This just isn't true. There have been widespread "worry about the flu" articles; focus on travel bans as racist rather than if they were early or severe enough (they weren't), tons of articles telling people not to "overreact"—right up until March. Long, long past uncertainty.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @NateSilver538
Yes, journalism in real time is hard, that's why it should be done with people who are qualifed and more importantly, learn from their mistakes. People went on with conferences and Disney trips because of those articles. Plus, there is still no "speaking truth to power" on masks.
1 reply 3 retweets 44 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I don't know. I, as an alert reader of media coverage, have been worried about this for a long time, as my friends/colleagues would be happy to tell you. The coverage has been pretty science-driven. The focus on the political aspect of it has been fairly proportionate.
7 replies 2 retweets 45 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538 @zeynep
Uncertainty amidst something growing at exponential rates is both hard to understand and hard to convey to readers—I get that. I'm just tired of this constant hindsight bias when journalists don't have that luxury.
8 replies 2 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538
It isn't hindsight bias, though. People who had no business reassuring us reassured us falsely and unscientifically. I trace that in my article. In early February, we had everything in place to 1-Recommend stopping travel/cancelling gatherings. 2-Tell people to get ready.
2 replies 1 retweet 41 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @NateSilver538
Instead of reporting, we got scripts "travel bans are racist", "panic is bad", "overreaction has downsides" etc that are sometimes appropriate, but weren't to this. That's the whole value of journalism though! Break the script and investigate! Otherwise, it's autopilot punditry.
2 replies 4 retweets 44 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I don't see any attempt from you to evaluate the coverage in a comprehensive way. You're cherry-picking. You're lumping unlike things together. No nuance for which outlets are doing better or worse. No recognition for what journalism is like in real time.
7 replies 1 retweet 75 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538
I certainly agree that there should be a comprehensive study of this, but I'm confident that I am not cherry-picking. I also watched this from ground up locally. But just like 2016; media itself more interested in studying failures of anything but itself.
4 replies 1 retweet 31 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @NateSilver538
Also, when I talk about media's failure in 2016, that's not my home turf! I work more on tech/misinformation etc but I can still see how much traditional media failed, and did not reflect that much on it. Same here. "Don't panic; travel; don't be racist; worry about the flu.."
2 replies 0 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @NateSilver538
Glad you bring up FaceBook and digital ‘media’. Most Americans don’t read the NYTs or watch MSNBC / CNN. They get their ‘news’ from FB and ‘Medium’ blogs. There’s tons misinformation, often injected by partisan political groups. Investigate that ecosystem
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think it's a lot more complicated than that. I'm talking about traditional media sources that misinformed people which was then shared by the relatively highly-educated local population around me to justify further travel/gatherings. It wasn't the usual snake-oil or misinfo.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @NateSilver538
Oh, I completely agree with you on that point. I think ‘traditional’ media journalists spend too much time reading each other’s work, talking together on twitter, and listening to each other as TV pundits on MSNBC/CNN and podcasts. Group Think
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.