6 ms·

I pay for the Post. Love their reporting. But man! I've never seen so much fear mongering as they've peddled in the last month. News is a product—I get that. Bu

I pay for the Post. Love their reporting. But man! I've never seen so much fear mongering as they've peddled in the last month. News is a product—I get that. But they're straining to wring every last drop out of COVID.

clairity 6y ago
every news outlet is doing that. every political leader (garcetti in LA particularly) is doing that. it foments fear and hysteria. it's infuriating. news sites post infection/death numbers for covid front and center, conveniently ignoring the 98-99% of non-covid deaths that are just as tragic and heartbreaking. they did that during 9/11 and for every mass shooting since. it's sickening.
- wilg 6y ago
  so your belief is that information about deaths from a current pandemic or terrorist attack is not newsworthy? what do you think news is?
  - jshevek 6y ago
    >so your belief is that information about deaths from a current pandemic or terrorist attack is not newsworthy? You misrepresent the parent comment. In no way did they imply that information about deaths is not newsworthy. We have more choices here than two extremes.
    - wilg 6y ago
      I actually was asking a question of the parent commenter.
      - jshevek 6y ago
        You phrased your response in the form of a question, but in general that format doesn't preclude a commentator from misrepresenting another's views. Your comment was of the form: >"so [statement A]? [question predicated on statement A]?" In this case, statement A was a non-sequitur derived from an uncharitable interpretation. It appears at least three different people had a similar view, as I did not flag this comment.
        wilg 6y ago
        It's not a non-sequitur, the commenter said they didn't think COVID-19 deaths, mass shooting deaths, and 9/11 deaths should be reported on prominently. This seems like an astonishing statement, hence the question!
- jshevek 6y ago
  Every time they post total numbers for the US, I divide by 3.3e8 and marvel at how small the numbers actually are (so far).
- el_benhameen 6y ago
  Covid-19 is now the leading daily cause of death in the US. It's novel, people care about it, and it's more immediately preventable through collective action than other leading causes of death (2nd and 3rd are heart disease and cancer). I don't see how media attention is unreasonable.
  - jshevek 6y ago
    Breaking the data into "current daily" is the most extreme way of framing the data, given that we are currently suffering a rush of deaths due to the delayed effect of accelerated infection rates that occurred before the shutdown. (Many of the individual infections occurred after, but the critical mass of asymptomatic carriers occured before, in NY and other hotspots.)
  - clairity 6y ago
    as of this morning, using LA Times numbers: 23K infections / 40M people in CA = 0.058% infection rate 682 deaths / 40M = 0.0017% death rate yet neither of those percentages are listed. both rates have crested, yet there's no chart or graph emphasizing that. no curve showing high and low expectations of either rate modeled into the future. most of the deaths have one or more co-morbidities, which means that a harsh flu or bacterial pneumonia would likely be roughly as deadly to them. no indications of that either. this kind of news could actually help people grasp the real risks rather than simply inducing anxiety and panic. flu pandemics are preventable via the same collective measures, potentially saving 40K lives a year in the US, yet we don't get hysterical about collective action every winter. media attention being understandable is different from it being reasonable.
- xenocyon 6y ago
  > 98-99% of non-covid deaths that are just as tragic and heartbreaking I think this belies a lack of understanding of COVID's growth curve. Early numbers were low compared to other diseases, but the exponential nature of the spread means that without the drastic measures we are taking (which some call excessively fearful) COVID could enact a massive death toll. Even with all the measures we are taking, COVID has already overtaken all other causes of death in the USA: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-leading-cause-of-death.html https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-leading-cause-of-dea...
scott_s 6y ago
How is this article fear-mongering? And how are they "straining to wring every last drop out of COVID"? To me, these seem like natural articles to write in the middle of a pandemic, and their coverage has also seemed appropriate to being in the middle of a pandemic.
- robotron 6y ago
  Some people believe the populace should have their heads in the sand and that any information about the pandemic is "fear mongering".
- alexandercrohde 6y ago
  I think it's fear mongering because it makes people worry whether grocery stores will be able to stay open. As somebody who lives in NYC, I can tell you right now, that if they didn't, it would cause a panic (right now my local grocer won't let people in without masks). If a panic happened, this could lead people to things like looting. I think looting would be incredibly dangerous, more dangerous than the virus itself. Thus I find it borderline irresponsible to "stoke the fire" by writing an article like this without properly putting necessary disclaimers.
  - scott_s 6y ago
