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.
-
-
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
I read the Atlantic article; it's not clear how you defined & analyzed news coverage. It notes a few headlines & bad pieces, which looks more like a quick google than actual analysis of print, online, audio, video stories by major news organizations (ones that drive coverage) /1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I searched "New England Journal of Medicine" on the Washington Post site; they had news stories on the NEJM piece by at least Feb. 1 and cited it in continuing coverage all thru February & beyond. I chose that term to narrow the focus ... /2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
both by seriousness of approach (not opinion blogs on la grippe) & sheer number (a search of "coronavirus" turned up > 7,000 references). My analysis wasn't careful, thorough, systemic. But I'm not sure the Atlantic's was either, as reflected in that article /
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The Atlantic does note some real boneheaded media pieces. That may "feel" like an accurate picture of virus coverage, but it's too incomplete to be a useful or truthful accounting. The media *should* be held accountable and must do better, but /
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
this piece glosses over the complexity & dynamics of a very varied media system -- even as you present an valuable case for why it's so important to understand "complex systems and their dynamics" in dealing with this pandemic.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I don't disagree we need a comprehensive study, but I did fairly systematically look at op-ed pages and pundit/explainer outlets. There was good journalism across but people can't compile it all when the punditry is fairly loudly saying "what about the flu, don't panic"
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @NateSilver538
Thank you for the response. Your Atlantic piece is very much worth reading for its overall point on the failures of grappling w complexity. But op eds & pundits are a small part of the journalism on this, tho I agree the opinion dumkopfs can drown out the good
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.