Do national and local papers report on health threats in the same way? This question is investigated in an important and increasingly common context: the outbreak of an infectious disease. Although there is a large literature on how to measure the quality of health reporting, scant attention has been devoted to the role of audience considerations. We address this gap by comparing coverage of the 2016 Zika outbreak in the New York Times, a prestigious national newspaper, and the Tampa Bay Times, a well-regarded Florida newspaper. Based on an original content analysis, we find that audience considerations led to higher quality coverage in the local paper, particularly as it relates to avoiding infection. However, certain features of reporting, such as sensationalist language and imprecise risk information, were indistinguishable across the two outlets, which illustrates the challenges faced by reporters at both kinds of papers when it comes to accurately portraying risk.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.