The recent announcements from College Health Services that seven students "suspected" to have swine flu have tested negative for the virus ("Four more students test negative for flu," May 6), and that the H1N1 virus is no more serious than normal influenza, have left members of the Dartmouth community doing a double take. What looked at first like an impending catastrophe -- with the World Health Organization announcing an unprecedented phase five pandemic alert, and the U.S. government declaring "a public health emergency" -- has now been reduced to little more than an inconvenience.
College officials were justified in treating swine flu as a serious threat. We believe, however, that the manner in which information was shared with the Dartmouth community was flawed, and promoted unwarranted panic.
The College, of course, was right to make public statements about potential Dartmouth cases in order to address rampant rumors on campus. But announcing that multiple students were "suspected" of having the H1N1 virus ("Five Dartmouth students 'suspected' to have swine flu," May 3) -- when the term "suspected" simply denoted all students with a 100-degree fever and other flu-like symptoms -- incited unnecessary anxiety.
If the College had simply announced that several Dartmouth students were exhibiting normal flu-like symptoms, and that Health Services planned to treat the students, isolate them and test them for the H1N1 strain, administrators could have convinced the community of the College's ability to manage the situation, without inciting panic. Instead, by enumerating each new ominously termed "suspected" case, the College effectively fueled a culture of fear.
That said, the College alone is not to blame for Dartmouth's swine flu hysteria. In truth, the anxiety about the virus at the College was a symptom of a larger wave of overreaction that swept the nation in the days following the outbreak. News outlets, including The Dartmouth, are certainly guilty of perpetuating this anxiety by throwing around words like "pandemic" and "probable case," without providing the appropriate context for these terms.
It is the role of the news media to question "official" announcements, properly conveying their meaning and implications. By buying into the rhetoric of "suspected cases" and "emergencies," this newspaper, along with other media organizations, failed to portray the facts in an appropriate context -- and instead repeated the "official" line without taking a more critical perspective.
While we feel the text of The Dartmouth's coverage was nuanced and thoughtful, editors often failed to fully consider the implications of its incendiary headlines, just as the College failed to consider the way in which its news releases would be perceived.
As the nation and the College reevaluate their respective reactions to this week's "crisis," we at The Dartmouth will do the same.
