Staff Reports
When the pandemic first hit, the world was thrown into confusion with a mix of fear, uncertainty, and a desperate need for solutions. However, beneath the chaos was a noticeable pattern of behavior from the media—particularly from those who were expected to question and critique. Traditionally, the media plays the vital role of being skeptical of those in power, be it the government, big businesses, or influential figures; their job is to ask hard questions, to seek truth, and to ensure the public is informed and empowered. But during the pandemic, this role seemed to be dramatically absent. Instead, the media largely echoed the directives of health authorities without much scrutiny.
As the situation unfolded, the initial response to “flatten the curve” was understandable given the new virus threat. The public was told that a short-term lockdown was necessary, a proverbial group effort to tackle a medical emergency. Yet as this short-term measure extended from “15 days” to “30 more days” and beyond, the lack of questioning from major media outlets became glaring. There should have been a chorus of critical voices asking why and how these decisions were being made, what data they were based on, and whether such long-term measures would indeed be effective or sustainable.
Instead, what transpired was a surprising alliance between the media and the health establishment. There was a trusting acceptance of projections from institutions and figures who appeared credible by virtue of their positions or reputations. Colorful scarves and titles lent an air of authority that seemed to bypass the rigorous questioning one would expect from a media landscape seasoned at challenging authority. Assertions by central figures went largely unchecked, as long as they came from “fancy colleges” or were delivered by individuals who dressed the part of trusted experts.
This allegiance possibly stemmed from a blend of panic, groupthink, and a reluctance to appear unsupportive during a crisis. However, it led to a neglect of the fundamental duty of journalism—to challenge, to probe, and to hold those in power accountable. The absence of this critical voice created an environment where models and predictions were taken at face value, without thorough examination of the underlying data and assumptions. This uncritical acceptance had substantial implications for public policies and the individual freedoms of citizens across the nation.
Reflecting on this period, it becomes clear how crucial independent thought and skepticism are, especially in times of crisis. The pandemic was an instance where a significant number of journalists failed to fulfill their traditional roles, leading to a monolithic narrative that went largely unchallenged. As society moves forward, it is imperative to revive that spirit of inquiry and ensure that media serves its role as a watchdog, questioning the reasoning behind decisions that affect millions of lives. Only then can we maintain a truly democratic and accountable system, one where dialogue and reason prevail over uncritical acceptance.
