The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation (/thread-20051.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation (/thread-20051.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - 76lsjumb - 07-14-2020
I know burger won't bother to read this because, for him, the NYT is ABSOLUTE TRUTH [more so, probably, since they ran out that heretic, Bari Weiss] and the National Review isn't fit to line a birdcage. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the column raises some legitimate questions about that still-evolving Texas COVID Party story:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-the-times-print-an-urban-legend/
Maybe it happened; maybe it didn't, but, in the end, does that really matter? It helped further the preferred media narrative so, by definition, it was a legitimate story for the NYT to print.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - chrisk - 07-14-2020
(07-14-2020, 11:35 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: I know burger won't bother to read this because, for him, the NYT is ABSOLUTE TRUTH [more so, probably, since they ran out that heretic, Bari Weiss] and the National Review isn't fit to line a birdcage. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the column raises some legitimate questions about that still-evolving Texas COVID Party story:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-the-times-print-an-urban-legend/
Maybe it happened; maybe it didn't, but, in the end, does that really matter? It helped further the preferred media narrative so, by definition, it was a legitimate story for the NYT to print.
I would say it is irrelevant. We know that the spread is mostly due to lack of masks and social distancing. A COVID party here and there might add a few cases but when a state is logging tens of thousands of new cases each day, it’s mostly due to the sloppiness of the general population. The large minority (or in some stare, majority) of the population have not grasped that concept and internalized in their behavior.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - lex24 - 07-15-2020
(07-14-2020, 11:45 PM)chrisk Wrote:(07-14-2020, 11:35 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: I know burger won't bother to read this because, for him, the NYT is ABSOLUTE TRUTH [more so, probably, since they ran out that heretic, Bari Weiss] and the National Review isn't fit to line a birdcage. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the column raises some legitimate questions about that still-evolving Texas COVID Party story:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-the-times-print-an-urban-legend/
Maybe it happened; maybe it didn't, but, in the end, does that really matter? It helped further the preferred media narrative so, by definition, it was a legitimate story for the NYT to print.
I would say it is irrelevant. We know that the spread is mostly due to lack of masks and social distancing. A COVID party here and there might add a few cases but when a state is logging tens of thousands of new cases each day, it up is mostly the sloppiness of the general population. The large minority (or in some stare, majority) of the population have not grasped that concept and internalized in their behavior.
Do you think the explosion in LA County is due to the “sloppiness of the populations behavior?” Or is it perhaps due to the very high density of the population, coupled with the high number of people living in poor socioeconomic conditions? What about Imperial County? Again, bad behaviors? Or perhaps bad conditions.
As for the Covid Party Story it’s relevant because if untrue it creates a false narrative. And the incredibly poor sourcing should have been enough for the Times not to run with the story. It’s journalistic standards should be a tad higher given its stature and influence.
Finally let me ask you this - from a purely.common sense viewpoint, what is more likely to lead to a widespread increase: a few Covid parties thrown in a few red states. Or people gathering in what some in the media have said is the largest number of people protesting in American history? But there will never be an honest look about the impact of the protests on Covid. Because the possibility that they may have been a contributor does not fit the narrative.
Nothing was going to stop the protests. They were a legitimate reaction to the Floyd murder and all the history that it represents. But the notion that massive gatherings of people shouting slogans in close quarters during a pandemic is not a factor in a big uptick that,happened shortly thereafter is counter-intuitive. Particularly when all other large outdoor gatherings are frowned upon. If not downright illegal. You can’t have it both ways.
Put simply - it is not inconsistent to say the protests were righteous; but unfortunately they happened during a pandemic. And thus an unintended consequence is that they contributed to the explosion of cases. (And just so it’s crystal clear, I’m not “blaming” the protesters. As I said, the protests were a natural and righteous response to the Floyd killing and the history behind it Hopefully eventually some good will come from them.)
Put another way, suppose everything about the gatherings is exactly the same - including percentage of mask usage (which no one knows but for the sake of argument let’s say it’s high - maybe 70%) but instead of protests they were Trump rallies. Do you think we would see the same conclusion?
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - chrisk - 07-15-2020
(07-15-2020, 12:19 AM)lex24 Wrote:(07-14-2020, 11:45 PM)chrisk Wrote:(07-14-2020, 11:35 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: I know burger won't bother to read this because, for him, the NYT is ABSOLUTE TRUTH [more so, probably, since they ran out that heretic, Bari Weiss] and the National Review isn't fit to line a birdcage. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the column raises some legitimate questions about that still-evolving Texas COVID Party story:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-the-times-print-an-urban-legend/
Maybe it happened; maybe it didn't, but, in the end, does that really matter? It helped further the preferred media narrative so, by definition, it was a legitimate story for the NYT to print.
