Erik Moe Art & Design

While reading Sunday’s New York Times Magazine feature on Gary Slutkin and the application of epidemiology to urban violence, I kept thinking of the implications for the media. As a longtime city-dweller, one of my biggest gripes with the media is the way urban violence is covered, in particular by local TV news. If the media were to treat an outbreak like Philadelphia’s upsurge in murders more like a disease or virus outbreak, what would it look like?

Coverage of traditional viral outbreaks certainly has its share of irrational fear-mongering for ratings – think about recent years’ SARS and avian flu coverage. At the same time, I feel like the media also spent quite a lot of time explaining ways to reduce exposure and prevent outbreaks from spreading. This despite the remote chances of exposure to most people.

Typical TV coverage of a violent crime shows a map of the incident (message: be afraid of that part of town) and maybe a sketch, mugshot, or security camera footage (message: be afraid of people who look like that). This limited coverage only amplifies the effects of the crime since virtually no one in the broadcast audience is at real risk of being the next victim. A very small minority of crime victims are strangers who are at the wrong place at the wrong time. Most crimes instead are responses to personal gripes. I’m not sure what kind of information might be more effective in avoiding fear and helping the public assist in containing an outbreak of violence. The Chicago program discussed in the Times article primarily uses specialists to intervene with persons directly associated with criminal incidents, but surely the media has a role in helping communities fight outbreaks of violence.