The Project for Excellence in Journalism found H1N1/swine flu to be number one with a bullet for the week of April 27 - May 3.

But Toronto Star public editor Kathy English thought her paper handled the news tsunami well.

Here is the PEJ coverage study: Flu fears dominate a week of big events

From April 27-May 3, the swine flu, or H1N1 as it officially became known, accounted for nearly one-third of the newshole (31%) studied, according to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

This marked only the second time since January 2007 that a health-related subject led PEJ’s weekly News Coverage Index. That other story, now mostly forgotten, was the potential spread of a seemingly dangerous form of tuberculosis by an Atlanta lawyer, and it filled 12% of the newshole from May 27-June 1, 2007.

English had this to say in her May 10 column:

What about the Star? Did this news organization overreact and sensationalize the threat of swine flu and possible pandemic?

Considering Toronto's previous close encounter with SARS, heightened interest among Star readers could be expected. This story merited strong coverage in the Star.

Overall, I think the Star struck the right balance in providing authoritative, essential information, advising vigilance and cautioning against overreaction. As one letter writer wrote: The Star "refrained from the pull-your-hair-out-and-run-screaming reportage." ...

The Star's extensive coverage provided me with needed perspective and practical information. Several times, complex, necessary information about this flu – its symptoms, how it spreads and other essential facts – was presented in a reader-friendly Q&A format that directly answered my own questions and helped quell fear.

An April 28 editorial, "Prudent response over swine flu" made the case to remain calm but not complacent. Health reporter Joseph Hall's April 30 report on interviews with some of Ontario's most authoritative communicable illness experts told readers that while it was too early to gauge the seriousness of this bout of flu, good reason existed to count on "the more benign outcome."

The Star did start up a special section on swine flu, but if you scan the visible archived headlines, it lends credence to her view that the Star didn't wildly sensationalize the story (to be frank, I haven't intensively analyzed the Star's coverage over the course of the H1N1 outbreak, so I can't

However, were there people who did have a serious argument to make that the Star or was hyping the story? If not, then why did English feel compelled to praise the paper's coverage?

How does she feel about how the word "pandemic" has been thrown around in the media? "Pandemic" and "Black Death" are not synonymous. The column had no thoughts on that.

On another note, the Star announced English's appointment in a May 26, 2007 story.

At the New York Times, public editors serve two-year terms and then are out. Some think that is too short, as the person just learns how the place works and then see ya.

However, if you're on staff in such a job, is your independence compromised somewhat? For example, if you're too aggressive as public editor, could you hurt your career chances?

My question for tonight is this: Is English on staff, or is she a term appointment? The 'about the public editor' page at TheStar.com doesn't say.