I would say it is irrelevant. We know that the spread is mostly due to lack of masks and social distancing. A COVID party here and there might add a few cases but when a state is logging tens of thousands of new cases each day, it up is mostly the sloppiness of the general population. The large minority (or in some stare, majority) of the population have not grasped that concept and internalized in their behavior.
Do you think the explosion in LA County is due to the “sloppiness of the populations behavior?” Or is it perhaps due to the very high density of the population, coupled with the high number of people living in poor socioeconomic conditions? What about Imperial County? Again, bad behaviors? Or perhaps bad conditions.
As for the Covid Party Story it’s relevant because if untrue it creates a false narrative. And the incredibly poor sourcing should have been enough for the Times not to run with the story. It’s journalistic standards should be a tad higher given its stature and influence.
Finally let me ask you this - from a purely.common sense viewpoint, what is more likely to lead to a widespread increase: a few Covid parties thrown in a few red states. Or people gathering in what some in the media have said is the largest number of people protesting in American history? But there will never be an honest look about the impact of the protests on Covid. Because the possibility that they may have been a contributor does not fit the narrative.
Nothing was going to stop the protests. They were a legitimate reaction to the Floyd murder and all the history that it represents. But the notion that massive gatherings of people shouting slogans in close quarters during a pandemic is not a factor in a big uptick that,happened shortly thereafter is counter-intuitive. Particularly when all other large outdoor gatherings are frowned upon. If not downright illegal. You can’t have it both ways.
Put simply - it is not inconsistent to say the protests were righteous; but unfortunately they happened during a pandemic. And thus an unintended consequence is that they contributed to the explosion of cases. (And just so it’s crystal clear, I’m not “blaming” the protesters. As I said, the protests were a natural and righteous response to the Floyd killing and the history behind it Hopefully eventually some good will come from them.)
Put another way, suppose everything about the gatherings is exactly the same - including percentage of mask usage (which no one knows but for the sake of argument let’s say it’s high - maybe 70%) but instead of protests they were Trump rallies. Do you think we would see the same conclusion?
Minorities and the poor are over represented in the number of cases snd deaths but there are plenty of middle- and upper-class whites who are among the cases. Houston, Miami, and Phoenix are large cities but they are not particularly densely populated. Other large, denser cities in the US and around the world have contained the pandemic much better and much sooner. Given that these populations in the Southern states had many examples of better and best practices to choose from, they took a path that was virtually predestined to fail. It is hard to know if the political leaders betrayed the population or of the population was going to do whatever it wanted regardless of the leadership.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - burger - 07-15-2020
(07-14-2020, 11:35 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: I know burger won't bother to read this because, for him, the NYT is ABSOLUTE TRUTH [more so, probably, since they ran out that heretic, Bari Weiss] and the National Review isn't fit to line a birdcage. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the column raises some legitimate questions about that still-evolving Texas COVID Party story:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-the-times-print-an-urban-legend/
Maybe it happened; maybe it didn't, but, in the end, does that really matter? It helped further the preferred media narrative so, by definition, it was a legitimate story for the NYT to print.
Weird to be name-checked in a thread where my only comment was a tongue-in-cheek inside joke about the Central Valley.
But since I'm here: the Times repeated a statement from a hospital official. Then they corrected a possible error. What else would you ask them to do? And more importantly, who gives a *****? If the take-home message that you should not go to covid parties spreads based on a rumor, is that a bad thing? Is Texas, with a giant outbreak going on, being too cautious about covid so that the media should be encouraging more partygoing? What's the point of your comment other than dunking on the NYT? Congratulations, you found a possible mistake. Now we can disbelieve everything the Times ever publishes! Useless.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - OutsiderFan - 07-15-2020
The "Gotcha" complex continues unabated.
Don't know if this has ever been posted here before, but let's keep this really simple.
Credible sources of news:
- Follow best practices taught in journalism schools
- Have editors that scrutinize reporters in the name of accuracy
- Make mistakes because sources can lie and mislead
- Correct mistakes when they find them
- Clearly draw lines between reporting and opinion
And, while I'm at it, reporters do not write headlines. Editors write them.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post (among many others) follow all the above points. The National Review is an editorial magazine. Literally, it is the Opinion page of a newspaper. It has no standards of journalism that equate it with primary reporting sources.
