COVID 19 containment – the role of Mass Media in changing peoples’ behaviour

by Lakshman Wickramasinghe

Sri Lanka is entering the riskiest period in its battle against Covid-19, with the British Covid 19 variant now accepted as responsible for rapid escalation of infection rates and the danger of the Indian variant coming ashore through illicit landings. At this stage the most effective response to the virus is the sustenance of behaviour changes already adopted by the majority of the population, and the promotion of right behaviour among the laggards.

The health sector which is responsible for developing technically appropriate messages for changing behaviour of people has been doing magnificently in formulating such messages. The Health Education Bureau renamed the Health Promotion Bureau did a splendid job in planning and broadcasting TV spots in association with many mass media channels as Covid-19 appeared in Sri Lanka. It was a commendable behaviour change communication initiative made with a low budget but with high creativity with a lady doctor being the main communicator.

I was wondering why such an initiative had not yet started by the Health Promotion Division in response to the New Year infection cluster but was happy to note that a few days ago two new TV spots have been launched through the State TV channels. Rupavahini also started a novel TV spot showing Covid 19 viruses conspiring to invade places where big crowds congregate. With Covid infections assuming dangerous proportions, the Sri Lankan mass media too has a responsibility to increase its support to Covid-19 behaviour change communication activities.

However, health communication initiatives launched against Covid-19 unfortunately has had to face constraints globally. This is why Dr. Tedros Adhanon Ghebreyesus, the Director General of WHO, was perhaps constrained to declare at the Munich Security Conference on February 15, 2020 that ‘we are just not fighting an epidemic, we are fighting an infodemic’ as reported in the Lancet.

This internationally acclaimed medical journal in its editorial (Vol.395, Issue10224, pg.537) of February 22, 2020 commented: “The ease through which inaccuracies and conspiracies can be repeated and perpetuated via social media and conventional outlets put public health at a constant disadvantage’.

The question to be asked then is should the government health sector, the prime defender against epidemics, be put under ‘a constant disadvantage’ by newly arrived digital media and the conventional mass media, and players connected to power politics. The answer is No.

No country can expect much support from social media in this regard. This is especially so in a country that is multi-cultural, multi-religious and with the presence of a large number of fringe political entities, folk beliefs, superstitions etc. It was only yesterday that the Ministry of Ayurvedic Medicine had to issue a press communique requesting the general public not to use various ‘prescriptions’ of local medicines published in the internet and social media.

Thus it is the main stream mass media (i.e. print, radio, and television) that has the prime responsibility for helping to creating a positive environment for the adoption of recommended behaviour by the public. Despite the cacophony of big and small alternate media, the mainstream media channels are still accepted by the vast majority of Lankans as channels that inform, educate, and entertain. They still enjoy high credibility.

In this respect it is appropriate to examine how mass media could support the government health sector. First and foremost the mainstream mass media should formulate programmes founded on authentic communication principles to genuinely and without any other agendas persuade their readers, listeners and viewers, to behave as recommended by government health authorities.

Trust and credibility of the message and its sender (or the source) is central to this objective. The clarity of message especially with regard to ‘what’ and ‘how to’ behave in the context of the current challenge and the benefits of adoption is also important. The ‘conveying of a sense of unity of messages’ is also vital. The other critical factor is the reduction of what is known as “noise” in communication jargon. This ‘principle’ prevents the main message getting lost among related but discordant messages. In this regard Rupavavhini has done well during the last two to three weeks through its morning discussion programmes.

The media (through all their programmes and features) should help to build trust among the citizenry on the ‘package of key health messages’ disseminated by the health authorities and the government. Trust is key to acceptance of behaviour change messages. So is the credibility of the source of information (the state health authority and the government in this case). They should simultaneously be promoted. These two go hand in hand as one reinforces the other. The primacy of promoting trust and credibility of the messages and the source should be a universal standard cutting across all else. Even if two or three programmes broadcast by a channel create a negative perception in their audiences then the attempts of the rest of the programmes to promote trust and credibility will be devalued.

Therefore in emergency situations such as in combating pandemics, the media through all of its major editorially driven components should support instilling of deep trust in the primacy of the messages and the credibility of the source. This ‘conveying of a sense of unity’ across all of its programmes is a must for promoting high behaviour change rates.

For example a TV channel in a ‘Meet the Doctor’ programme shown during non- prime viewing time would advise its audience to desist from going on picnics or pleasure trips during this critical period. Few hours later a popular teledrama episode aired at peak times would show the hero and heroine going on a fun-filled picnic with three four other friends to a popular crowded picnic spot. Such a programming mix would be most harmful as what is important is to drive home the message “don’t go on picnics at this time.” If this is unavoidable as the episode has been filmed before the New Year cluster appeared, then an appropriate explanatory line below the particular picnic shot can support unity of the key message.

Another example is that different TV stations would subtly promote particular political parties or ideologies and I believe that in a democracy this is acceptable. But in a national emergency such as Covid-19, the presentation of key behaviour change messages close to news or features relating to criticism of government programme on Covid 19 management would not convey a sense of unity of the messages. (Of course this may be debatable.) Further, such a mix would also negatively affect the trust of the audience in the key Covid 19 protection message and may also to some extent affect the credibility of the source. This is no easy question to resolve and would be akin to ‘walking on a tight rope’. But these are possible practical examples and the communication programmers must reflect deeply on striking a balanced approach where the national responsibility of promoting behaviour change is sustained while presenting investigative journalism productions.

One way of overcoming these obstacles is for all or most mass media channels to run an identical behaviour change communication campaign so that the key messages in regard to Covid 19 would be promoted by all key channels, thus displaying the concept of unity of messages. An initiative such as this would convey to the general public that irrespective of individual policies, and political sympathies, all media channels are interested in a national campaign to promote behaviour change, thus exponentially enhancing behaviour change persuasion.

Such a media campaign could be developed by one or a group of advertising agencies as their contribution to the national cause in coordination with the Ministry of Health and the media channels can broadcast programmed TV spots free of charge as their own contribution to a national cause. A prime example of such a campaign was the ‘Api Wenuwen Api’ campaign run during Eelam War IV. Currently, if such a common campaign is envisaged rapidity of implementation is critical for controlling the epidemic.

(The writer is a retired Officer of the International Civil Service of the United Nations system attached to UNICEF and a Behaviour Change Communication Practitioner. He also worked as a UNFPA consultant at the Health Education Bureau.)