Define epidemic. Pretty easy, huh? Now define Pandemic and Endemic. Having some trouble defining those? Well me too. Before 8:30 on Monday, I'm pretty sure I've been using Pandemic and Epidemic interchangeably and I had no clue what an Endemic was. So allow me to shed some light on the terms:
Epidemic, a noun and adjective, is the widespread occurrence of an infectious disease across and area or region.
Pandemic, bigger than an Epidemic, happens on an international scale, essentially occurring across multiple continents. An Endemic is located in a smaller region or area, thus sometimes the infectious disease lasts longer (since it's just contained to that community).
As Mekal pointed out in class, you have to essentially think about it in levels. A Pandemic is the the biggest layer, Endemic the smallest, and Epidemic falling somewhere in between.
These words are important because they are what we have and use to categorize disease and sickness. Using any of these words alerts us that a type of contagion is "free" to cause harm. Similarly, words like "outbreak" and plague" instantly express the severity of the situation. So clearly, words matter (as cliche as that sounds).
Now think for a moment about where you frequently hear these terms being used. I'm sure for most of us the answer is the same: the news. The news and media is great for many reasons:
1) It tells us about things going on in our own cities or something that's happening countries away.
2) It can increase one's business through advertisements.
3) It can tell us the stories and opinions of people typically left out the conversation
And of course, there are some cons to the news and media:
1) It can be used to spread hate and discrimination.
2) It can force a homogeneous culture since a larger number of people are getting the news from the same source.
3) News is written by people. People have bias. And we, as consumers of the news, can often find ourselves caught up in the story and read everything published by these writers as fact, when really it's dripping with their opinion or the opinion of the news company.
All of this about language and media is super important when we think about two recent "outbreaks" that happened in the United States: The Opioid Crisis and the Crack Epidemic.
The Crack Epidemic of the 1980's was a time of significant increase in the use of Crack Cocaine in the United States, due to it's almost immediate affects, affordable price, and profitability. The Crack Epidemic hit poor, Black communities and inner cities the hardest with increased rates of addiction, death, and drug-related crimes.
With a quick google search of the term "crack epidemic," you will see that there are an endless amount of articles that not only speak about the political implications but also the culture and communities affected by this scary time.
Additionally, The Opioid Crisis, which refers to the rapid increase in the use of Opioid painkilling drugs, is fairly new in comparison. Beginning in the late 1990's, pharmaceutical companies assured the public that patients would not become addicted to Opioid painkillers and so doctors began to heavily prescribe them (although they were highly addictive), resulting in increasingly high rates of misuse and addiction. If you search up the term "Opioid Crisis" you will get hundreds of Breaking Stories: large companies being sued, big pharma's role, and Donald Trump's take on the matter.
As I was doing my research I found a very interesting pattern: Although these are both drug-related health crises in the US, the language used in the media and conversation surrounding them are completely different.
To illustrate what I mean, lets turn to two major newspapers: The New York Times and the Washington Post. The New York Times is a highly regarded American Newspaper -I'm talking 'they've won more Pulitzer Prizes than any other newspaper kinda prestigious. The Washington Post, an American daily newspaper that focuses on national politics and the federal government, has the largest circulation in the Washington metropolitan area. Being American newspapers, they reported on both the Crack Epidemic and the Opioid Crisis, however the language is drastically different, especially when discussing addicted mothers and their children.
When talking about the crack epidemic, The Post used the term "crack babies", a term coined to describe children who had been exposed to crack as a fetus. This term, used relatively frequently in the midst of the epidemic, definitely has a negative connotation. It insinuates that these babies will continue the habits of their mother, starting a whole new generation of people addicted to crack, keeping the epidemic going. This is in stark contrast to the how The Times talks about children of the Opioid Epidemic. Children of the Opioid epidemic are innocent victims who have dreams and entire full lives ahead of them.
This difference is also apparent in the way they talk about the mothers. Mothers of The Crack Epidemic were only shown in one-dimension. They were not only painted as a threat to their own children, but a threat to society. However, mothers of the Opioid Epidemic are shown in many dimensions. They are painted with strokes of sympathy as humans with flaws who are capable of change.
~Listen to this podcast about "Crack Babies" from NPR~
So why, if these are two drug related health crises, does the media treat them differently? To answer that question, we have to to look at who is most affected by each epidemic. The media made it clear that African-Americans were the face of crack. They repeatedly told the stories of so called Crack Babies, their mothers, gang violence and associated them with Black communities. This created a negative image of the black community in the minds of other Americans and furthered other false narratives about African-Americans.
On the other hand, according to a study done in 2016, almost 80% of Opioid drug use is attributed to White Americans. And thus, the media tends to frame the Opioid Epidemic as a result of over-availability, Big Pharma, and the government's lack of policy. They tell the stories of rural communities who are destroyed by Opioid drug use and need rescuing by the federal government.
The government's reaction to each epidemic is also incredibly telling. When the Crack Epidemic showed no signs of ending soon, Ronald Reagan and his administration declared a "War on Drugs." This essentially was the implementation of zero-tolerance policies that criminalized the use and possession of Crack, as it was considered "public enemy number one." This led to a drastic increase in the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, most of whom were Black. Additionally, the US Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and introduced a mandatory minimum prison sentence. The purpose of these War on Drug policies were not to rehabilitate, rather it was to incarcerate Black Americans. Once again, this is a stark contrast to the Opioid Epidemic.
Since Donald Trump took office, more than $1 billion has been allocated or spent directly addressing drug addition and the Opioid crisis. Additionally, Trump issued a National Public Health Emergency on October 26, 2017. He told the audience, "It is time to liberate our communities from this scourge of drug addiction...we can be the generation that ends the opioid epidemic. We can do it." By using the words "liberate" and "we" the president insinuates that opioids are holding Americans captive and that if "we" just work together the issue will be solved.
By looking at the media's coverage and the government's reaction to each epidemic it is clear what their stance is: They value the lives of White Americans more than they value the lives of Black Americans. The Opioid Epidemic is labeled a "crisis" and national emergency because it affect the lives of White people but the Crack Epidemic only affected Black people who were already seen as thugs and criminals so it didn't matter as much.
This is summed up perfectly in a tweet by actor Wendell Pierce, who recently starred in HBO's The Wire, a show about addiction and race relations in Baltimore. It reads, "Crack epidemic destroys a poor Black community. The war on drugs. Opioid epidemic destroys a poor White community: National Public Health Crisis"
So now I ask the question, in what other medical/health crises has the media used purposeful language to either support or put down a group of people?
As always, check out the forum if you would like to leave a comment or check out some additional information.
This website has additional info on the disparity of the two epidemics.
留言