There is something thrilling about the unknown. American culture is obsessed with it, seeking novelty (January’s theme) in every avenue of life. When you add a layer of lethality, you’ve got something too fascinating to resist. The public interest in destruction is undeniably morbid, but deadly sells, and it influences the marketing of everything from movies to the news. Media coverage of disease is no exception; it capitalizes on the threat of illness, emphasizing the newest and deadliest diseases, enticing us with menace.
When something is made to appear more exotic, or an aspect of a foreign culture is romanticized, it is exoticized. This is a dehumanizing act, regardless of the intention. It works both ways: minimizing complexity and emphasizing differences to skew reality and perpetuate stereotypes, reinforcing biased expectations of other places and other peoples. While exoticization seems like it should be isolated to explicitly cultural concerns, it is a force to reckon with in all aspects of a globalized world, including international health.
Exoticizing disease serves to support prejudiced views of disease endemic regions. The presence of disease can make health disparities seem logical3, as if pathogens adhere to international sanctions or abide by national borders. In the worst instances, disease is used to indicate a moral failure in the afflicted (instead of an infrastructural or scientific failure in the surrounding society), casting the sick as intrinsically other. By portraying a region or group as inherently dangerous or flawed because of illness, the media is able to couple a biological rationalization with social discrimination, grabbing our attention with greater fear.
A morbid fascination
In the wake of the modern telecommunication revolution, there is an overabundance of information. Fear is seductive, and can make a story rise above the rest of the noise. In an effort to be heard, the media has embraced fear as a lens, marketing news by its shock value2. The increased visibility of pathogens, both foreign and domestic, reflects our shrinking world. The globe is growing more interconnected, and the ease of travel and transportation has increased the likelihood of international disease transmission4. The heightened risk of foreign pathogens reaching our home shores has reframed global public health as a matter of national security5. The incidence of a gruesome illness in a once remote region is now cause for domestic concern.
The media capitalizes on our sense of susceptibility by emphasizing epidemics and deaths worldwide. News coverage of disease closely tracks mortality rates, but doesn’t account for prevalence (the number of people in the population with the disease) or incidence (the rate that people are becoming sick)1. This means that the media presents the dangers of a disease without any reference to the risk, scaring us with images of death from rare illnesses.
Our collective fixation with the fatal has created a culture that is fascinated by grim destruction, including disease. We have even serialized the threat of illness, creating shows like House, MD, where disease serves as an elusive adversary for the main protagonist. In the show, an endless roster of obscure and highly virulent maladies terrorize patients, keeping audiences engaged by highlighting the visceral, potentially lethal effects of the pathogens.
The mass marketing of disease as news and entertainment demonstrates the allure of the deadly, and highlights society’s complex array of reactions to illness: from empathy and compassionate care to disgust and shunning the sick. Disease offers an opportunity for kindness and sheds light on what we should be most afraid of (in the immortal words of FDR): fear itself.
1. Adelman, RC, and LM Verbrugge. 2000. Death makes news: The social impact of disease on newspaper coverage. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 41(3): 347-367.
2. Altheide, DL, and RS Michalowski. 1999. Fear in the news: A discourse of control. The Sociological Quarterly. 40(3): 475-503.
3. Briggs, CL. 2005. Communicability, racial discourse, and disease. Annual Review of Anthropology. 34: 269-291.
4. Gushulak, BD, and DW MacPherson. 2004. Globalization of infectious diseases: The impact of migration. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 38(12): 1742-1748.
5. King, NB. 2002. Security, disease, commerce: Ideologies of postcolonial global health. Social Studies of Science. 32(5/6): 763-789.
Image source: http://www.screened.com/house-md/17-29274/all-images/132-2072525/house_6/131-325801/