[lex24]

NYT ran a story - dutifully picked up by outlets including Fox-  about one woman in Alaska that had a bad reaction to the vaccine. One.  First, I don’t even believe this is newsworthy. There’s not a vaccine out there that doesn’t give adverse reactions to some people. The woman had a rough time. She ended up in the hospital.  

This is one person. How many doses have been given out in the United States so far? 

 If there is a percentage  of people that have very bad reactions, then yes it becomes a story. Not sure what that figure is quite frankly. But I am relatively confident that one person having a reaction is not newsworthy.   And it feeds those who already fear the vaccination. 

This is a major problem we face in today’s 24/7 news cycle, internet age. Stories like this get around and misused.   Wish I could figure out a solution for it. But I do think that our newspaper of record should have skipped this one. Am I wrong?

[lex24]

NYT ran a story - dutifully picked up by outlets including Fox-  about one woman in Alaska that had a bad reaction to the vaccine. One.  First, I don’t even believe this is newsworthy. There’s not a vaccine out there that doesn’t give adverse reactions to some people. The woman had a rough time. She ended up in the hospital.  

This is one person. How many doses have been given out in the United States so far? 

 If there is a percentage  of people that have very bad reactions, then yes it becomes a story. Not sure what that figure is quite frankly. But I am relatively confident that one person having a reaction is not newsworthy.   And it feeds those who already fear the vaccination. 

This is a major problem we face in today’s 24/7 news cycle, internet age. Stories like this get around and misused.   Wish I could figure out a solution for it. But I do think that our newspaper of record should have skipped this one. Am I wrong?

[Goose]

But I do think that our newspaper of record should have skipped this one. Am I wrong?

FWIW, I am glad these events are reported. It does mean the public has to understand it is a one off, and possibly the public won't do that. However, not reporting it means you are self-censoring and deciding the public has "no need to know". News sources can't do that. If there were several thousand such reports that all got self-censored that would be a problem, but nobody would know.
The newspaper should report what actually happened without coloring it. The woman went to the Hospital and is apparently OK. End of story. If they express opinions, or try to turn the one case into a trend, that is a different situation, and shouldn't happen.

[Goose]

But I do think that our newspaper of record should have skipped this one. Am I wrong?

FWIW, I am glad these events are reported. It does mean the public has to understand it is a one off, and possibly the public won't do that. However, not reporting it means you are self-censoring and deciding the public has "no need to know". News sources can't do that. If there were several thousand such reports that all got self-censored that would be a problem, but nobody would know.
The newspaper should report what actually happened without coloring it. The woman went to the Hospital and is apparently OK. End of story. If they express opinions, or try to turn the one case into a trend, that is a different situation, and shouldn't happen.

[Farm93]

Right with you Goose

Some will see the one case in Alaska and others that will emerge around the world and decide they will be an anti-vaxxer.  That's too bad.  Most will see these types of stories as one offs more than offset by the benefits.  Most will know that if you do anything to 250-300 million people some things will happen. 

If the lamestream media opted not to cover these minor adverse events they would inevitably be picked up by conspiracy theory sites.   Those sites then would rightfully be able to claim they are providing real information and the lamestream media is part of the government machinery determined to hide things and harm you.  

I would prefer to let the free press do what they do and encourage Americans to support organizations committed to providing factual information.

[Farm93]

Right with you Goose

Some will see the one case in Alaska and others that will emerge around the world and decide they will be an anti-vaxxer.  That's too bad.  Most will see these types of stories as one offs more than offset by the benefits.  Most will know that if you do anything to 250-300 million people some things will happen. 

If the lamestream media opted not to cover these minor adverse events they would inevitably be picked up by conspiracy theory sites.   Those sites then would rightfully be able to claim they are providing real information and the lamestream media is part of the government machinery determined to hide things and harm you.  

I would prefer to let the free press do what they do and encourage Americans to support organizations committed to providing factual information.

[M T]

A friend of a friend monitors conspiracy-theory sites.  He relayed a lot of totally crazy claims about the vaccines that are popping up on those sites.