    And I suppose I don't consider it fear mongering because I use the term when someone in the media is saying "X is going to happen," while X is exceedingly unlikely to happen, and it is of negligible risk to their audience. I don't think that is the case with this article; there is no discussion of grocery shut down, but rather reporting the effect it has had on the workers, including poor treatment from management. I am less concerned with panic. I think the greater danger now is people not taking Covid-19 seriously enough. Ironically, the not-wanting-to-cause-panic sentiment was what some grocery store management cited as a reason employees could not wear masks, as reported in the article.
shirakawasuna 6y ago
Fear mongering? Are service workers not dying for your convenience? Are they not working despite lacking PPE or hazard pay or the economic privilege of having the option to quit and/or work from home, as so many HN readers do? If you don't think it's actually this bad, I recommend that you sign up for a part-time gig working at a grocery store and see how fun it is.
- 40four 6y ago
  I will give the parent the benefit of the doubt and assume they think it's fear mongering because of the style and sensationalism of the article (and others this month), not that they are heartless and don't care about the well being of these workers. I don't think it's productive to take that line. Of course its horrible, I assume we all hate to hear this. I think about how bad it must suck to work at a grocery store every time I go and see the people there working. The issue I think is when an article puts things like "It's a War Zone", or "As more of them die" in the headline for example. It is true it must be very risky and stressful to work there right now. Hard to imagine. But there isn't much actual analysis of the numbers. 'At least' 41 are dead? How did they calculate that number? Is that a lot? More than we would expect for a give occupation? I don't know, they don't really explain, it's just a bunch of super sad stories and interview quotes.
  - shirakawasuna 6y ago
    That's a bit too generous. Their primary concern when reading the article was, "too much fear mongering". I don't assume they were malicious so much as detached and overlooking things that they shouldn't. "It's a War Zone" is incorrect, but "As more of them die" is not. The former is a dumb metaphor, the latter is just a correct description. Given worker conditions, it is plain that they are being put at unnecessary risks and that these risks are fundamentally exploitative - folks have to either put their lives at risk for corporate profits (no PPE provided, frequently) or potentially become homeless, lose their insurance during a pandemic, etc. Estimating the numbers is something to go do, sure, but it doesn't change the dangerous material conditions on the ground and the dark nature of our response. Look at who bears the burden and why they do it.
xenocyon 6y ago
Can you be more specific? This article and the others I have seen from WP haven't been unduly sensational. Perhaps you are talking about op eds rather than news articles? (I have often felt that newspapers should do op eds in a different font or color from regular articles, but that's another story.)
- 40four 6y ago
  Not the parent, but I could take a stab at what I think they mean. I think we all agree that the situation for these workers right now must be terrible. They are certainly put at higher risk, and it must be very stressful. I don't blame many of them for being scared. I think about it every time I seem them when I shop. But I can see how this is perceived as sensational starting with the headline. Things like "War Zone", and "As more of the die" really set the tone a certain way up front. OK, so how many have died. Forty one? Not sure how they compiled that number, but sure. Is that a lot? Well, I don't know. Can't say I have a frame of reference. How many deaths should we expect from a give occupational group, especially one that is at higher risk? Well, let's keep reading, surely we'll get some hard analysis of the stats. Nope. Just a bunch of anecdotes and heart wrenching quotes from the interviews. Well, they do present some numbers from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, maybe that's where they got the 41 dead number. So 1500 plus confirmed infected, 3000 plus not working from hospitalization, quarantine, et-cetera. Again, is that a lot? I'm not sure, the author give us no frame of reference. Seems like they want us to think it is a lot though. I mean if the the thesis holds true, then these numbers should be well above average, considering the increased risk these workers have. This topic is clearly relevant, and something we should all be sensitive of when we go out to shop. These folks are under an incredible stress right now. But I can see how articles like this could be seen as 'fear mongering' or sensational. It should be the reporters responsibility to do the leg work, and be able to frame the data, and the thesis, in a reasonable way. We don't really get that analysis here, just sad stories and quotes, that just leave us feeling bad or scared at the end. We are left with a 'feeling' that grocery store workers are dying at some 'astronomical' rate, and the inside of every store is chaos.
  - patrick5415 6y ago

clairity 6y ago

every news outlet is doing that. every political leader (garcetti in LA particularly) is doing that. it foments fear and hysteria. it's infuriating. news sites post infection/death numbers for covid front and center, conveniently ignoring the 98-99% of non-covid deaths that are just as tragic and heartbreaking. they did that during 9/11 and for every mass shooting since. it's sickening.

