The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 presented an unprecedented global challenge that significantly transformed the media industry. Journalists faced a complex crisis characterised by rapidly shifting narratives, government-imposed restrictions, economic disruption, evolving scientific knowledge, and a flood of misinformation.
In response, the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME) conducted two studies in 2020 and 2021 to assess the coverage of the pandemic by Ugandan media. This analysis provided a critical evaluation of the media’s effectiveness in delivering vital information to the public, highlighting both strengths and notable vulnerabilities within the Ugandan journalism sector.
Since then, Uganda has faced additional public health emergencies, including Ebola Virus Disease and Mpox outbreaks, further testing the resilience of its media. With the advantage of hindsight, it is essential to reflect on how journalism has adapted in the wake of COVID-19. What lessons from ACME’s assessment remain relevant today? What gaps in coverage and preparedness still persist? Most importantly, what concrete steps can be taken to ensure that the media is better equipped to handle future public health crises effectively?
High volume, limited depth
One of the defining characteristics of media coverage in Uganda during the pandemic was its overwhelming volume. Similar to many countries where daily life was virtually halted by COVID-19, Ugandan media outlets allocated significant resources to reporting on the spread of the virus. Journalists put in long hours to keep the public informed about government measures, scientific developments, and the broader socio-economic implications of the crisis.
Our studies revealed that coverage of COVID-19 in Ugandan media steadily increased during the initial four months of the pandemic, but began to decline in May 2020. A follow-up study conducted in 2021 indicated that this decline was not uniform; instead, coverage fluctuated over time. Notably, there was a drop in November 2020, as media outlets shifted their focus to the violent riots that followed the arrest and detention of presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi. In contrast, media attention on COVID-19 surged again in December 2020, likely spurred by a significant rise in cases and police and military crackdowns on opposition politicians accused of violating COVID-19 standard operating procedures during election campaigns. These events temporarily overshadowed pandemic reporting.
In light of the overwhelming volume of information and competing news priorities, how should media organisations determine what to prioritise in their coverage? In the future, how can the media develop more structured approaches to ensure that critical, long-term issues like public health and climate change maintain prominence amid high-stakes political events?
The limits of event-driven reporting
The findings from ACME studies indicated that the coverage of COVID-19 by Ugandan media was predominantly characterised by an event-driven approach. Approximately two-thirds of the reported stories were focused on government announcements and daily case counts. While it is necessary to cover breaking news, this approach often resulted in a lack of deeper analytical discourse regarding the implications of these statistics for public health and policy formulation. Consequently, this trend led to the uncritical amplification of government narratives and, in certain instances, led to the spread of misinformation and unverified claims.
A paradox in media coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic was the lack of emphasis on science-based reporting, despite the story being fundamentally about science. While the pandemic required thorough analysis of scientific data and research, many journalists were unfamiliar with reporting analytically on science, particularly when it came to health information. As a result, there was a dearth of reporting on the scientific aspects of the crisis. Journalists seldom sought out experts like epidemiologists and researchers, particularly those outside of the urgent care context. Instead, the media relied heavily on government statements and information from international organisations, sidelining independent scientific voices, frontline health workers, and civil society groups who could have provided deeper insights into the science of the pandemic.
In times of crisis, the media’s role should extend beyond mere reportage of breaking news; it should also encompass the provision of context, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the broader implications of unfolding events. This allows the public to make informed decisions during periods of uncertainty. To prevent the recurrence of previous shortcomings, it is imperative that Ugandan journalists be equipped with the skills necessary to question and analyse information critically.
Whose voices? Whose stories?
Diversity, voice and representation in media coverage were as crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic as they are today. While the media’s focus on official narratives was understandable given the ever-changing nature of the pandemic, the lack of diversity in the sources and voices presented in the coverage led to an incomplete and skewed portrayal of the situation.
Our studies found that although the news media made efforts to feature ordinary Ugandans affected by the pandemic, the voices of these individuals were often sidelined by official sources. Women, specifically, were underrepresented in the media coverage. Men accounted for 77% of all voices in COVID-19 stories, an imbalance that reflects a persistent issue in Ugandan journalism beyond health reporting. Despite women’s prominent roles in Uganda’s “Committee of Scientists” working on the COVID-19 response, men made up 83% of the expert sources cited. This trend is emblematic of a long-standing reluctance within Ugandan newsrooms to prioritise gender equity in sourcing, even where diversity policies exist.
Five years on from the outbreak of COVID-19, it is important to ask: who makes the news, particularly when it comes to health coverage? Has anything changed since the pandemic, and if so, how? Whose story is being told today, whose face is being seen, and whose concerns are being prioritised? Without a strong commitment to gender and representation balance, the media risks continuing its historical pattern of excluding important voices from the public narrative.
Media’s struggles long after the pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed deep structural and economic issues that have persisted long after the crisis. Journalists, who were already overworked and under-resourced, faced severe challenges as media houses struggled to cope with both the public health and economic crises.
When the pandemic struck, many media outlets were forced to downsize. Some reduced staff salaries, while others laid off workers or closed operations, such as Vision Group’s closure of three local-language newspapers. The immediate response from outlets like Nation Media Group Uganda involved salary cuts, as advertising revenues plummeted. Two newspapers namely, The Observer and The Independent stopped printing newspapers, resorting to only staying online. With reduced budgets, in-depth coverage became a luxury.
The pandemic also highlighted significant gaps in media capacity, particularly in covering public health issues. Many small and medium-sized newsrooms lacked dedicated health desks, and many experienced health reporters left for better-paying jobs in NGOs and government. Consequently, general assignment reporters, untrained in this field, struggled to handle critical stories. This led to difficulties in interpreting scientific data and an over-reliance on official sources. In some instances, self-censorship emerged due to concerns about contradicting the government, raising questions about journalism’s effectiveness as a watchdog during the pandemic.
A complementary ACME study, “Responding to Threats to Press Freedom and the Media in a Time of Crisis: An Assessment of Types and Sources of Threats to Press Freedom and Mitigation Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Uganda“, revealed that safety concerns also compounded the difficulties faced by journalists. In addition to the risk of contracting the virus, many reporters encountered harassment or intimidation from security forces enforcing lockdown measures. Newsrooms, already strapped for resources, were unable to provide adequate protective equipment or legal support for their staff. These challenges continue today, particularly for journalists covering politics and other sensitive public affairs, with many threats going unreported.
Lessons applied (or not)
Health crises are an inevitable aspect of our world. Rather than questioning if a crisis will occur, we should focus on the more pressing issue of when it will happen. Given this certainty, the preparedness of Ugandan media to respond to future health emergencies relies on their ability to recognise and effectively integrate the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic into their reporting and operations.
Unfortunately, both the recent Marburg and Ebola outbreaks in Uganda caught the media flatfooted. Attrition in newsrooms took some of the most experienced health reporters away, and many media companies—particularly smaller, rural outlets in areas most affected by health crises—still lack dedicated health desks. In the absence of well-trained journalists, misinformation often spread more widely than factual reporting, further undermining public trust and response efforts.
However, interventions from the Ministry of Health, UNICEF, WHO, and media support organisations like ACME helped mitigate some of these shortcomings. Through targeted initiatives, they worked with editors and journalists to ensure they were better informed about public health crises, improving the accuracy and depth of reporting. These efforts, while commendable, also highlight the need for more sustained, systematic investment in media preparedness to prevent the same missteps from recurring.
The insights gained during these crises should serve as foundational principles that shape the media’s evolving role in society. To become more effective, informed and critical advocates for public health, media institutions must actively engage with these lessons and turn them into concrete, long-term strategies.