Honestly, I'd like to believe these are a bunch of Russians trying to stir up problems in the US. Or maybe malcontents having fun with what they believe are gullible people.   That's better than thinking that adults are really believing such garbage.

Just as with reactions to the vaccine, there will be a few outliers in a large population that believe this stuff.

[M T]

A friend of a friend monitors conspiracy-theory sites.  He relayed a lot of totally crazy claims about the vaccines that are popping up on those sites.

Honestly, I'd like to believe these are a bunch of Russians trying to stir up problems in the US. Or maybe malcontents having fun with what they believe are gullible people.   That's better than thinking that adults are really believing such garbage.

Just as with reactions to the vaccine, there will be a few outliers in a large population that believe this stuff.

[chrisk]

There needs to be continuing updating and reporting on the side effects. As more data accumulates, most people will feel more comfortable. There is a limited supply of vaccine now, so people who defer getting now are not a real problem. In 3 months, there should be enough data to make a large majority of Americans willing to get the vaccine.

[chrisk]

There needs to be continuing updating and reporting on the side effects. As more data accumulates, most people will feel more comfortable. There is a limited supply of vaccine now, so people who defer getting now are not a real problem. In 3 months, there should be enough data to make a large majority of Americans willing to get the vaccine.

[teejers1]

But I do think that our newspaper of record should have skipped this one. Am I wrong?

FWIW, I am glad these events are reported. It does mean the public has to understand it is a one off, and possibly the public won't do that. However, not reporting it means you are self-censoring and deciding the public has "no need to know". News sources can't do that. If there were several thousand such reports that all got self-censored that would be a problem, but nobody would know.
The newspaper should report what actually happened without coloring it. The woman went to the Hospital and is apparently OK. End of story. If they express opinions, or try to turn the one case into a trend, that is a different situation, and shouldn't happen.

Like reporting on any matter, context matters.  And it should be included.

It's fine reporting woman in Alaska had an adverse reaction to vaccine.  But it's very easy to also relay the total number of vaccines administered at facility __ or in whatever measurable unit vaccines are being distributed where the woman received hers.  You don't even have to say "and this is the only known case of a negative reaction - though that is probably useful information, if accurate.  Just provide the total number of vaccines administered there.

We had this discussion about reports of "Activity X" (I've already forgotten what that activity was) leading to a suspected outbreak.  If that's the only thing reported, then it is reasonably likely that readers will assume that Activity X ==> Covid.  Better reporting would have added the number of Activity Xs held.  Context matters.  In all stories.

[teejers1]

But I do think that our newspaper of record should have skipped this one. Am I wrong?

FWIW, I am glad these events are reported. It does mean the public has to understand it is a one off, and possibly the public won't do that. However, not reporting it means you are self-censoring and deciding the public has "no need to know". News sources can't do that. If there were several thousand such reports that all got self-censored that would be a problem, but nobody would know.
The newspaper should report what actually happened without coloring it. The woman went to the Hospital and is apparently OK. End of story. If they express opinions, or try to turn the one case into a trend, that is a different situation, and shouldn't happen.

Like reporting on any matter, context matters.  And it should be included.

It's fine reporting woman in Alaska had an adverse reaction to vaccine.  But it's very easy to also relay the total number of vaccines administered at facility __ or in whatever measurable unit vaccines are being distributed where the woman received hers.  You don't even have to say "and this is the only known case of a negative reaction - though that is probably useful information, if accurate.  Just provide the total number of vaccines administered there.

We had this discussion about reports of "Activity X" (I've already forgotten what that activity was) leading to a suspected outbreak.  If that's the only thing reported, then it is reasonably likely that readers will assume that Activity X ==> Covid.  Better reporting would have added the number of Activity Xs held.  Context matters.  In all stories.

[Goose]

Context matters.  In all stories.

Totally agree. However, the definition of context is a bit problematic. You probably can't tell the reader every possible thing that may be required to evaluate the story. You can also include lots of things that are true but that also lead the reader in a particular direction. That is where things get more difficult to judge.

[Goose]

Context matters.  In all stories.

