For my issue brief, I think I will be addressing how the media handles a crisis—specifically, how the media can inadvertently generate mass hysteria and make an ongoing problem worse. This of course pertains to the COVID-19 pandemic, but in general the media can polarize and provoke undue anxieties about political problems today, such as immigration or the state of the economy. The only “law” this would pertain to is freedom of speech, but the way the public views an issue is essential to the process of creating new policies. A functional media is essential to democracy, and one that causes panic and spreads misinformation can cripple any society.
To open my issue brief, I will probably briefly mention COVID-19—it could have been handled much better in order to prevent spreading before it got this bad. Information should have been more readily available. At first people ignored the media and went out, but now there is acute panic as people stockpile and hoard essential items from grocery stores, which only makes a dire situation worse. There is also a general need for good news: a democracy needs information to be delivered in the correct way. It could easily devolve into panic, or, arguably worse, not motivate anyone to do anything at all. The audience for this issue brief could be a major news source or publication, as well as the public. Because while there definitely is a problem with how some news outlets frame their information, there is also a problem with an uneducated public that does not look critically at the information they receive.
This problem would most likely be a mix of mechanical and inadvertent. The media, at least in terms of generating panic, is working perhaps a little too well. People are getting information, but then it is blown out of proportion by either the public or irresponsible news sources. I’m sure nobody would want to generate panic intentionally, so this must just be a problem with how things are being done. For example, the public needs to know that COVID-19 is a pandemic, and so media outlets have been saying that. But some people may not know exactly what that word means, and make dangerous assumptions about it. The goal would be to make sure the public is educated without causing undue stress.
Out of the four types of approaches, I would probably use a blend of capacity builders and system changes. The public could be educated with capacity builders on how to responsibly consume media. Unbiased, accurate sources are in short supply. These workshops could help curb future problems being blown out of proportion, as well as to help alleviate fears and anxieties of the public. In terms of media itself, a system change would be beneficial. Somehow there must be a higher standard of what is reported on without infringing on free speech and freedom of the press.