wilg 6y ago
so your belief is that information about deaths from a current pandemic or terrorist attack is not newsworthy? what do you think news is?
- jshevek 6y ago
  >so your belief is that information about deaths from a current pandemic or terrorist attack is not newsworthy? You misrepresent the parent comment. In no way did they imply that information about deaths is not newsworthy. We have more choices here than two extremes.
  - wilg 6y ago
    I actually was asking a question of the parent commenter.
    - jshevek 6y ago
      You phrased your response in the form of a question, but in general that format doesn't preclude a commentator from misrepresenting another's views. Your comment was of the form: >"so [statement A]? [question predicated on statement A]?" In this case, statement A was a non-sequitur derived from an uncharitable interpretation. It appears at least three different people had a similar view, as I did not flag this comment.
      - wilg 6y ago
        It's not a non-sequitur, the commenter said they didn't think COVID-19 deaths, mass shooting deaths, and 9/11 deaths should be reported on prominently. This seems like an astonishing statement, hence the question!
jshevek 6y ago
Every time they post total numbers for the US, I divide by 3.3e8 and marvel at how small the numbers actually are (so far).
el_benhameen 6y ago
Covid-19 is now the leading daily cause of death in the US. It's novel, people care about it, and it's more immediately preventable through collective action than other leading causes of death (2nd and 3rd are heart disease and cancer). I don't see how media attention is unreasonable.
- jshevek 6y ago
  Breaking the data into "current daily" is the most extreme way of framing the data, given that we are currently suffering a rush of deaths due to the delayed effect of accelerated infection rates that occurred before the shutdown. (Many of the individual infections occurred after, but the critical mass of asymptomatic carriers occured before, in NY and other hotspots.)
- clairity 6y ago
  as of this morning, using LA Times numbers: 23K infections / 40M people in CA = 0.058% infection rate 682 deaths / 40M = 0.0017% death rate yet neither of those percentages are listed. both rates have crested, yet there's no chart or graph emphasizing that. no curve showing high and low expectations of either rate modeled into the future. most of the deaths have one or more co-morbidities, which means that a harsh flu or bacterial pneumonia would likely be roughly as deadly to them. no indications of that either. this kind of news could actually help people grasp the real risks rather than simply inducing anxiety and panic. flu pandemics are preventable via the same collective measures, potentially saving 40K lives a year in the US, yet we don't get hysterical about collective action every winter. media attention being understandable is different from it being reasonable.
xenocyon 6y ago
> 98-99% of non-covid deaths that are just as tragic and heartbreaking I think this belies a lack of understanding of COVID's growth curve. Early numbers were low compared to other diseases, but the exponential nature of the spread means that without the drastic measures we are taking (which some call excessively fearful) COVID could enact a massive death toll. Even with all the measures we are taking, COVID has already overtaken all other causes of death in the USA: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-leading-cause-of-death.html https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-leading-cause-of-dea...

scott_s 6y ago

How is this article fear-mongering? And how are they "straining to wring every last drop out of COVID"? To me, these seem like natural articles to write in the middle of a pandemic, and their coverage has also seemed appropriate to being in the middle of a pandemic.