Totally agree. However, the definition of context is a bit problematic. You probably can't tell the reader every possible thing that may be required to evaluate the story. You can also include lots of things that are true but that also lead the reader in a particular direction. That is where things get more difficult to judge.

[BostonCard]

Here's the article in question.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/healt...ction.html

I feel that the article does a decent job of offering context.  On some of the specific concerns:

The hospital, which had administered 144 total doses as of Wednesday night, said both workers did not want their experiences to have a negative impact on others lining up for the vaccine.

“We have no plans to change our vaccine schedule, dosing or regimen,” Dr. Anne Zink, Alaska’s chief medical officer, said in a statement.

Although the Pfizer vaccine was shown to be safe and about 95 percent effective in a clinical trial involving 44,000 participants, the Alaska cases will likely intensify concerns about possible side effects. Experts said the developments may prompt calls for tighter guidelines to ensure that recipients were carefully monitored for adverse reactions.

Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert and member of an outside advisory panel that recommended the Food and Drug Administration authorize the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use, said the appropriate precautions were already in place. For instance, he said, the requirement that recipients remain in place for 15 minutes after getting the vaccine helped ensure the woman was quickly treated.

and later

Dr. Jay Butler, a top infectious-disease expert with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the Alaska situation showed that the monitoring system worked. The agency has recommended that the vaccine be administered in settings that have supplies, including oxygen and epinephrine, to manage anaphylactic reactions.

As for the issue of not providing a denominator...

As of Wednesday night, it was unclear how many Americans so far have received it.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's the article in question.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/healt...ction.html

I feel that the article does a decent job of offering context.  On some of the specific concerns:

The hospital, which had administered 144 total doses as of Wednesday night, said both workers did not want their experiences to have a negative impact on others lining up for the vaccine.

“We have no plans to change our vaccine schedule, dosing or regimen,” Dr. Anne Zink, Alaska’s chief medical officer, said in a statement.

Although the Pfizer vaccine was shown to be safe and about 95 percent effective in a clinical trial involving 44,000 participants, the Alaska cases will likely intensify concerns about possible side effects. Experts said the developments may prompt calls for tighter guidelines to ensure that recipients were carefully monitored for adverse reactions.

Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert and member of an outside advisory panel that recommended the Food and Drug Administration authorize the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use, said the appropriate precautions were already in place. For instance, he said, the requirement that recipients remain in place for 15 minutes after getting the vaccine helped ensure the woman was quickly treated.

and later

Dr. Jay Butler, a top infectious-disease expert with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the Alaska situation showed that the monitoring system worked. The agency has recommended that the vaccine be administered in settings that have supplies, including oxygen and epinephrine, to manage anaphylactic reactions.

As for the issue of not providing a denominator...

As of Wednesday night, it was unclear how many Americans so far have received it.

BC

[teejers1]

Here's the article in question.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/healt...ction.html

I feel that the article does a decent job of offering context.  

Agreed.

[teejers1]

Here's the article in question.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/healt...ction.html

I feel that the article does a decent job of offering context.  

Agreed.

[lex24]

I don’t think it’s newsworthy.  Any more than it is newsworthy when someone has a reaction to vacinne X. It’s newsworthy if there are numerous reactions.  Not one.

[lex24]

I don’t think it’s newsworthy.  Any more than it is newsworthy when someone has a reaction to vacinne X. It’s newsworthy if there are numerous reactions.  Not one.

[Farm93]

I don’t think it’s newsworthy.  Any more than it is newsworthy when someone has a reaction to vacinne X. It’s newsworthy if there are numerous reactions.  Not one.

The UK had two allergic reactions in that first couple of days.  That became global news that was covered widely on USA cable news networks.  It was also discussed during the different groups in the FDA & CDC.

There will always be a first one.  The key is to acknowledge it, but not panic.   I don't think the NYT coverage ventures anywhere close to panic-ville.

Same is true for most pharmaceuticals, medical devices and novel surgical procedures.  Stuff happens and MAY even reveal an important trend that could reveal a key misstep in distribution logistics, local storage or staff administration.   Eventually many things will happen a few times if the vaccines are provided to billions.     Communicating about those hopefully isolated hiccups and potentially learning from them are all part of the process.  

