In the past few weeks, the biological weapon anthrax has penetrated the news. Some experts praise media coverage of the anthrax scares by presenting accurate information to the public, while others disagree.

A few weeks ago, the American public knew next to nothing about biological warfare threats. Now, in light of recent events, the level of awareness has increased greatly. It remains a difficult task for media to explain the details of the threat to the general public.

“The threat is complicated because it depends on what kind of anthrax is used, how it is distributed, and whether it has been bio-engineered,” said UW-Madison journalism professor Deborah Blum.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the antibiotic Cipro as the most common drug used in treating inhalation anthrax, the deadliest form of the disease. Unfortunately, Cipro may prove useless as the inhalation strain can be resistant to antibiotics, Blum said.

U.S. House of Representatives leaders recently proposed a $7 billion budget intended for the development of anthrax vaccines and antibiotics.

UW journalism professor James Hoyt said the coverage of anthrax by media, as well as conflicting information, has been targeted by critics as fostering a false sense of security.

“There has been a lot of coverage of rumors, baseless speculation, and far too much reporting of ‘breaking news’ that really isn’t anything new,” Hoyt said.

“I’m never sure whether the people who ‘tested positive’ in the newscast this hour are the same ones who were referred to in the newscast the previous hour.”

While the level of awareness has improved tremendously, there are still general misunderstandings associated with the scares. Some critics point out that once a few cases are reported, the public assumes anthrax is a severe threat and subsequently becomes overly worried.

“Being out of control is what scares people and makes them want to stockpile expensive antibiotics,” Blum said.

One of the main reasons media have covered the topic repeatedly is that many attacks were on media figures themselves. Several workers at NBC, ABC, CBS and the New York Post contracted skin anthrax.

“We need ‘experts’ in the media as well as out of it,” said Blum.

Testimony from university professors, physicians and government officials, supplemented by firsthand accounts given by people who have come into contact with the disease, tends to be the general protocol of many journalists.

Hoyt said when stories are constantly repeated, criticism toward the media is frequent, and the media will continue to focus on anthrax until something bigger occurs.

“I’m convinced that if it weren’t for the September 11 attacks, we’d still be reading daily about Gary Condit and shark attacks,” Hoyt said.

The intended effect of anthrax may not be to kill large amounts of people, however.

“Anthrax, as delivered in the mail, is relatively inefficient biological warfare, and extremely efficient psychological warfare,” Blum said.

“I have less fear of anthrax and more criticism of government response.”