Fire,disease and fear: Effects of the media coverage of 2019–2020 Australian bushfires and novel coronavirus 2019 on population mental health

… the only thing we have to fear is … fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The devastating 2019–2020 Australian bushfires have been regarded by media, and hence the community, as unprecedented. Concurrently, the novel coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak raises similar concerns. The intense and often very graphic media coverage of emergency service warnings and updates for both events has caused a cascade of apocalyptic negativity that lours over the populace, possibly affecting population mental health in Australia.

The phenomena of availability cascades in relation to public risk perception and regulation are relevant in relation to media portrayals, whereby: ‘… a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception increasing plausibility through its rising availability in the public discourse’ (Kuran and Sunstein, 1999: 683). Near continuous, sensationalised media coverage of the 2019–2020 Australian bushfires and Covid-19 has fanned the flames of availability cascades regarding the severity and cataclysmic nature of the fires/Covid-19, thus posing existential threats for the Australian community.

The rising availability of the bushfires/Covid-19 in public discourse has in turn been further inflamed by salient negativity bias, negativity dominance and contagion (Rozin and Royzman, 2001) engendered by the negative nature of events. Negativity bias, dominance and contagion have been psychologically characterised as follows: negative entities are more potent than positive; the negativity of negative events grows more rapidly with approach to them in space or time; combinations of negative and positive entities yield more negative evaluations than simple summation; and negative entities yield more complex conceptual representations and engage a wider response repertoire (Rozin and Royzman, 2001). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that social networks in the Framingham study showed associations for depression in friends and neighbours up to three degrees of separation (one’s friends’ friends’ friends) (Rosenquist et al., 2011). Accordingly, social network contagion of anxiety and depression arising from availability cascades may occur.

Since social and mainstream media are driven by users’ negativity bias, dominance and contagion, there has been a synergistic media storm of negative coverage, emphasising the existential threat posed by events. Television – but not newspaper or radio – coverage of disasters and terrorism has been demonstrated to raise post-traumatic symptom (PTS) levels and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) case-ness (though the diagnostic criteria for PTSD exclude vicarious exposure of this type) (Pfefferbaum et al., 2014). A prospective study of a hurricane has provided evidence that sensationalised media coverage may increase pre-disaster levels of distress, as well as contribute to negative expectations about psychological responses (Thompson et al., 2019). Forecasted PTS responses and disaster-related media consumption, apart from being indirectly linked, have also been found to be important correlates of post-disaster adjustment (Thompson et al., 2019).

Availability cascades of negativity and emotional contagion may be attenuated if individuals restrict their exposure to televised media coverage of disasters to the level required for their personal safety. Based on research on media coverage of disasters, it is advocated that emergency management personnel and relevant government officials provide accurate appraisals of risk, and corresponding appropriate recommendations of what action is required by members of the community affected. For example, social media misinformation causing alarm has been documented in relation to Covid-19 (www.gov.sg/article/factually-clarifications-on-falsehoods-posted-by-str-on-covid-19-situationandwww.bbc.com/news/technology-51510196). Accordingly, there is a role for public service announcements and emergency education to inform the populace about the mental health risks of exposure to sensationalised media coverage (Thompson et al., 2019). This is relevant to both those individuals with a pre-existing mental illness and those with no current or past significant mental health problems. However, limitation of exposure to coverage does not directly affect the predominance of such existential threat themes in public discourse.

Availability cascades, negativity bias, dominance and social contagion usefully inform psychological aspects of the media management of disasters. While limiting individual exposure to media coverage of disasters is necessary, it does not entirely counteract public awareness of threats. Communication by emergency management personnel of an authoritative, appropriate level of risk for the hazard is essential, as well as specific public health warnings about the risks of exposure to sensationalised media coverage impacting negatively on mental health (Thompson et al., 2019). This should inform the development of mental-health-informed media guidelines for reporting for disasters/threats analogous to those for suicide (www.ranzcp.org/news-policy/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/suicide-reporting-in-the-media). Research on the effects of disaster media coverage – especially social media – on individual and population mental health, as well as the mechanisms underlying these effects, is needed to develop effective interventions, especially given the increasing frequency of reporting of disaster events in Australia and abroad (Thompson et al., 2019).