Media Analysis of the 'Flesh-Eating Ulcer' Outbreak in Victoria

This report provides a critical analysis of a media article by Liam Mannix and Professor O’Brien, focusing on the Buruli ulcer outbreak in Victoria. The article critiques the government's response to the epidemic, highlighting the lack of research funding and the impact on affected individuals. The report examines the article's biases, the use of anecdotal evidence, and the portrayal of the government's actions. It discusses the article's strengths, such as its use of expert opinions and emotional appeals, while also pointing out weaknesses like the lack of sufficient evidence and unbalanced arguments. The analysis explores the article's potential impact on public perception and its effectiveness in advocating for increased research and government action. The report also touches on the importance of providing balanced information and creating awareness on the symptoms, causes, and treatment of the disease.

Running head:Analysis of article;Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' inVictoria 1
MEDIA ANALYSIS
An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria”
Student name:
Institution:
Date:

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria” 2
Introduction
The article “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria” by Liam Mannix and
authored by professor O’Brien is an interesting piece of work. The article looks to explain how
the issue of Buruli ulcer has become an epidemic and how the government has turned a blind eye
to this issue, (Walsh, Portaels & Meyers 2008). The author of the article is more aligned on
criticizing the government than in addressing the issue at hand which is the increased prevalence
due to this bacterial infection (Buruli ulcers) and use of research to help reduce this prevalence.
This article addresses a serious matter but how it has been presented poses a question for
credibility. The writer and author do not seem to recognize that the government has made any
effort in the research regarding the issue of the flesh eating ulcer, Buruli ulcer. It uses the story of
Charles Gus and his mother to tell their story and emphasize on the seriousness of the Buruli
cancer and how the government neglect on this issue is affecting the common civilians. On the
other side, the article does not use evidence from the government showing that they have
allocated resources for research on this issue. This makes the article slant more on the specific
way they want the public to see the article and the issue it is addressing and not in a way that is
favorable for everyone. This makes the article quite biased and only addresses the writer’s views
Summary of the article
The article by Liam Mannix, a Fairfax Media’s science reporter, and author Professor O’Brien is
about how the government has turned a blind eye on the issue of Buruli ulcers, a bacterial
infection caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans and a slowly growing epidemic. The article
explains how this is explosive epidemic is a sensitive issue and explains that the government has

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria” 3
refused to allocate new funds for the research of this epidemic, (Altheide & Schneider 2013). It
states that however, the government, through the Department of Health and Human Services has
denied these claims saying they have allocated more than 800,000 dollars for research on Buruli
ulcers, (Berger 2017). The article goes ahead to give the areas most affected by the epidemic and
its origin. They also include the incidence of Sally and her son Charles who was not diagnosed
early enough with Buruli ulcer despite frequent visits to different medical practitioners and
hospitals but was only diagnosed upon surgery. At the end of the article, the author includes the
current measure being taken by the government and the various recommendations that should be
put in place to help diagnose, treat and prevent this condition, (Riff, Lacy & Fico 2014).
The media article analysis
A typical component of media article is the portrayal of opposite sides of a story to produce an
impression among readers of contention or unbiasedness. This article however just reports the
story of just one side of the involved parties. The opening sentence sets the scene by
reprimanding the state administration because of its inaction in the midst of the touchy pandemic
of the tissue eating ulcers known as Buruli ulcer.
The article is selling the idea that the state government should invest more in research for the
realization of the causes, spread, prevention, and diagnosis of the flesh eating ulcer, Buruli which
is caused by a bacterium that rots the skin tissue. The article keenly explains the epidemic of this
bacterial infection. The condition is uncommon and may not be diagnosed immediately and thus
by the time it is diagnosed it may be too late for any action. The author of the article, Professor

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria” 4
Daniel O’Brien says that despite the fact that resources have been previously allocated for this
course, the government is unwilling to put in more resources for the continuation of research.
The author of the writing is an expert with knowledge of the bacteria that causes Buruli ulcers
from his work at Barwon Health in Geelong and the Journal the article was published, The
Medical Journal of Australia, is well known and has a good reputation as a source of information
thus giving the information written in this article more credibility.
The writer of the article, however, has his credibility questioned when he says that the
Department of Health and Human Services denied the claim that the government refused to
allocate funds for research on Mycobacterium ulcerous. He does not provide the name of the
person who said that thus making this information not viable. In addition, he accuses the state
government of inaction amid the explosive epidemiology and yet the state government had
previously allocated more than 800,000 dollars for research.
The article uses the government figures to convince the reader that the issue at hand is really
epidemic with 400% increase and more than 275 cases of Buruli ulcers reported. However, the
article does not mention the government publication that published the above figures used. This
makes the credibility of the claims and figures questionable.
The writer also uses the story of Sally and her son Charles Gus, who was diagnosed with a
Buruli ulcer in his knee. The writer uses the exact words of Sally to explain her thoughts and her
feelings concerning the bacterial infection. She explains that the ulcer was not diagnosed
immediately and was only diagnosed as Buruli ulcer after a surgery was performed on Gus. She
goes ahead to use emotive words to explain how tough it was for both her and the son. This gives

