Whatever happened to responsible reporting? Or do I have to keep repeating the words of Winston Churchill, who remarked that the “American press is vulgar and without substance.”

The media’s reaction to the swine flu has been a combination of misleading, fear-mongering, withholding essential information, downplaying real facts, and reveling in the in the obscure.

Take this leading paragraph from Bloomberg, supposedly a reputable source:

The first human trials of a swine- flu vaccine are set to begin in Australia tomorrow as deaths and infections from the H1N1 virus mount worldwide, intensifying demand for a protective shot.

Reading this, you’d think that it was the Black Plague all over again. Who, exactly, is intensifying the demand? Drug companies, who are biting at the bit to make and sell hundreds of millions of doses? The public isn’t “intensifying” their demand, unless they’re dumb enough to get caught up in the sensationalism. Look at how many people get the regular flu vaccine–yeah, not very many. Maybe if the hype of swine flu is elevated, and the danger exaggerated, they can sell more doses.

And notice, they very nicely leave out that in virtually all cases, the people who died had a serious underlying medical condition. They may have soon died anyway, or were susceptible to any infection that came along. But that interferes with the sensationalism of the sentence. The death toll mounts–wow!

Now, another totally misleading paragraph.

Swine flu, known as A(H1N1), has sickened so many people worldwide that the WHO has advised health authorities to stop testing suspected cases and report only hospitalizations. How much vaccine can be produced, how fast, and how effective it will prove to be are still unknown as the pandemic virus spreads.

Well now how does the spread compare with regular flu? This paragraph makes it sound like millions have been infected and died. The “regular” flu is almost never confirmed either by lab testing–too many cases–so this is standard procedure for something like the flu. And notice how they insert the word “pandemic” before virus, as thought they’re trying to make it sound worse than it is. Why not emphasize instead that pandemic simply applies to spread across national borders and has nothing to do with virulence. Oh, but that might be called responsible journalism and we wouldn’t want to have any of that.

And the vast majority of people are never hospitalized for the flu, swine or otherwise. Most also never go to the doctor because in the vast majority of cases, it runs its course, responds to simple treatment like rest and aspirin, and then its over. That is the case for most people who have had the swine flu. They don’t need medical care, and so the cases can’t be counted. Now how difficult is that to explain?

Finally, another segment from the great piece of health journalism:

Hundreds of Deaths

A total of 94,512 laboratory-confirmed cases of the swine flu, resulting in 429 deaths, had been counted as July 6, according to figures released by the WHO before it stopped issuing tables showing cases in all countries with the virus.

So again, no mention of who these people were, or that most of them were quite ill to begin with. And how does the percentage of those dying from swine flu compare with those dying from regular flu? Is it more, less or the same? Come on, guys, can you do a little research?

Also, these numbers are quite tiny in the grand scheme of things. There are over 6 billion people on the planet, and roughly 95,000 have been recorded with swine flu. And 429 died.

Not to be a total spoil sport, it is true that the virus can mutate to a more virulent form, but we haven’t seen a shred of evidence of that. In the meantime, with the lack of any evidence, a small death toll, and the victims generally being those with serious medical conditions who are vulnerable to any sort of bacterial/viral infection, the media is doing its best to keep the public uninformed and stir up fear.