robotron 6y ago
Some people believe the populace should have their heads in the sand and that any information about the pandemic is "fear mongering".
alexandercrohde 6y ago
I think it's fear mongering because it makes people worry whether grocery stores will be able to stay open. As somebody who lives in NYC, I can tell you right now, that if they didn't, it would cause a panic (right now my local grocer won't let people in without masks). If a panic happened, this could lead people to things like looting. I think looting would be incredibly dangerous, more dangerous than the virus itself. Thus I find it borderline irresponsible to "stoke the fire" by writing an article like this without properly putting necessary disclaimers.
- scott_s 6y ago
  And I suppose I don't consider it fear mongering because I use the term when someone in the media is saying "X is going to happen," while X is exceedingly unlikely to happen, and it is of negligible risk to their audience. I don't think that is the case with this article; there is no discussion of grocery shut down, but rather reporting the effect it has had on the workers, including poor treatment from management. I am less concerned with panic. I think the greater danger now is people not taking Covid-19 seriously enough. Ironically, the not-wanting-to-cause-panic sentiment was what some grocery store management cited as a reason employees could not wear masks, as reported in the article.

shirakawasuna 6y ago

Fear mongering? Are service workers not dying for your convenience? Are they not working despite lacking PPE or hazard pay or the economic privilege of having the option to quit and/or work from home, as so many HN readers do? If you don't think it's actually this bad, I recommend that you sign up for a part-time gig working at a grocery store and see how fun it is.

40four 6y ago
I will give the parent the benefit of the doubt and assume they think it's fear mongering because of the style and sensationalism of the article (and others this month), not that they are heartless and don't care about the well being of these workers. I don't think it's productive to take that line. Of course its horrible, I assume we all hate to hear this. I think about how bad it must suck to work at a grocery store every time I go and see the people there working. The issue I think is when an article puts things like "It's a War Zone", or "As more of them die" in the headline for example. It is true it must be very risky and stressful to work there right now. Hard to imagine. But there isn't much actual analysis of the numbers. 'At least' 41 are dead? How did they calculate that number? Is that a lot? More than we would expect for a give occupation? I don't know, they don't really explain, it's just a bunch of super sad stories and interview quotes.
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
  That's a bit too generous. Their primary concern when reading the article was, "too much fear mongering". I don't assume they were malicious so much as detached and overlooking things that they shouldn't. "It's a War Zone" is incorrect, but "As more of them die" is not. The former is a dumb metaphor, the latter is just a correct description. Given worker conditions, it is plain that they are being put at unnecessary risks and that these risks are fundamentally exploitative - folks have to either put their lives at risk for corporate profits (no PPE provided, frequently) or potentially become homeless, lose their insurance during a pandemic, etc. Estimating the numbers is something to go do, sure, but it doesn't change the dangerous material conditions on the ground and the dark nature of our response. Look at who bears the burden and why they do it.

xenocyon 6y ago

Can you be more specific? This article and the others I have seen from WP haven't been unduly sensational. Perhaps you are talking about op eds rather than news articles? (I have often felt that newspapers should do op eds in a different font or color from regular articles, but that's another story.)

40four 6y ago
Not the parent, but I could take a stab at what I think they mean. I think we all agree that the situation for these workers right now must be terrible. They are certainly put at higher risk, and it must be very stressful. I don't blame many of them for being scared. I think about it every time I seem them when I shop. But I can see how this is perceived as sensational starting with the headline. Things like "War Zone", and "As more of the die" really set the tone a certain way up front. OK, so how many have died. Forty one? Not sure how they compiled that number, but sure. Is that a lot? Well, I don't know. Can't say I have a frame of reference. How many deaths should we expect from a give occupational group, especially one that is at higher risk? Well, let's keep reading, surely we'll get some hard analysis of the stats. Nope. Just a bunch of anecdotes and heart wrenching quotes from the interviews. Well, they do present some numbers from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, maybe that's where they got the 41 dead number. So 1500 plus confirmed infected, 3000 plus not working from hospitalization, quarantine, et-cetera. Again, is that a lot? I'm not sure, the author give us no frame of reference. Seems like they want us to think it is a lot though. I mean if the the thesis holds true, then these numbers should be well above average, considering the increased risk these workers have. This topic is clearly relevant, and something we should all be sensitive of when we go out to shop. These folks are under an incredible stress right now. But I can see how articles like this could be seen as 'fear mongering' or sensational. It should be the reporters responsibility to do the leg work, and be able to frame the data, and the thesis, in a reasonable way. We don't really get that analysis here, just sad stories and quotes, that just leave us feeling bad or scared at the end. We are left with a 'feeling' that grocery store workers are dying at some 'astronomical' rate, and the inside of every store is chaos.
- patrick5415 6y ago