A reporter responsible for covering medical news should look for new work if they fail to cover or feel it is not their job to cover the various firsts that emerge during this process.

NYT - All the news that's fit to print.   IMHO - An allergic reaction in the first week of distribution is fit to print as long as it actually happened.

[Farm93]

I don’t think it’s newsworthy.  Any more than it is newsworthy when someone has a reaction to vacinne X. It’s newsworthy if there are numerous reactions.  Not one.

The UK had two allergic reactions in that first couple of days.  That became global news that was covered widely on USA cable news networks.  It was also discussed during the different groups in the FDA & CDC.

There will always be a first one.  The key is to acknowledge it, but not panic.   I don't think the NYT coverage ventures anywhere close to panic-ville.

Same is true for most pharmaceuticals, medical devices and novel surgical procedures.  Stuff happens and MAY even reveal an important trend that could reveal a key misstep in distribution logistics, local storage or staff administration.   Eventually many things will happen a few times if the vaccines are provided to billions.     Communicating about those hopefully isolated hiccups and potentially learning from them are all part of the process.  

A reporter responsible for covering medical news should look for new work if they fail to cover or feel it is not their job to cover the various firsts that emerge during this process.

NYT - All the news that's fit to print.   IMHO - An allergic reaction in the first week of distribution is fit to print as long as it actually happened.

[BostonCard]

I understand that anecdotes aren't necessarily data, and you wouldn't want to report something like "12 days after getting his shot, Joe Schmoe developed a mysterious illness that doctors still can't diagnose."  I certainly wouldn't want to gin up hysteria with regards to this vaccine, because the last thing we need is for people to make unfounded claims.

That being said, this article, in context was fine.  You would expect a small number of people to have anaphylactic reactions, and it is better for it to be reported, and physicians and patients to be vigilant, than for it to be hidden and then let all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories spread when it appears that stuff is being hidden.

BC

[BostonCard]

I understand that anecdotes aren't necessarily data, and you wouldn't want to report something like "12 days after getting his shot, Joe Schmoe developed a mysterious illness that doctors still can't diagnose."  I certainly wouldn't want to gin up hysteria with regards to this vaccine, because the last thing we need is for people to make unfounded claims.

That being said, this article, in context was fine.  You would expect a small number of people to have anaphylactic reactions, and it is better for it to be reported, and physicians and patients to be vigilant, than for it to be hidden and then let all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories spread when it appears that stuff is being hidden.

BC

[Snorlax94]

NYT ran a story - dutifully picked up by outlets including Fox-  about one woman in Alaska that had a bad reaction to the vaccine. One.  First, I don’t even believe this is newsworthy. There’s not a vaccine out there that doesn’t give adverse reactions to some people. The woman had a rough time. She ended up in the hospital.  
...
This is one person. How many doses have been given out in the United States so far? 
...
Not sure what that figure is quite frankly. But I am relatively confident that one person having a reaction is not newsworthy.   And it feeds those who already fear the vaccination. 

This is a major problem we face in today’s 24/7 news cycle, internet age.

Huh. Then why didn’t you comment on this little gem contributing to vaccine skepticism?   (Watch the video on the page — if you can handle it!)

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carl...g-campaign

So is this coverage responsible journalism???

[Snorlax94]

NYT ran a story - dutifully picked up by outlets including Fox-  about one woman in Alaska that had a bad reaction to the vaccine. One.  First, I don’t even believe this is newsworthy. There’s not a vaccine out there that doesn’t give adverse reactions to some people. The woman had a rough time. She ended up in the hospital.  
...
This is one person. How many doses have been given out in the United States so far? 
...
Not sure what that figure is quite frankly. But I am relatively confident that one person having a reaction is not newsworthy.   And it feeds those who already fear the vaccination. 

This is a major problem we face in today’s 24/7 news cycle, internet age.

Huh. Then why didn’t you comment on this little gem contributing to vaccine skepticism?   (Watch the video on the page — if you can handle it!)

