5 ms·

> The rest is reporting crap written every time a new case was found somewhere. This is the problem. Not that our institutions are failing to deal with the pro

> The rest is reporting crap written every time a new case was found somewhere. This is the problem. Not that our institutions are failing to deal with the problem, but that our media has vastly overblown the whole situation in order to scare everyone witless so they'll keep clicking on news updates and watch those ads. With the secondary effect, of course, that all searches for information end up at a media outlet trying to scare people, and not the appropriate primary source of suitable information. And the tertiary effect that an institution presenting non-sensationalist data based on research is dismissed as an "inadequate response" if it doesn't match the hyperbolic media frenzy. We should be shutting down newspapers, not schools.

hef19898 7y ago
+1! And just to be sure, I would add social media. But in all seriousness, I am absolutely disappointed with the reactions of Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube on this. Everybody made a well deserved fuzz about the 2016 US election. So these companies are absolutely aware of this. Now that the stakes are much higher. Still no response, no action.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  What are you suggesting exactly? Do you want them to delete "alarmist" posts? That sounds like a recipe for a total collapse in trust in public institutions.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    No, just giving the top search spots to updates from WHO, followed by the national, regional and local sources. Play with the search algorythm to push the more alarmist ones further down. Help the above mentioned institutions to write their "content" in a social media optimized way. That would be agreat opportunity for these tech giants to gain trust they lost since 2016. Not doing anything right now moght very well have the opposite effect.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      The WHO waited an extra month before declaring a pandemic, and US national sources are generally considered by experts to be understating the severity of the issue. What you want is the top slots to go to the experts, who are not necessarily ranked correspondingly to the hierarchy of political bodies. For example the top virologists are probably in labs and universities, not the Cabinet.
      - hef19898 7y ago
        That's why I didn't inlcude the cabinets, did I? Just in Germany, the relvant data comes from the WHO (global picture), Robert Koch Institut (national), state health ministries (regional) and community health authorities (locally). All are relevant, the international numbers show the large picture, inlcuding the declining cases in China. The national ones provide more detailed insights into the country in question, while the regional and local ones are the most actionable for you. Which schools are closed, which policies are in place and whay. Stuff like that. I would prefer to not get these from some journalist writig his tenth article today. Personally, I am also very cautious with virologists taking the cable news and talk show turs right now. Where are they taking the time from to do so? If they are spokes people from institutions, it is different. But if their function is "professor at university X", my gut feeling tells me that they might like the public attention a tad too much.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        >But if their function is "professor at university X", my gut feeling tells me that they might like the public attention a tad too much. This is a very interesting perspective, which is very different from my own. Being in the US, my attitude is that officials are usually chosen based on criteria other than their skills in the domain they are administrating, and I would expect the best knowledge on any subject to be found among low-level people who deal with it professionally. I am also suspicious that officials might prioritize maintaining public order over disseminating true information, which caused many unnecessary deaths during the Spanish Flu. >I would prefer to not get these from some journalist writing his tenth article today. That's true enough. But I would rather have information from front-line experts than administrative officials.
s1artibartfast 7y ago
Yes and no. People keep turning to the media because our institutional outlets provide inadequate information for the majority of the population. The institutions default to saying nothing useful because they are scared of blow-back. I check my city, county, state, and world health sites and there is simply inadequate for my needs. I want to know what closures are in place in my community. I want to know if asymptomatic transmission is real. I want to know if there is a plan to widen the testing criteria.
- hef19898 7y ago
  That's the problem, yes. I still ignore the media, others don't. Both approaches are fine. The thing is, the media doesn't have any other sources, do they? But the have to produce content, so they do. Not very helpfull in the quality department if you ask me.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    I would say that broadly speaking, media is better than the institutional outlets for providing information. You have to sift through the garbage, but the content exits. to use the topics I listed above as an examples, I can find more details on local closures and outbreaks in the local news the local department of public health. Similarly, I have found coverage and links to medical journal publications embedded in articles. Lastly, the institutions are avoiding disclosure of next steps or plans like the plague ( no pun intended). Either they have no plan for the days to come, or they are intentionally withholding information. On the other hand, there are a number of media outlets, mostly non-traditional, that are providing projections based on other counties.
    - marcus_holmes 7y ago
      the point I was making, really, is that media sites exist to make a profit, not to inform, while government-funded sites purely exist to inform. There's a lot of money to be made from scaring people.