This doesn't preclude the National Review from offering credible insights, but comparing it to news reporting in the New York Times, while conflating the resignation of a columnist that by definition isn't a reporter per se, in a weak effort to discredit its reporting, is quite unimpressive.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - 76lsjumb - 07-15-2020
(07-15-2020, 07:29 AM)burger Wrote:(07-14-2020, 11:35 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: I know burger won't bother to read this because, for him, the NYT is ABSOLUTE TRUTH [more so, probably, since they ran out that heretic, Bari Weiss] and the National Review isn't fit to line a birdcage. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the column raises some legitimate questions about that still-evolving Texas COVID Party story:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-the-times-print-an-urban-legend/
Maybe it happened; maybe it didn't, but, in the end, does that really matter? It helped further the preferred media narrative so, by definition, it was a legitimate story for the NYT to print.
Weird to be name-checked in a thread where my only comment was a tongue-in-cheek inside joke about the Central Valley.
But since I'm here: the Times repeated a statement from a hospital official. Then they corrected a possible error. What else would you ask them to do? And more importantly, who gives a *****? If the take-home message that you should not go to covid parties spreads based on a rumor, is that a bad thing? Is Texas, with a giant outbreak going on, being too cautious about covid so that the media should be encouraging more partygoing? What's the point of your comment other than dunking on the NYT? Congratulations, you found a possible mistake. Now we can disbelieve everything the Times ever publishes! Useless.
You do recall dissing National Review a few weeks back as not worthy of being cited, don't you? Beyond that, though, you seem to be saying that publishing an untrue story isn't really a big deal as long as it furthers an otherwise important [in your eyes] narrative. I can't say that I'm particularly shocked you should believe that, though. That's kind of the way progressive news media operates. Of course, it shouldn't come as any surprise, then, that those not so progressively inclined as a result disbelieve that media on other matters that are true.
At least we agree that the NYT is useless... :-)
(07-15-2020, 07:51 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The "Gotcha" complex continues unabated.
Don't know if this has ever been posted here before, but let's keep this really simple.
Credible sources of news:
- Follow best practices taught in journalism schools
- Have editors that scrutinize reporters in the name of accuracy
- Make mistakes because sources can lie and mislead
- Correct mistakes when they find them
- Clearly draw lines between reporting and opinion
And, while I'm at it, reporters do not write headlines. Editors write them.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post (among many others) follow all the above points. The National Review is an editorial magazine. Literally, it is the Opinion page of a newspaper. It has no standards of journalism that equate it with primary reporting sources.
This doesn't preclude the National Review from offering credible insights, but comparing it to news reporting in the New York Times, while conflating the resignation of a columnist that by definition isn't a reporter per se, in a weak effort to discredit its reporting, is quite unimpressive.
I'm not sure Bari Weiss, who, you know, actually WORKED at the NYT, would agree with your assessment that it "follow(s) all the above points."
In any event, the NYT front page is, for all intents and purposes, little more than an Op-Ed page itself.
Terry Rule alert: My post was intended to discuss an alleged COVID party and whether it really happened as reported. Discussing NYT journalistic practices [or the lack thereof] wasn't the focus.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - Genuine Realist - 07-15-2020
I think there may be a sort of 'Gresham's Law' at play in media, in which agenda reporting drives out more conventional factually based accounts. Fox News deliberate agenda seems to infected everyone. The descent of the New York Times into this abyss is particularly deplorable. (There is a joke headline about the Times that applies - 'World to End Tomorrow! Women, Minorities Particularly Affected').
You have to apply principles of critical thinking to everything these days. Getting to the topic, the notion of 'Cpvid 19' parties is counterintuitive in the extreme. There is no immediate gratification from catching the disease, like other party games, and you really couldn't even figure out who won. I could believe more easily parties in which the rules of social distancing are deliberately flouted, particularly if there might be sexual opportunities involved. But urban legend seldom stops at rationality.
The report of a 30 year old male - of course unidentified - who died as a result of exposure at such a party? Well, even if you accept the credibility of such events in the first place (dubious), they'd have to be comparatively rare. So you have to multiply the probability that someone would become infected at such an event - already very low - with the extremely low morbidity rate in that demographic - also very low. You add to that the absence of identification, and you have an overall story that does not pass the smell test. It should have been killed at the editor's desk, absent corroboration.