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carl...g-campaign

So is this coverage responsible journalism???

[lex24]

NYT ran a story - dutifully picked up by outlets including Fox-  about one woman in Alaska that had a bad reaction to the vaccine. One.  First, I don’t even believe this is newsworthy. There’s not a vaccine out there that doesn’t give adverse reactions to some people. The woman had a rough time. She ended up in the hospital.  
...
This is one person. How many doses have been given out in the United States so far? 
...
Not sure what that figure is quite frankly. But I am relatively confident that one person having a reaction is not newsworthy.   And it feeds those who already fear the vaccination. 

This is a major problem we face in today’s 24/7 news cycle, internet age.

Huh. Then why didn’t you comment on this little gem contributing to vaccine skepticism?   (Watch the video on the page — if you can handle it!)

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carl...g-campaign

So is this coverage responsible journalism???

Well, because I don’t watch Tucker Carlson and I didn’t see it. Carlson isnt a journalist. He’s a conservative/libertarian commentator/provocateur. How do I explain it - Carlson loves to stir the pot. Makes a lot of money doing it. Responsible? Of course not. But I hold the NYT to a slightly higher standard than I do a Fox or CNN or MSNBC ideologue.

[lex24]

NYT ran a story - dutifully picked up by outlets including Fox-  about one woman in Alaska that had a bad reaction to the vaccine. One.  First, I don’t even believe this is newsworthy. There’s not a vaccine out there that doesn’t give adverse reactions to some people. The woman had a rough time. She ended up in the hospital.  
...
This is one person. How many doses have been given out in the United States so far? 
...
Not sure what that figure is quite frankly. But I am relatively confident that one person having a reaction is not newsworthy.   And it feeds those who already fear the vaccination. 

This is a major problem we face in today’s 24/7 news cycle, internet age.

Huh. Then why didn’t you comment on this little gem contributing to vaccine skepticism?   (Watch the video on the page — if you can handle it!)

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carl...g-campaign

So is this coverage responsible journalism???

Well, because I don’t watch Tucker Carlson and I didn’t see it. Carlson isnt a journalist. He’s a conservative/libertarian commentator/provocateur. How do I explain it - Carlson loves to stir the pot. Makes a lot of money doing it. Responsible? Of course not. But I hold the NYT to a slightly higher standard than I do a Fox or CNN or MSNBC ideologue.

[BostonCard]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

[BostonCard]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

[teejers1]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

Whataboutism is used as a derogative term in these parts, and I've never really understood that.  Yeah, I get that deflecting attention away from A by pointing to B can be seen as misdirection, but I find "what about" - and "what if" - questions to be very useful in helping crystallize a principle - if one is to be found.  A semi-recent example was Kaep kneeling for anthem to object to police brutality against blacks.  The coverage (of course) was tremendous and (sadly) was one factor that led to Kaep's termination with the NFL.  There were all kinds of righteous opinions bandied about on free speech, employer rights, etc.  One of the first questions I asked is this:  what would your position be if the football player taking a knee did so to protest the number of abortions completed every year in the U.S.?  Answering those questions:  what about __ or what if __ helps one come to a principled position (at least from this angle).

Anyway, your drop of whataboutism reminded me of that pet peeve (of sorts).

[teejers1]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

Whataboutism is used as a derogative term in these parts, and I've never really understood that.  Yeah, I get that deflecting attention away from A by pointing to B can be seen as misdirection, but I find "what about" - and "what if" - questions to be very useful in helping crystallize a principle - if one is to be found.  A semi-recent example was Kaep kneeling for anthem to object to police brutality against blacks.  The coverage (of course) was tremendous and (sadly) was one factor that led to Kaep's termination with the NFL.  There were all kinds of righteous opinions bandied about on free speech, employer rights, etc.  One of the first questions I asked is this:  what would your position be if the football player taking a knee did so to protest the number of abortions completed every year in the U.S.?  Answering those questions:  what about __ or what if __ helps one come to a principled position (at least from this angle).

