3 ms·

> Now that we've seen the results, let's remember what we saw, because this is the most accurate test of credibility we're ever likely to have. No, this is a t

> Now that we've seen the results, let's remember what we saw, because this is the most accurate test of credibility we're ever likely to have. No, this is a terrible test of credibility. Journalists and politicians often go the other way, amplifying the danger, or outrage, or worry. Taking the outside view, it's overwhelmingly likely that any forecasted pandemic or disaster doesn't happen; we almost always get sky-is-falling predictions and then nothing really seems to happen from the perspective of most viewers or readers. Swine flu, bird flu, ebola, zika, on and on: these have previously in media-market memory been hyped as global catastrophes in the making, and then they turn into localized awfulness. This time, there were many more people than previously who seemed willing to espouse the outside view that this would probably blow over, and it seems incredibly ironic that this time, it didn't go away, and now those same categories of people who have been previously criticized for fear mongering are being lambasted for not fear mongering enough...

thewindowmovie 7y ago
There were enough actual data and evidence out there to conclude this was actually a pandemic. Whole cities and countries were being shutdown and ICUs under strain when these people were going on TV encouraging people to travel. It is well known that some of this host work for a channel which is biased towards the president and that seem to have affected how they covered the news rather than based on available evidence.
DanBC 7y ago
> we almost always get sky-is-falling predictions and then nothing really seems to happen from the perspective of most viewers or readers. Swine flu, bird flu, ebola, zika, on and on: these have previously in media-market memory been hyped as global catastrophes in the making, and then they turn into localized awfulness ...because WHO and those local regions spend considerable time and effort preventing catastrophe.
- randallsquared 7y ago
  Yes, they did (along with, in many cases, considerable external aid from other NGOs, etc). However, from a height, it looks somewhat similar to how China's response to Wuhan prevented catastrophe... It didn't fully prevent it, but that was hard to know two months ago for most of the talking heads PG was calling out.

thewindowmovie 7y ago

There were enough actual data and evidence out there to conclude this was actually a pandemic. Whole cities and countries were being shutdown and ICUs under strain when these people were going on TV encouraging people to travel. It is well known that some of this host work for a channel which is biased towards the president and that seem to have affected how they covered the news rather than based on available evidence.

DanBC 7y ago

> we almost always get sky-is-falling predictions and then nothing really seems to happen from the perspective of most viewers or readers. Swine flu, bird flu, ebola, zika, on and on: these have previously in media-market memory been hyped as global catastrophes in the making, and then they turn into localized awfulness ...because WHO and those local regions spend considerable time and effort preventing catastrophe.

randallsquared 7y ago
Yes, they did (along with, in many cases, considerable external aid from other NGOs, etc). However, from a height, it looks somewhat similar to how China's response to Wuhan prevented catastrophe... It didn't fully prevent it, but that was hard to know two months ago for most of the talking heads PG was calling out.