[lex24]

Also IMO it's wrong to blame the media for reporting events. . . 

So, you think the media is only "reporting events" without any agenda?  Really?

If you believe that, then there is probably no point in further discussion.  But do yourself a favor:  when the next time you read an article about how many high profile individuals test positive for Covid 19, see if the same media "reporting events" talks about whether the people testing positive have symptoms, require hospitalization, or better yet, how those positive test might affect the actual hospital capacity in their community.  You can start with the reports on the Florida Marlins.

And if you don't want to take the suggestion because it's from me, then I commend to you BC's post, where he said positive testing, by itself, isn't particularly newsworthy.  What's newsworthy is positive test rate, hospital capacity, ICU usage, and deaths.  

But whatever, if you

This looks like a solution in search of a problem. 

And, it doesn’t make any sense either. It doesn’t matter how many Marlins are experiencing symptoms or if they end up in hospital per se. what does matter is each person is a possible spread vector for others, and there is no doubt that some people will get quite sick, some will require hospitalization, and some will die, show those players be links in transmission chains.

As far as media having agenda, it’s far more credible to point out specific reporting and call out the problem you see with the reporting - unless the source is a documented purveyor of news produced with low or no standards of professional journalism - than it is to use a catch all phrase like “the media” to besmirch reporting. Sure there may be advocacy journalism. Sure there may be lazy reporting. Sure there may be reporting that hammers on the same thing, but there is a difference between being biased and telling the truth.

I hate the Dodgers, but if there is a call made against them that replay shows should be overturned, I’m not going to deny this. So I can be very biased against something, but still take no exception to the truth. Journalism is designed to illicit questions and find truth. It may not be perfect, but if it leads in the direction of truth, it is doing its job.

Name me a major news outlet that DOESNT have an agenda.

Everyone has an agenda. The point: Let's not equate having an agenda with inability to report truth. Those are two different things that get conflated. The Wall Street Journal does some fantastic reporting, but its editorial page views things through a certain ideological prism. So maybe it has an agenda, but that doesn't stop it from reporting truth.

In fact, this week, Wall Street Journal reporters made a demand that the publication much more clearly indicate what is reporting and what is opinion. Hat tip to them. I wish TV news would label opinion and news reporting as well.

“Truth” is oftentimes subjective. Ones version of “truth” being impacted by ones own bias.  It’s not up to journalism to tell us what is “truth” .  Reports the facts - who, what, when, where, why. The why often being more subjective.  Also, of course, what the NYT (or any other outlet) decides is “ fit to print” is crucial.

Bias is often subtle. But it’s fairly constant. Let me give you an example. A couple years ago the East Bay Newspaper group ran an article about California’s consideration of a single payer state run health care system. It was a good article.  Informative. Well written. They quoted several people, including two from health care advocacy foundations. One was referred to as being with the “conservative (can’t remember the actual foundation) think tank...”.  He was against a single payer system.  There was no ideological position attributed to the person that was pro single payer.  

I called the two reporters. Left voicemails. Pointed out the discrepancy. I looked at both foundation websites. They were correct, the one guy was with a conservative group.  So I told them I had  no quarrel with that being pointed out. The issue was the other person quoted was obviously with a progressive think tank. It was clear from their site.  By labeling one ideologically but not the other, the reader is more likely to infer that the comment from the ideologically labeled speaker is biased. While the other is not.   When in point of fact, BOTH have their bias. 
I can guarantee you the reporters favored the single payer option. 

To their credit, both Reporters called me.  We had a very nice conversation.

[lex24]

Also IMO it's wrong to blame the media for reporting events. . . 

So, you think the media is only "reporting events" without any agenda?  Really?

If you believe that, then there is probably no point in further discussion.  But do yourself a favor:  when the next time you read an article about how many high profile individuals test positive for Covid 19, see if the same media "reporting events" talks about whether the people testing positive have symptoms, require hospitalization, or better yet, how those positive test might affect the actual hospital capacity in their community.  You can start with the reports on the Florida Marlins.

And if you don't want to take the suggestion because it's from me, then I commend to you BC's post, where he said positive testing, by itself, isn't particularly newsworthy.  What's newsworthy is positive test rate, hospital capacity, ICU usage, and deaths.  

But whatever, if you

This looks like a solution in search of a problem. 

And, it doesn’t make any sense either. It doesn’t matter how many Marlins are experiencing symptoms or if they end up in hospital per se. what does matter is each person is a possible spread vector for others, and there is no doubt that some people will get quite sick, some will require hospitalization, and some will die, show those players be links in transmission chains.

As far as media having agenda, it’s far more credible to point out specific reporting and call out the problem you see with the reporting - unless the source is a documented purveyor of news produced with low or no standards of professional journalism - than it is to use a catch all phrase like “the media” to besmirch reporting. Sure there may be advocacy journalism. Sure there may be lazy reporting. Sure there may be reporting that hammers on the same thing, but there is a difference between being biased and telling the truth.

I hate the Dodgers, but if there is a call made against them that replay shows should be overturned, I’m not going to deny this. So I can be very biased against something, but still take no exception to the truth. Journalism is designed to illicit questions and find truth. It may not be perfect, but if it leads in the direction of truth, it is doing its job.

Name me a major news outlet that DOESNT have an agenda.

Everyone has an agenda. The point: Let's not equate having an agenda with inability to report truth. Those are two different things that get conflated. The Wall Street Journal does some fantastic reporting, but its editorial page views things through a certain ideological prism. So maybe it has an agenda, but that doesn't stop it from reporting truth.

In fact, this week, Wall Street Journal reporters made a demand that the publication much more clearly indicate what is reporting and what is opinion. Hat tip to them. I wish TV news would label opinion and news reporting as well.

“Truth” is oftentimes subjective. Ones version of “truth” being impacted by ones own bias.  It’s not up to journalism to tell us what is “truth” .  Reports the facts - who, what, when, where, why. The why often being more subjective.  Also, of course, what the NYT (or any other outlet) decides is “ fit to print” is crucial.

Bias is often subtle. But it’s fairly constant. Let me give you an example. A couple years ago the East Bay Newspaper group ran an article about California’s consideration of a single payer state run health care system. It was a good article.  Informative. Well written. They quoted several people, including two from health care advocacy foundations. One was referred to as being with the “conservative (can’t remember the actual foundation) think tank...”.  He was against a single payer system.  There was no ideological position attributed to the person that was pro single payer.  

I called the two reporters. Left voicemails. Pointed out the discrepancy. I looked at both foundation websites. They were correct, the one guy was with a conservative group.  So I told them I had  no quarrel with that being pointed out. The issue was the other person quoted was obviously with a progressive think tank. It was clear from their site.  By labeling one ideologically but not the other, the reader is more likely to infer that the comment from the ideologically labeled speaker is biased. While the other is not.   When in point of fact, BOTH have their bias. 
I can guarantee you the reporters favored the single payer option. 

To their credit, both Reporters called me.  We had a very nice conversation.