Anyway, your drop of whataboutism reminded me of that pet peeve (of sorts).

[lex24]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

Look at my original post -  I DID  mention Fox.

[lex24]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

Look at my original post -  I DID  mention Fox.

[Snorlax94]

As for the original NYTimes article, unlike Tucker Carlson, I thought it *was* responsible journalism.

I want the press to list all the pros and cons and let me know about rare reactions. What would make me feel concerned would be if I felt like problems were being covered up.

We've discussed that some vaccines will be better for some people. Maybe certain people with certain conditions shouldn't get the first vaccine. Maybe people who have had anaphylactic reactions before in their life should contact their PCP to ask whether they should proceed with this vaccine or wait. Maybe they should proceed, but make sure their epi-pen Rx is up-to-date and that they have it with them. I don't know -- could taking a couple of benadryl prophylactically before being vaccinated be helpful?

This information -- with proper context and without being sensationalist -- should come out and should be highlighted so people can be informed, have those discussions with their physicians, and make plans accordingly.

As for whataboutism, I find it rude if people intentionally redirect from a serious, important topic. If people are coming together, discussing, and mourning a tragedy in America, I think it's rude -- say, in the middle of a moment of silence or taking a knee -- to switch subjects to some other tragedy. It's like talking about someone else who died during a person's funeral, intentionally trying to redirect from the funeral you are attending at that moment.

But as for bringing up Tucker Carlson, if someone is claiming the NYTimes's coverage of an allergic response by a healthcare worker in Alaska to the Covid vaccine was being irresponsible and sensationalistic, I think it's fair game to bring up an actual example of irresponsible and sensationalistic coverage of that same allergic response by the same healthcare worker in Alaska. I think that's very on-topic.

[Snorlax94]

As for the original NYTimes article, unlike Tucker Carlson, I thought it *was* responsible journalism.

I want the press to list all the pros and cons and let me know about rare reactions. What would make me feel concerned would be if I felt like problems were being covered up.

We've discussed that some vaccines will be better for some people. Maybe certain people with certain conditions shouldn't get the first vaccine. Maybe people who have had anaphylactic reactions before in their life should contact their PCP to ask whether they should proceed with this vaccine or wait. Maybe they should proceed, but make sure their epi-pen Rx is up-to-date and that they have it with them. I don't know -- could taking a couple of benadryl prophylactically before being vaccinated be helpful?

This information -- with proper context and without being sensationalist -- should come out and should be highlighted so people can be informed, have those discussions with their physicians, and make plans accordingly.

As for whataboutism, I find it rude if people intentionally redirect from a serious, important topic. If people are coming together, discussing, and mourning a tragedy in America, I think it's rude -- say, in the middle of a moment of silence or taking a knee -- to switch subjects to some other tragedy. It's like talking about someone else who died during a person's funeral, intentionally trying to redirect from the funeral you are attending at that moment.

But as for bringing up Tucker Carlson, if someone is claiming the NYTimes's coverage of an allergic response by a healthcare worker in Alaska to the Covid vaccine was being irresponsible and sensationalistic, I think it's fair game to bring up an actual example of irresponsible and sensationalistic coverage of that same allergic response by the same healthcare worker in Alaska. I think that's very on-topic.

[BostonCard]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

Look at my original post -  I DID  mention Fox.

Ironically, I didn't.  I only mentioned Carlson (who I am aware works at Fox), to say that being a pot-stirrer should not let him off the hook, and noting that his viewership outstrips the NY Times' readership.

BC

---

One thing to note; Pfizer excluded people with a history of severe allergies from their clinical trial.  Moderna did not exclude people from their trial with a history of allergies and didn't see any allergic reactions.  That doesn't mean that there won't be any once the drug makes it into distribution (probably next week), but if I had a concern about allergies, I might feel better about the Moderna vaccine.

BC

[BostonCard]

There is nothing libertarian about Carlson, at least not any more.  I think he is nominally conservative, but only to the extent that Trump is conservative.  Provocateur is accurate; so is the fact that he has found it to be a very lucrative career.