But it wasn't. It fit the NYT agenda, so into print it went. Sign of the times, and another reason why the newspaper that was once regarded as the national paper of record has lost so much credibility.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - burger - 07-15-2020
Your (both of you) hyperbolic reports about bias in the Times would be more credible if you could come up with more than a single example of a possibly incorrect story. Got anything else? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - BostonCard - 07-15-2020
(07-15-2020, 10:16 AM)76lsjumb Wrote: Terry Rule alert: My post was intended to discuss an alleged COVID party and whether it really happened as reported. Discussing NYT journalistic practices [or the lack thereof] wasn't the focus.
Agreed.
BC
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - Genuine Realist - 07-15-2020
(07-15-2020, 11:43 AM)burger Wrote: Your (both of you) hyperbolic reports about bias in the Times would be more credible if you could come up with more than a single example of a possibly incorrect story. Got anything else? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?I can't do this and abide by the Terry rule.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - oregontim - 07-15-2020
+1 Absolutely correct. Journalism ethics is a real thing, they teach it at several really good schools, and editors and reporters teach it and believe in it. Jobs in the so-called "mainstream media" are sought after and respected. Sad how much real journalism has become the target of demagogues and crackpots. That standards and ethics matter doesn't mean that they are always right, because nobody is. Nor does it mean they don't have opinions, because everybody does. But real professional journalists do exactly what OF says here or they are not respected by their peers. And they won't last in that world without understanding the standards and ethics.
Democracies depend on having a free press. Dictators hate the free press.
(07-15-2020, 07:51 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The "Gotcha" complex continues unabated.
Don't know if this has ever been posted here before, but let's keep this really simple.
Credible sources of news:
- Follow best practices taught in journalism schools
- Have editors that scrutinize reporters in the name of accuracy
- Make mistakes because sources can lie and mislead
- Correct mistakes when they find them
- Clearly draw lines between reporting and opinion
And, while I'm at it, reporters do not write headlines. Editors write them.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post (among many others) follow all the above points. The National Review is an editorial magazine. Literally, it is the Opinion page of a newspaper. It has no standards of journalism that equate it with primary reporting sources.
This doesn't preclude the National Review from offering credible insights, but comparing it to news reporting in the New York Times, while conflating the resignation of a columnist that by definition isn't a reporter per se, in a weak effort to discredit its reporting, is quite unimpressive.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - lex24 - 07-16-2020
(07-15-2020, 11:43 AM)burger Wrote: Your (both of you) hyperbolic reports about bias in the Times would be more credible if you could come up with more than a single example of a possibly incorrect story. Got anything else? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?
How bout the statement of it’s “Ombudsman” a few years back : “Of course we are a liberal newspaper.”
Correction: It was the NYT Public Editor. Daniel Okrent. He also supposedly invented fantasy baseball ( according to his wiki page)
As for journalistic standards, they have been lowered considerably. Used to be most important to get it right. Now it’s most important to get it first. It’s not really anybody’s “fault“. That’s what happens when you have the Internet coupled with 24 seven new stations. I have a simple rule – I never trust any story with a single source particularly if it’s an “unnamed source.“ And I don’t care whose ox is getting gored in the story – whether it’s aimed against a conservative or a liberal etc. Way too easy for a single sourced story to be wrong.
(07-15-2020, 08:52 PM)oregontim Wrote: +1 Absolutely correct. Journalism ethics is a real thing, they teach it at several really good schools, and editors and reporters teach it and believe in it. Jobs in the so-called "mainstream media" are sought after and respected. Sad how much real journalism has become the target of demagogues and crackpots. That standards and ethics matter doesn't mean that they are always right, because nobody is. Nor does it mean they don't have opinions, because everybody does. But real professional journalists do exactly what OF says here or they are not respected by their peers. And they won't last in that world without understanding the standards and ethics.
Democracies depend on having a free press. Dictators hate the free press.
(07-15-2020, 07:51 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The "Gotcha" complex continues unabated.
Don't know if this has ever been posted here before, but let's keep this really simple.
Credible sources of news:
- Follow best practices taught in journalism schools
- Have editors that scrutinize reporters in the name of accuracy
- Make mistakes because sources can lie and mislead
- Correct mistakes when they find them
- Clearly draw lines between reporting and opinion
And, while I'm at it, reporters do not write headlines. Editors write them.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post (among many others) follow all the above points. The National Review is an editorial magazine. Literally, it is the Opinion page of a newspaper. It has no standards of journalism that equate it with primary reporting sources.