hef19898 7y ago

+1! And just to be sure, I would add social media. But in all seriousness, I am absolutely disappointed with the reactions of Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube on this. Everybody made a well deserved fuzz about the 2016 US election. So these companies are absolutely aware of this. Now that the stakes are much higher. Still no response, no action.

whatshisface 7y ago
What are you suggesting exactly? Do you want them to delete "alarmist" posts? That sounds like a recipe for a total collapse in trust in public institutions.
- hef19898 7y ago
  No, just giving the top search spots to updates from WHO, followed by the national, regional and local sources. Play with the search algorythm to push the more alarmist ones further down. Help the above mentioned institutions to write their "content" in a social media optimized way. That would be agreat opportunity for these tech giants to gain trust they lost since 2016. Not doing anything right now moght very well have the opposite effect.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    The WHO waited an extra month before declaring a pandemic, and US national sources are generally considered by experts to be understating the severity of the issue. What you want is the top slots to go to the experts, who are not necessarily ranked correspondingly to the hierarchy of political bodies. For example the top virologists are probably in labs and universities, not the Cabinet.
    - hef19898 7y ago
      That's why I didn't inlcude the cabinets, did I? Just in Germany, the relvant data comes from the WHO (global picture), Robert Koch Institut (national), state health ministries (regional) and community health authorities (locally). All are relevant, the international numbers show the large picture, inlcuding the declining cases in China. The national ones provide more detailed insights into the country in question, while the regional and local ones are the most actionable for you. Which schools are closed, which policies are in place and whay. Stuff like that. I would prefer to not get these from some journalist writig his tenth article today. Personally, I am also very cautious with virologists taking the cable news and talk show turs right now. Where are they taking the time from to do so? If they are spokes people from institutions, it is different. But if their function is "professor at university X", my gut feeling tells me that they might like the public attention a tad too much.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        >But if their function is "professor at university X", my gut feeling tells me that they might like the public attention a tad too much. This is a very interesting perspective, which is very different from my own. Being in the US, my attitude is that officials are usually chosen based on criteria other than their skills in the domain they are administrating, and I would expect the best knowledge on any subject to be found among low-level people who deal with it professionally. I am also suspicious that officials might prioritize maintaining public order over disseminating true information, which caused many unnecessary deaths during the Spanish Flu. >I would prefer to not get these from some journalist writing his tenth article today. That's true enough. But I would rather have information from front-line experts than administrative officials.

s1artibartfast 7y ago

Yes and no. People keep turning to the media because our institutional outlets provide inadequate information for the majority of the population. The institutions default to saying nothing useful because they are scared of blow-back. I check my city, county, state, and world health sites and there is simply inadequate for my needs. I want to know what closures are in place in my community. I want to know if asymptomatic transmission is real. I want to know if there is a plan to widen the testing criteria.

hef19898 7y ago
That's the problem, yes. I still ignore the media, others don't. Both approaches are fine. The thing is, the media doesn't have any other sources, do they? But the have to produce content, so they do. Not very helpfull in the quality department if you ask me.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  I would say that broadly speaking, media is better than the institutional outlets for providing information. You have to sift through the garbage, but the content exits. to use the topics I listed above as an examples, I can find more details on local closures and outbreaks in the local news the local department of public health. Similarly, I have found coverage and links to medical journal publications embedded in articles. Lastly, the institutions are avoiding disclosure of next steps or plans like the plague ( no pun intended). Either they have no plan for the days to come, or they are intentionally withholding information. On the other hand, there are a number of media outlets, mostly non-traditional, that are providing projections based on other counties.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    the point I was making, really, is that media sites exist to make a profit, not to inform, while government-funded sites purely exist to inform. There's a lot of money to be made from scaring people.