admin | October 2, 2026
When a health crisis unfolds, communities do not just need information. They need information they can trust. They need to know what is true, what is a rumor, what action to take, where to seek help, and who they can believe.
For broadcasters, this creates a difficult responsibility. A single unverified claim can fuel fear. A sensational headline can deepen stigma. A poorly handled interview can compromise someone’s dignity. But a well-researched, empathetic radio program can help communities make sense of uncertainty and respond with confidence.
These questions came into sharp focus during the final two weeks of the four-week online discussion “Covering Ebola Safely: How Media Can Better Inform and Protect Communities.” After exploring Ebola, misinformation, fear and community engagement in the first two weeks, participants turned to two practical questions: How can journalists report a health crisis ethically? And how can those principles shape radio programs that audiences will actually use?
Week 3 focused on ethical reporting and fact-checking, with participants examining the pressures journalists face when information is moving rapidly, particularly through social media. A central message was that verification must come before publication or broadcast. But participants also pushed the discussion further: even when information is true, how should it be reported?
Our resource person Dr. Samson Arzoaquoi captured this distinction:
“Journalism ethics tells you how to verify and report; medical ethics tells you what happens to a human being because of what you reported.”
He encouraged journalists to ask two questions: “Is this true?” and “Should it be reported this way?”
That distinction was particularly relevant to reporting involving patients, survivors, families and communities. Participants discussed how images, names and other identifying details can expose vulnerable people to stigma or unnecessary attention.
Edisoni Galeba Anathory from Tanzania reflected on the circulation of disturbing images during health crises: “My job is not to reshare it.” For him, the journalist’s role was to avoid amplifying harmful content and instead provide context, explain the potential harm and focus attention on useful information and responses.
The group also considered how broadcasters can deal with rumours before they become deeply established. One idea was to pre-bunk misinformation through regular programming: a recurring segment such as “Before You Believe It,” where broadcasters anticipate common rumours and equip audiences with the skills to question and assess health information, could encourage listeners to pause, question information and check its source before accepting or sharing it. This offers a different approach to misinformation, rather than waiting for false claims to spread and then responding, broadcasters can help audiences develop habits that make them less vulnerable to unreliable information.
With the ethical questions explored, Week 4 became more hands-on. Participants were asked to design programming for their own audiences and consider which formats, topics, broadcast times and feedback mechanisms would work in their contexts.
The responses demonstrated that audience needs should drive program design. Jackson Kilonzo from Kenya described his station’s approach in Taita Taveta County:
“We normally produce special features highlighting health crises, featuring health experts and individuals who have recovered from illnesses, while also allowing interactive call-in segments and vox pops.”
Other participants favoured live discussions with experts, short news briefings, community interviews, storytelling, quizzes and listener question-and-answer sessions. The variety of responses showed that there is no single formula for effective health programming. What matters is choosing a format that fits the audience, the urgency of the issue and the type of information being communicated.
Our resource person Jefferson Massah drew on his experience producing radio programs during Liberia’s Ebola response. He explained that producers had to listen to communities and understand their concerns before deciding how to structure their programs.
As he put it:
“What people were asking, what they feared, what rumours were circulating, and what information they needed to make decisions.”
He described radio’s role during the outbreak as extending beyond broadcasting health messages:
“Radio was not simply a platform for broadcasting health messages. It became a bridge between communities, journalists and the health system.”
This idea was reflected in participants’ proposed program structures. Umar Usman from Nigeria, for example, suggested an Ebola Awareness Hour combining an opening message, expert interview, myth-versus-fact segment, listener questions, community voices and a closing reminder of key messages. Other participants proposed shorter segments, including brief health tips that could be incorporated into existing programs, as well as regular jingles and rumour-check features.
Another important aspect of Week 4 was the role of listener feedback. Participants suggested using phone-ins, WhatsApp and SMS, community outreach, surveys and partnerships with health workers and community organisations to understand what audiences were asking and whether programs were meeting their needs. One participant suggested gathering questions from listeners in advance and returning to them on air with a qualified expert, allowing people without airtime or reliable connectivity to have their concerns addressed. In this model, audience participation is not simply an add-on to a program. It becomes part of the editorial process.
One other important aspect that came up during the discussion was the value of solutions-oriented reporting. Rather than focusing exclusively on the scale of an outbreak or the problems communities face, participants considered how broadcasters can also document responses – what health workers are doing, how communities are adapting, what prevention measures are available, what survivors can teach others and where people can find assistance. This approach gives audiences something beyond a description of the crisis. It provides context, practical options and examples of how people are responding.
By the end of Week 4, the discussion had moved from understanding the disease to thinking about the broadcaster’s role in helping communities navigate it.
The first two weeks established the importance of accurate information, community engagement and empathy. Week 3 added the ethical questions that should guide how that information is gathered and presented. Week 4 then translated those principles into program ideas, formats and audience-engagement strategies.
As Isidory from Tanzania reflected at the close of the discussion:
“The guidance, expert insights, and interactive discussions have truly equipped us as broadcasters with the necessary skills, ethical framework, and practical tools to report responsibly, counter misinformation, and protect our communities.”
The conversation ultimately highlighted the distinctive role radio can play during a health emergency, not simply telling people what is happening, but creating a trusted space where accurate information, expert knowledge and community concerns can meet. The next step is to carry that learning beyond the WhatsApp discussion, into editorial meetings, program studios and the communities broadcasters serve.