Swine flu. Is it overblown?

The media have a great propensity to jump on a story that it knows - by readership or viewership research - will cause a lot of people to pay attention. That's our job, afterall.
Swine flu is the latest subject of our drive to give people information about their safety, and lots of it. Does the quantity of stories out there suggest a bigger danger than a normal kind of flu? Some would conclude the volume of stories is proportional to its importance. Not really. The volume of stories may be more proportional to our knowledge that people will read it. Is the threat to safety "blown" out of proportion in the swine flu case?
Maybe. Would we print fewer stories to make sure we don't "overblow" it? Not really. At some point, you have to give people information and not try to predict what they will do with it or how they will react to it.
The rule I like to think about: Let's not yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. People could get hurt protecting themselves from a threat that isn't there. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't yell fire in the theater if we see a smoldering cigarette ready to ignite a curtain.
Don't panic, but be prepared. That's a better guideline. That seems to be the approach of most of the government agencies monitoring the swine flu case.
Of course, we have access to every AP wire for every state. So, at some point, there will likely be at least 50 swine flu stories. In fact, as of 3:40 p.m. there are approximately 1,200 Associated Press stories that have the phrase "swine flu" in them, just in the last 24 hours. That may make the event seem more ominous than it is.
That's why perspective stories and "What to be aware of stories" are worthwhile, and any media doing its job will have a mix. The theater's not on fire, but there is a risk that someone will discard a lit cigarette. We just have to be prepared.