Scaremongering?

[naomi24]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-120759 2/Mass-graves-used-autumn-bout-swine-flu.html

Isn't this an over-reaction? I think so. (By the way, the Mail isn't the only paper covering the story).

[jake-the-peg]

Massively so.

For months you could just tell that the papers were desperate to run the "We're all going to die" story. The obsession with whether or not a casulty had an "underlying health problem".

I'll bet you good money that all this was drawn up back when we didn't really know what the mortality rates were likely to be and people were planning for any and all eventualities.

This is really irresponsible journalism likely to worry a lot of people that aren't that aware of such things.

[jake-the-peg]

Actually just read the comments from people below the story - they are getting a real beating for running this.

[Sqad]

Bit over the top, I agree.......................... I hope

[andy-hughes]

Sadly, the UK is following America (again) where scare-mongering media is becoming increasingly powerful.

This is not news, this is speculation, and no doubt like 'bird flu' it will amount to very little in terms with the Armageddon-esque headlines and doom-mongerin indulged in by the papers.

[Gromit]

Government planners have to cover all eventualities and have to plan up to the worse case scenario.

To then take the plans for the worse case scenarios and write a story such as this is pretty mean on its readers.

Deliberately spreading fear to sell a few papers shows contempt for the public.

[Julnar]

Sadly, this is the level to which modern journalism has sunk. There was a time when you could read a newspaper and feel reasonably confident you were being informed on a subject in a fair and measured manner. This type of sensationalism does no credit to the profession and will panic some people unnecessarily. It's a sad sign of the times.

[naomi24]

Irresponsible journalism, certainly, but, since there is no suggestion of a 'leak', is it more irresponsible of the government to allow this report into the public domain the the first place?

Jake, apparently this report was drawn up only last month.

[Gromit]

naomi24

This Home Office document was drawn up earlier this year and was guidance for councils.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/artic le/ALeqM5gXCrLDox87D4QlUw-7vIboh8A6KQ

It should not be secret, but its contents should be reported responsibly.

[naomi24]

Thanks Gromit. I was going by the article which says the plans were discussed last month. Nevertheless, I do believe the government is ultimately responsible. They are as aware as the rest of us of the power and of the irresponsibility of the press, and since this report deals only in speculation of the worst scenario, this is precisely the sort of thing that should be kept under wraps.

[Gromit]

I disagree.

Where possible, all government and local planning should be in the public domain.

The Mail has gone for a sensationalist slant on the document, but others may be reassured to know that if there iare deaths on a large scale, then there are plans in place to cope.

If people are scared by garbage they read in the Mail, that is not really the Government's fault, we have a free press.

[naomi24]

A report that has no basis in fact, that deals only with conjecture, and that has the potential to worry people unnecessarily shouldn't have been made public at all. Therefore the ultimate responsibility for its release lies with the government.

I think we should agree to disagree on this one, Gromit, otherwise we'll be going around in circles.