A person reading a newspaper about Zika virus, with a mosquito in the background.

Zika Virus Coverage: Are You Getting the Right Information?

Theo Raines in Health & Wellness December 2025 • 5 min read.

"National vs. Local News: How Media Outlets Differ in Reporting Health Threats"

In an age where viral epidemics and pandemics are becoming increasingly frequent, accessing reliable and relevant health information is more critical than ever. When an infectious disease outbreak occurs, people rely on media outlets to learn about the disease and understand the necessary precautions to protect themselves. However, not all news sources are created equal. A key question is whether national and local media report on health threats in the same way.

While there's extensive research on measuring the quality of health reporting, little attention has been paid to the role of audience considerations. To address this gap, a recent study compared coverage of the 2016 Zika outbreak in the New York Times, a prestigious national newspaper, and the Tampa Bay Times, a well-regarded Florida newspaper. Florida was significantly affected by the Zika virus, making this comparison particularly insightful.

This article dives into the findings of that study, revealing how audience considerations influence the quality of health coverage. We'll explore which type of media provides better information on avoiding infection, and where both national and local sources fall short when it comes to accurately portraying risk. Understanding these differences can empower you to make informed decisions about your health and safety.

Local News vs. National News: Key Differences in Zika Coverage

A person reading a newspaper about Zika virus, with a mosquito in the background.

The study's original content analysis revealed that audience considerations led to higher quality coverage in the local paper, the Tampa Bay Times, particularly in terms of information on avoiding infection. Because the local audience was more directly at risk, the Tampa Bay Times provided more information on self-protection, symptoms, and transmission methods.

However, it wasn't all good news for local coverage. Certain features of reporting, such as sensationalist language and imprecise risk information, were indistinguishable across the two outlets. This highlights the challenges reporters face at both national and local papers when trying to accurately portray risk without causing undue alarm.

Self-Protection Information: The Tampa Bay Times included significantly more advice on how to protect oneself from the Zika virus, such as using insect repellent, wearing long sleeves, and removing standing water.
Individual Efficacy Information: The Tampa Bay Times provided more information on symptoms and transmission of Zika virus, empowering readers to take informed action.
Sensationalist Language: Both the New York Times and the Tampa Bay Times were equally likely to use sensationalist language and highlight worst-case scenarios, such as birth defects or Guillain-Barré syndrome.

The prevalence of vague or qualitative risk information—such as describing the Zika threat as "escalating"—was high across both outlets. This suggests a broader challenge in conveying nuanced risk information, irrespective of the outlet. The lack of precise, contextualized quantitative data in both national and local news may reflect difficulties in communication between experts and journalists, as earlier studies suggest.

What This Means for You

The way health threats are covered by national and local media is not uniform. This study underscores the importance of being discerning about your news sources, especially during a health crisis. While local news may offer more tailored advice on self-protection, both national and local outlets can fall prey to sensationalism or imprecise risk communication.

Given the heavy reliance on qualitative risk information, consumers should actively seek quantitative data and contextualize raw numbers with appropriate denominators to gain a more accurate understanding of the risk. This may involve consulting multiple sources, including government health websites and scientific publications.

Ultimately, this research serves as a reminder that informed citizens are essential for containing health threats. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different news sources, you can equip yourself with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions and protect your health.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1080/10410236.2018.1536949, Alternate LINK

Title: Differences Between National And Local Media In News Coverage Of The Zika Virus

Subject: Communication

Journal: Health Communication

Publisher: Informa UK Limited

Authors: Jennifer Jerit, Yangzi Zhao, Megan Tan, Munifa Wheeler

Published: 2018-10-25

Everything You Need To Know

During the Zika virus outbreak, how did local news, like the Tampa Bay Times, differ from national news, such as the New York Times, in providing self-protection advice?

During the 2016 Zika virus outbreak, the Tampa Bay Times provided more advice on self-protection, covering symptoms and transmission methods, empowering readers to take informed action. The New York Times offered less specific guidance, reflecting a broader, less directly affected audience.

Were there any similarities in how national and local news sources, specifically the New York Times and the Tampa Bay Times, reported on the Zika virus?

Both the New York Times and the Tampa Bay Times sometimes used sensationalist language, highlighting worst-case scenarios like birth defects or Guillain-Barré syndrome. Also, both outlets struggled with providing precise risk information. They would use vague descriptions such as the Zika threat as 'escalating.' This suggests a broader challenge in conveying nuanced risk information, irrespective of the outlet type.

What specific self-protection measures against the Zika virus were highlighted in the local news, like the Tampa Bay Times, and why were these details important?

The Tampa Bay Times provided more detailed information on self-protection methods against the Zika virus. This included advice on using insect repellent, wearing long sleeves, and removing standing water. This reflects the local paper's focus on the immediate concerns of its audience directly exposed to the Zika threat.

What type of information was notably missing from both the New York Times and the Tampa Bay Times coverage of the Zika virus, and what are the implications of this gap?

A notable gap in both the New York Times and the Tampa Bay Times was the limited use of precise, quantitative data to contextualize the risk posed by Zika. This absence may stem from challenges in communication between experts and journalists, hindering the accurate portrayal of risk levels to the public. The lack of specific numbers or comparative data makes it harder for individuals to assess their actual risk.

Based on the comparison between the New York Times and the Tampa Bay Times coverage of the Zika virus, what are the key takeaways for consumers of health news, and what aspects of media reporting warrant further examination?

The study showed that the Tampa Bay Times excelled in providing details about symptoms and transmission of the Zika virus, enabling informed decisions and actions by its readers. However, the New York Times and the Tampa Bay Times both showed sensationalism and imprecise risk information. This implies a need for media outlets to focus on clear, factual, and contextualized reporting of health threats to enable well-informed public responses. The study did not address potential differences in the depth of scientific reporting or the inclusion of expert opinions, which could also influence the quality of health coverage.