Abstract
Since the beginning of the pandemic, coronavirus reporting has been criticised for being too alarmist (or not cautionary enough), too uncritical of government action, too lacking in context in its use of figures and too one-sided in its selection of experts. The aim of this paper is to examine to what extent the criticism of coronavirus reporting expressed during the first wave (1 January 2020 to 30 April 2020) could have provided a reason to reflect on the quality of reporting during the phases with less reporting and, if necessary, to make adjustments. The study therefore analyses Swiss media coverage of the second wave (1 September 2020 to 28 February 2021) and compares it with findings on coronavirus coverage of the first wave of the pandemic. It ties in with the study on coronavirus reporting published in the 2020 Yearbook Quality of the Media (Eisenegger et al., 2020). The comparison reveals an ambivalent picture: on the one hand, journalists present coronavirus as a clear threat less frequently in the second wave (6%) than in the first wave (16%), despite considerably higher numbers of cases. In addition, they assess government action in the second wave less affirmatively (0.3%) than during the first wave (6%), thus reporting in a way characterised by distance from public authorities. Figures and statistics are increasingly contextualised (first wave: 12%, second wave: 21%). On the other hand, hardly any positive changes can be observed in the selection of experts: diversity continues to be limited. Most of the scientists featured in the media come from the medical field. Their share in the second wave is even slightly higher (83%) than in the first wave (78%). Social science and humanities disciplines are thus largely left out of reporting on the second wave. Female academics are also significantly under-represented compared to their male colleagues. Compared to the first wave (12%), however, they appear somewhat more frequently in the second wave (21%).
Eisenegger, Mark