This doesn't preclude the National Review from offering credible insights, but comparing it to news reporting in the New York Times, while conflating the resignation of a columnist that by definition isn't a reporter per se, in a weak effort to discredit its reporting, is quite unimpressive.
Clearly draw lines between reporting an opinion? Please. I don’t even think most journalist would buy that one anymore. The same today back on the CBS News when Eric Severeid would give us commentary - and it was actually called commentary.
As for headline writers, their job is to catch the eye of the reader. Perhaps the best headline ever written: “headless man found in topless bar”.
(07-16-2020, 06:21 PM)lex24 Wrote:(07-15-2020, 11:43 AM)burger Wrote: Your (both of you) hyperbolic reports about bias in the Times would be more credible if you could come up with more than a single example of a possibly incorrect story. Got anything else? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?
How bout the statement of it’s “Ombudsman” a few years back : “Of course we are a liberal newspaper.”
As for journalistic standards, they have been lowered considerably. Used to be most important to get it right. Now it’s most important to get it first. It’s not really anybody’s “fault“. That’s what happens when you have the Internet coupled with 24 seven new stations. I have a simple rule – I never trust any story with a single source particularly if it’s an “unnamed source.“ And I don’t care whose ox is getting gored in the story – whether it’s aimed against a conservative or a liberal etc. Way too easy for a single sourced story to be wrong.
(07-15-2020, 08:52 PM)oregontim Wrote: +1 Absolutely correct. Journalism ethics is a real thing, they teach it at several really good schools, and editors and reporters teach it and believe in it. Jobs in the so-called "mainstream media" are sought after and respected. Sad how much real journalism has become the target of demagogues and crackpots. That standards and ethics matter doesn't mean that they are always right, because nobody is. Nor does it mean they don't have opinions, because everybody does. But real professional journalists do exactly what OF says here or they are not respected by their peers. And they won't last in that world without understanding the standards and ethics.
Democracies depend on having a free press. Dictators hate the free press.
(07-15-2020, 07:51 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The "Gotcha" complex continues unabated.
Don't know if this has ever been posted here before, but let's keep this really simple.
Credible sources of news:
- Follow best practices taught in journalism schools
- Have editors that scrutinize reporters in the name of accuracy
- Make mistakes because sources can lie and mislead
- Correct mistakes when they find them
- Clearly draw lines between reporting and opinion
And, while I'm at it, reporters do not write headlines. Editors write them.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post (among many others) follow all the above points. The National Review is an editorial magazine. Literally, it is the Opinion page of a newspaper. It has no standards of journalism that equate it with primary reporting sources.
This doesn't preclude the National Review from offering credible insights, but comparing it to news reporting in the New York Times, while conflating the resignation of a columnist that by definition isn't a reporter per se, in a weak effort to discredit its reporting, is quite unimpressive.
“ Clearly draw lines between reporting an opinion?” . I don’t even think most journalists would buy that one anymore. This ain’t the day when CBS News’ Eric Severeid would give us commentary - and it was actually called commentary.
As for headline writers, their job is to catch the eye of the reader. Perhaps the best headline ever written: “headless man found in topless bar”.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - BostonCard - 07-17-2020
... but residents do.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-increasingly-dislike-how-republican-governors-are-handling-the-coronavirus-outbreak/
Quote:Gallup recently found that Americans in the 26 states governed by Republicans are souring on their leaders’ approach to the public health crisis, while sentiment remains steadily positive among residents of the 24 states governed by Democrats. In fact, over the past month, the share of respondents who agreed that their governor cared about the safety and health of their community fell by 8 points, from 61 percent to 53 percent, in states where a Republican is governor; opinion in Democratic-run states hovered around 65 percent, despite some movement week to week.
I have long maintained that in terms of response, there have been both good Republican governors (Mike DeWine) and bad Democratic ones (Mario Cuomo), but it does seem that favorability has started to diverge between them.
BC
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - Mick - 07-17-2020
I won't comment on the accuracy of political reporting. But I've been working with reporters and editors for over 30 years, and shepherded interviews with lawyers, auditors and consultants. So it's just my narrow corner of the world, but I've learned a few things:
1) Reporters and editors select the topics, not readers. Once you're in charge of figuring out what news is fit to print or film, then you've had a gravitational effect on the news itself, whether reporting is accurate or not. Your article on the suffering of Palestinians or the suffering of Israelis may be 100% accurate, but make no mistake -- you've taken sides by selecting the topic.
