1 US journalists: how did you cover the #ebola outbreak in eastern #DRC? I know, I know, most of you didn't cover it. But other people did, and you should look at their coverage.

2 In that outbreak, armed militia and mistrustful populations who believed conspiracy theories in a toxic political environment disrupted public health measures. Sound familiar? Of course it does. People act similarly all over the place. It's our coverage of stuff that differs.

3 Anyways, did media (DRC and intl) covering outbreak coddle conspiracy theorists with both sides-ism, and give nonstop coverage to people encouraging such theories? Did they breathlessly report unproven cures and vaccines? Did they gently describe armed groups as "protesters"?

4 No. Of course not. They're professionals. They told the actual story. And unlike the US media, they're far more experienced in covering political violence, bully politicians, and political stunts. So they know a pro-government rally disguised as a "protest" when they see one.

5 They know to give right of reply, but they also know not to defer to the powerful - especially when those in power routinely lie. They know to put facts in the lede, and the conspiracies far down in the story.

6 They also have spines, which means they don't coddle violent extremists and lend credence to conspiracy theories. They don't get distracted by intimidation or political BS.

7 And, yes, they have a long leash (at least, western reporters in Africa do). That leads to lots of problems in how Africa is represented. But it also leads to clear stories where what the reporter sees is reported without varnish.

8 We use blunt, unsettling words like "militia," "fragile," "instability," "violence-torn," "precipice," "brink," etc which paint negative pictures of eastern DRC. But I fear US journalists who shy from such words AREN'T giving a negative enough picture of what's happening here.

9 For now, the pro-Trump militia's disruptions to US public health efforts are far less violent than what took place in eastern DRC's ebola outbreak. But angry armed men in the streets usually doesn't just end peacefully. The question is whether media covers it accurately or not.

10 One last note, I said "conspiracy theories" a lot in this thread. I should have said "propaganda" more often. US journalists are so bad at covering propaganda. Pro-tip: ignore it, but include the juiciest line in the right-of-reply.

11 Another thing - reporters covering ebola in DRC often literally "embedded" with health care organizations. That poses problems, especially when health care orgs operated under armed protection by authorities (which is a whole nother story for others to tell)...

12 However, it sets up an important contrast. Journalists in DRC's ebola outbreak in some ways "chose" a side: the side of public health. It seems to me that many US journalists, so obsessed with false ideas of neutrality, have not chosen the side of public health. This is wrong.

13 One more example: in wartime South Sudan in 2015, I got proof the government was covering up a cholera outbreak for political purposes. We ( @AP) broke the story and announced the outbreak before the government admitted it...

14 Meanwhile, a local radio station that I worked for began sharing public health messages about cholera prevention, even before the official government declaration. We chose the side of public health.

15 Just adding another thought here now that I've got your attention: it shouldn't even have to be a conscious decision to "choose the side of public health." The media's most basic, automatic function is to provide verified, critical information to our audiences.

16 We're supposed to care about our audiences and serve their needs with good information. I think too many of us have lost touch with our audience, and made ourselves into the story instead.

17 Especially on TV, too many journalists have become celebrities or actors in a live drama. They made themselves the story. But we are not the story. From day 1 we are told not to make ourselves the story.

18 Reporters, if you head to the briefing room knowing what will be said won't be useful to your audience, but you go anyway just to stick it to the man on live TV: guess what? You made yourself the story. You let down your audience.

19 So I guess this is just a plea to my fellow journalists: think of your readers, your viewers, your listeners. Think about what they as people need in this frightening time, not what you and your ego want.