And I think you are right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard than a cable news commentator.  But I hold Carlson to a higher standard than someone like Alex Jones, and it is worth noting that the New York Times has a circulation of something like 3 million (including digital edition), while Carlson has a weekly average rating of something like 4.5 million.  In an ideal world Carlson would use that reach responsibly.  Saying "that's his schtick" doesn't mean it's ok.

That doesn't mean that you (Lex) have a responsibility to call out every time a conservative is not behaving irresponsibly.  And, for that matter, the whataboutism inherent in the question is misplaced.  Whether Carlson is or is not engaging in "responsible journalism" is irrelevant of whether the New York Times was.  I happened to think the article was fine (as long as it wasn't an above-the-fold A1 heaadline), but not because "Tucker was worse".

BC

Look at my original post -  I DID  mention Fox.

Ironically, I didn't.  I only mentioned Carlson (who I am aware works at Fox), to say that being a pot-stirrer should not let him off the hook, and noting that his viewership outstrips the NY Times' readership.

BC

---

One thing to note; Pfizer excluded people with a history of severe allergies from their clinical trial.  Moderna did not exclude people from their trial with a history of allergies and didn't see any allergic reactions.  That doesn't mean that there won't be any once the drug makes it into distribution (probably next week), but if I had a concern about allergies, I might feel better about the Moderna vaccine.

BC

[teejers1]

As for whataboutism, I find it rude if people intentionally redirect from a serious, important topic. If people are coming together, discussing, and mourning a tragedy in America, I think it's rude -- say, in the middle of a moment of silence or taking a knee -- to switch subjects to some other tragedy. It's like talking about someone else who died during a person's funeral, intentionally trying to redirect from the funeral you are attending at that moment.

But as for bringing up Tucker Carlson, if someone is claiming the NYTimes's coverage of an allergic response by a healthcare worker in Alaska to the Covid vaccine was being irresponsible and sensationalistic, I think it's fair game to bring up an actual example of irresponsible and sensationalistic coverage of that same allergic response by the same healthcare worker in Alaska. I think that's very on-topic.

???

Just to be clear: my example of bringing up "what if" taking a knee was about abortion and not police brutality was NOT to question whether police brutality is a "serious, important topic."  Rather, it was offered to test whether one thinks it was appropriate for the NFL to essentially blackball Kaep for doing so.  The idea, of course, is to test the principle behind those condemning the blackballing.  Do you object to running Kaep out of the league because he was using the platform he had to raise an issue important to him?  Or do you only object to that because you share Kaep's belief that police brutality is a serious issue?  The former is a principled decision; the latter is less so.  

I thought that was clear in my initial post, but evidently not.   

As for raising Carlson, that seemed like a reasonable extension of the discussion.

[teejers1]

As for whataboutism, I find it rude if people intentionally redirect from a serious, important topic. If people are coming together, discussing, and mourning a tragedy in America, I think it's rude -- say, in the middle of a moment of silence or taking a knee -- to switch subjects to some other tragedy. It's like talking about someone else who died during a person's funeral, intentionally trying to redirect from the funeral you are attending at that moment.

But as for bringing up Tucker Carlson, if someone is claiming the NYTimes's coverage of an allergic response by a healthcare worker in Alaska to the Covid vaccine was being irresponsible and sensationalistic, I think it's fair game to bring up an actual example of irresponsible and sensationalistic coverage of that same allergic response by the same healthcare worker in Alaska. I think that's very on-topic.

???

Just to be clear: my example of bringing up "what if" taking a knee was about abortion and not police brutality was NOT to question whether police brutality is a "serious, important topic."  Rather, it was offered to test whether one thinks it was appropriate for the NFL to essentially blackball Kaep for doing so.  The idea, of course, is to test the principle behind those condemning the blackballing.  Do you object to running Kaep out of the league because he was using the platform he had to raise an issue important to him?  Or do you only object to that because you share Kaep's belief that police brutality is a serious issue?  The former is a principled decision; the latter is less so.  

I thought that was clear in my initial post, but evidently not.   

As for raising Carlson, that seemed like a reasonable extension of the discussion.