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria” 5
the article more weight and the reader is pushed to want to find out more about the Bairnsdale
ulcer and how it can be diagnosed early.
However, the writer does not state the name of the surgeon that operated on Gus Charles nor
does the article mention the name of the hospital the surgery took place. The article also does not
mention the names of the General Practitioners and hospitals visited by Sally and Gus. This
makes it possible that the story is just a fiction to attract the reader’s attention.
The article uses the picture of Charles Gus, a boy diagnosed with Buruli or Bairnsdale ulcer, his
mother Sally and a picture of what is assumed to be the ulcer. The use of a picture attract the
attention of the reader and makes them want to know more and connect with the affected family
and thus the article.
Generally, the above article in question is biased and provides unbalanced arguments. It does not
make powerful utilization of source reference credit of statements to the origin, and pint citation
of information origins. It does not provide enough evidence of its source of information and facts
used in the article. It uses the story of Charles Gus and his mother to tell their story and
emphasize on the seriousness of the Buruli cancer and how the government neglect on this issue
is affecting the common civilians. On the other side, the article does not use evidence from the
government showing that they have allocated resources for research on this issue. This makes the
article slant more on the specific way they want the public to see the article and the issue it is
addressing and not in a way that is favorable for everyone. This makes the article quite biased
and only addresses the writer’s views.
This article uses the direct words of Professor Daniel O’Brien to explain the sensitivity and
urgency of the need for research regarding Buruli ulcer. Professor Daniel O’Brien is an expert in

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria” 6
healthcare and medicine. He says, “It’s a pretty frightening explosion in case numbers.” He goes
ahead to say, “It’s an exploding epidemic. The time to wait is gone. We need to take action.”
The use of the words of an expert in Buruli ulcers gives the message of the article some weight.
However, there’s no evidence from an authority in the field of Buruli ulcers. This may imply that
not enough research was done before writing the article.
The article indicates that the government has neglected the issue of Buruli ulcers by not
allocating funds for research directed towards this epidemic issue. The strategy used in this
article may lead to the public supporting the information portrayed in the article and being
against the state government and start pushing for more funds to research the issue through social
media campaigns and probably demonstrations. The article is written in such a manner that the
public believes in the information given by the writer because, in the end, it is written that the
journal is recommending for government to provide more resources directed to research about
Buruli ulcers.
From how the article is written, the reader is invited to identify with the victim of the Buruli
ulcer. The article does this through the use of the story of Charles Gus and how he contracted
Buruli ulcer, how it was not diagnosed in time by different hospitals and different practitioners,
and the aftermath of this that led to surgery. This way, the public is pushed into drilling the
government and how their inaction is affecting the general public. Ingle (2011) alludes to this
kind of media as productive inclination or introducing just a single side positively – a system to
engage the feelings of the general population, rather than adjusted, proof, or master upheld
guarantees on both perspectives instead of addressing every perspective of the issue with reason.

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria” 7
The article is so concentrated on criticizing the state government on its inaction and fails to
highlight some important details about Buruli ulcers that may be beneficial to the public reading
the article. Such is the creation of awareness on Buruli ulcers such as the symptoms of Buruli
ulcers for early detection, how they can avoid contracting Buruli ulcers, how to know that it is
really Buruli ulcers, how it is treated, what causes Buruli ulcers, who is at risk of getting Buruli
ulcers and how this bacterial infection can be transmitted. The article omits all these important
issues and concentrates on just how the government is inactive.
The article states “Mycobacterium ulcerous is a tropical bacteria that is largely confined to
countries in west and central Africa, including Benin, Cameroon, and Ghana.” This is an
irrelevant piece of information, as it does not contribute to the issue of government providing
funding for the research on this epidemic condition. Despite the statement being true, it is of no
use in this context.
The article also does not have its arguments on the issue objectively portrayed. The article is all
about blaming the government on their lack of action. To some extent, the author makes the
article feel like it is a back and forth between the writer and the Department of Health and
Human Services and a rant instead of a platform to address the issue at hand and coming up with
recommendations and creating awareness to the public on the Buruli ulcer epidemic.
However, the article is quite convincing to the reader. This is because they use the incidence of
real life characters and emotions to deliver its message. The reader would be convinced that
indeed the government has not invested enough to learn about the Buruli ulcer, as Gus could not
be diagnosed by different hospitals and practitioners. In addition, the writer brings emotion to the
article through the use of phrases such as “It was horrible. He’s a tough kid, but he was rocked

