role that the media has to play in formulating rumours in regard to COVID-19, and how differentiating laws in different parts of the world may be part of the reason why some places are living a relatively back-to-normal life.
Scrolling through twitter this morning, I noted a prediction that the UAE should be coronavirus free during the first quarter of 2021. With the new vaccine so readily available in the UAE, it’s pretty clear that it is one of the few places who have managed to control and overcome the virus. The country will be leaving the pandemic behind in 2020 — as many of us had hoped.
As taken from Lexology, the media law in the UAE sets strict national standards for media content. In terms of news reporting, restrictions here include prohibitions on material that is harmful to Islam or the UAE’s interests; and material seen to be criticising the government or rulers of the UAE. As well as this, breaching the social media standards that have been set is considered as a legal offence, falling under both cyber and penal law, constituting a range of infringements and sentences depending on the severity of the offence.
When comparing these media restrictions with that of UK journalistic practices, it’s notable that the UK laws are less tightly monitored. According to the Open School of Journalism, UK media and publications are subject to a general conduct and application laws, such as those relating to defamation, obscenity and hate speech. The UK print media is entirely self-regulating, meaning that, breaches to the rules are likely to see a less consequential penalty. Upon reviewing the contrasting style of news and headlines in both countries, it’s clear to me that the media restrictions in the UAE are more closely regulated and controlled, which can further help halt the spread of rumours.
“Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander or traducement) is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime .”
— Wikipedia.
‘COVID-19 vaccine in the UAE: What you need to know.’, is an example of a recent headline taken from the Gulf News website. It reads as an informational article regarding the current vaccination process, cost and centre locations; nothing more than simply insight and progression. Articles such as these are hardly comparable to the media pantomime that epitomises the UK’s media response to the new vaccine. National unity and emotion were evoked when Margaret Keenan was named and televised as the first woman to receive the vaccine, all across the country we were able to witness the 91-year-old receive the Pfizer jab from her very own armchair. Like many things that happen in the UK, the first vaccine soon became a viral Twitter meme. Matt Hancock pretending the cry on This Morning Britain reversed the sense of national unity and since became just another political attempt to pull at our heartstrings; no insight, information or progression — just crocodile tears.
There’s no doubt that the Daily Mail is one of the main offenders in the dramatization of the pandemic, fuelling nothing but fear and anxiety amongst its readers. But I think we all know not to trust what we read in the tabloids. Tabloid publications are famous for their easy-to-read format, lack of censorship and fuelling of rumours. However according to YouGov, the most trusted news provider in the UK is in fact Metro. A sister newspaper to the Daily Mail, both tabloid in format and dramatic in style. So, it turns out that people really do trust what they read in the tabloids — which can actually have more worrying implications than may appear at first glance.
‘Don’t kill your granny with coronavirus’, falls in top tier when it comes to the most ludicrous headlines of 2020. Released by The Times, this headline further jumped on the media-bandwagon in vilifying young people as irresponsible and out of control. It also enforced feelings of anxiety through its misplaced used of hyperbole and overly dramatic tone. Is it not expected that our news headlines should be neutral and accurate as a way avoid misinterpretation and mistrust amongst readers?
The UAE is a country that has mostly returned back to normal life, other than continued socially distanced measures and having to wear a face covering at all times. The government strap-line here reads, ‘You are responsible, we are all responsible,’ placing the responsibility into the hands of the general public. With most recent UK headlines now claiming that the new measures will be remaining until April, I want to raise the question about whether or not the media is partly responsible for the government response to the virus, which has led to the recent rise in case numbers.
There’s no denying the benefits that the media has played worldwide in response to the pandemic. A study taken from the Journal of Theoretical Biology, highlights how media reports can modify people’s knowledge, ultimately changing attitudes and behaviours. But it’s this change in attitudes that can also see more detrimental effects if we apply it to the UK media. In ‘Media definitely do matter,’ Neil Gavin claims that the media can create a sense of uncertainty, and have persuasive and subtle influences on political attitudes, particularly when there are persistent patterns of coverage across a range of media. Drawing attention to the continued and increased use of emotive language, hyperbole and superlatives that embody the UK’s reportage of COVID-19, then there’s likely to be a notable increase in anxiety levels amongst readers.That’s not to mention the military analogies that have persisted in the media since March.
It’s also arguable that, the messy UK media response has also had an effect on government policies. If we consider the UAE’s neutral reporting style, strict media regulations, and their simultaneous corona-free lifestyle — could it be likely that the media is a significant contributing factor to overcoming the virus itself?
Referring back to Heidi Larson’s TED talk which labelled rumours as a symptom of mistrust in government leaders — why would we trust the government when the media presents them as untrustworthy? But on the flip side of this, is the media fuelling these rumours which ultimately create these feelings of mistrust? There are further questions that need to be raised about who is in legitimate control when referring to the government and the role that the media plays in society. Could it be that UK media laws need to be more tightly regulated to avoid this type of fear-fuelled story telling? Which not only formulates rumours, but seems to embody the majority of the UK’s mainstream media today? It really is no wonder people believe that they’re going to be micro-chipped.