2) Reporters typically have an angle and seek responses that fit that angle. It's not malicious, it's just efficient and effective. They're operating on deadline, so they really only have time to pursue that which feeds their angle. I can't tell you how many times I've had to speak with a furious CPA / lawyer / consultant who said "we talked for xx minutes, and they only took two sentences. And it was the wrong two sentences." Which, by the way, I encourage every one of my billable professionals to write a bylined article themselves. It's the only way to control content.
3) Stories are on page one. Corrections are on page 68, three days later. Retractions are on page 1,012, three weeks later, if and when they come at all.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - oregontim - 07-17-2020
Well done, Mick. I spent a decade in truly mainstream journalism, and an MA in it t'boot, before changing careers several decades ago. I've stayed in touch, and been published off and on ever since, so I like to think I have some depth on this topic. And bias, which you'll catch in past posts here, even in this thread ... but I gotta say you nailed it. I don't like what you say here because it chips at my belief in the press and news; but your caveats exactly match my experience. As they say these days: word.
(07-17-2020, 01:28 PM)Mick Wrote: I won't comment on the accuracy of political reporting. But I've been working with reporters and editors for over 30 years, and shepherded interviews with lawyers, auditors and consultants. So it's just my narrow corner of the world, but I've learned a few things:
1) Reporters and editors select the topics, not readers. Once you're in charge of figuring out what news is fit to print or film, then you've had a gravitational effect on the news itself, whether reporting is accurate or not. Your article on the suffering of Palestinians or the suffering of Israelis may be 100% accurate, but make no mistake -- you've taken sides by selecting the topic.
2) Reporters typically have an angle and seek responses that fit that angle. It's not malicious, it's just efficient and effective. They're operating on deadline, so they really only have time to pursue that which feeds their angle. I can't tell you how many times I've had to speak with a furious CPA / lawyer / consultant who said "we talked for xx minutes, and they only took two sentences. And it was the wrong two sentences." Which, by the way, I encourage every one of my billable professionals to write a bylined article themselves. It's the only way to control content.
3) Stories are on page one. Corrections are on page 68, three days later. Retractions are on page 1,012, three weeks later, if and when they come at all.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - magnus - 07-18-2020
(07-12-2020, 10:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Here's more covid party reporting.(07-12-2020, 10:12 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: I hate to be constantly iconoclastic, but I doubt that there is any such thing as a Covid-19 party. Read to the third or fourth paragraph of these reports, and you learn that it's all reports, e.g. the Alabama authorities have been investigating and can't find anyone who actually attended such an event.
And I REALLY doubt that any 30 year old male died after attending such a non event, particularly with the cautionary last words that he thought the virus was a hoax. I remember similar tales about LSD back in the day.
Could be, the story does have a bit of "truthiness" to it. Entirely possible that "COVID parties" are something that sounds like it could be true, but isn't.
BC
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-residents-covid-19-parties
This time in Florida by Florida gangs.
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - BostonCard - 07-18-2020
I may be straying into Terry rule territory here, by linking this article on newspaper objectivity:
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/07/16/how-objectivity-in-journalism-became-a-matter-of-opinion
Two things I learned from it:
The Associated Press became a big driver of objectivity: "Some of this was provided by the Associated Press (ap), founded in 1846, which supplied stories to papers of diverse political leanings and so stuck to the facts. As the news pages became more even-handed, publishers established editorial pages, on which they could continue to back their favoured politicians."
Secondly, advertisers were a big driver of objectivity: "Advertisers wanted less partisan coverage to sit alongside their messages."
So, now we have a situation where, "The shift away from partisanship a century ago was driven partly by advertisers. Today, as ad revenues leak away to search engines and social networks, newspapers have come to rely more on paying readers. Unlike advertisers, readers love opinion."
As with other things, we get the press we deserve.
BC
RE: The virus doesn't discriminate by party affiliation - Mick - 08-09-2020
(07-18-2020, 08:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: As with other things, we get the press we deserve.
BC
Wonder if we'll get the President we deserve. The next one will be walking into 250k COVID-19 deaths by election day--if we're lucky, or 300k if we're not. By Inauguration Day, 350k to 400k COVID-19 deaths. Hope the early vaccine(s) are effective.