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria” 8
by this”, “It’s an exploding epidemic. The time to wait is gone. We need to take action”, and
“It’s a pretty frightening explosion in case numbers.” The use of the above makes the reader
identify with the article and the victims of the condition. The article explains how this is
explosive epidemic is a sensitive issue and explains that the government has refused to allocate
new funds for the research of this epidemic. It states that however, the government, through the
Department of Health and Human Services has denied these claims saying they have allocated
more than 800,000 dollars for research on Buruli ulcers.
The general public might see this article as a way to help the common civilian through funding
of research thus when one has the Buruli ulcer it can be diagnosed early enough and necessary
precautions are taken and also once the cause of the epidemic is known they are able to prevent
it. However, on the other hand, the state government and the Department of Health and Human
Services might consider it a way of undermining their work and defaming them to the general
public. This is because the article seems to slant on to the side of the civilian and is against the
government and their way of doing things.
Conclusion
The substance of the news media unavoidably mirrors the interests of the individuals who pay
the bills. The contention, as such, is that the lenders or the gathering they speak to won't enable
their media to distribute material that disappoints their indispensable advantages, (Williamson et
al 2012).' This probability of inclination must be considered when basically investigating any bit
of media, however, is hard to set up, as the financial specialists are not clearly advanced.

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria” 9
This article addresses a serious matter but how it has been presented poses a question for
credibility. The writer and author do not seem to recognize that the government has made any
effort in the research regarding the issue of the flesh eating ulcer, Buruli ulcer, (Sizaire et al
2016). This is a way of biasness because the government has previously allocated more than
800,000 dollars of money for research. This effort is not appreciated by the article; rather, the
article portrays it as nothing.
The article, however, considers other forms of writing such as the use of emotion and evidence
when they use the story of Charles Gus. This makes the reader identify with the article and its
contents. However, some sources of information are questioned as no specific names of people
or a publication where the information was gathered is indicated, (Lavender et al 2011).

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria”
10
References
Altheide, D.L. and Schneider, C.J., 2013. Qualitative media analysis (Vol. 38). Sage.
Berger, A.A., 2017. Media analysis techniques. Sage Publications. 7, p.47-90
Lavender, C.J., Fyfe, J.A., Azuolas, J., Brown, K., Evans, R.N., Ray, L.R. and Johnson, P.D.,
2011. Risk of Buruli ulcer and detection of Mycobacterium ulcerans in mosquitoes in
southeastern Australia. PLOS neglected tropical diseases, 5(9), p.1305.
Riff, D., Lacy, S. and Fico, F., 2014. Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content
analysis in research. Routledge.
Sizaire, V., Nackers, F., Comte, E. and Portaels, F., 2016. Mycobacterium ulcerans infection:
control, diagnosis, and treatment. The Lancet infectious diseases, 6(5), pp.288-296.
Williamson, H.R., Benbow, M.E., Campbell, L.P., Johnson, C.R., Sopoh, G., Barogui, Y.,
Merritt, R.W. and Small, P.L., 2012. Detection of Mycobacterium ulcerans in the environment
predicts prevalence of Buruli ulcer in Benin. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 6(1), p.1506.
Walsh, D.S., Portaels, F. and Meyers, W.M., 2008. Buruli ulcer (Mycobacterium ulcerans
infection). Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 102(10),
pp.969-978.

An analysis of the article: “Flesh-eating ulcer outbreak 'exploding epidemic' in Victoria”
11
Bibliography
Bengtsson, M., 2016. How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content
analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, pp.8-14.
Demangel, C., Stinear, T.P. and Cole, S.T., 2009. Buruli ulcer: reductive evolution enhances
pathogenicity of Mycobacterium ulcerans. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 7(1), p.50.
Harwood, T.G. and Garry, T., 2008. An overview of content analysis. The marketing
review, 3(4), pp.479-498.
Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), pp.1277-1288.
Krippendorff, K., 2004. Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and
recommendations. Human communication research, 30(3), pp.411-433.
Macnamara, J.R., 2005. Media content analysis: Its uses, benefits and best practice
methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), p.1.
Macnamara, J.R., 2005. Media content analysis: Its uses, benefits and best practice
methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), p.1.
Purcell, C., Hilton, S. and McDaid, L., 2014. The stigmatisation of abortion: a qualitative
analysis of print media in Great Britain in 2010. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 16(9), pp.1141-
1155.
Riff, D., Lacy, S. and Fico, F., 2014. Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content
analysis in research. Routledge.
van Dijk, T.A. ed., 2011. Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of
mass media discourse and communication (Vol. 10). Walter de Gruyter.
Woodrum, E., 1984. “Mainstreaming” content analysis in social science: Methodological
advantages, obstacles, and solutions. Social Science Research, 13(1), pp.1-19.