3 ms·

> give me good-faith context to understand the background of the events By replying repeatedly to people providing context not in the article, you're indicatin

> give me good-faith context to understand the background of the events By replying repeatedly to people providing context not in the article, you're indicating that reasonable people can't disagree with you regarding what's "good-faith context." Do you think the author of the AP article would react to feedback about it this way? Personally, I think more context comparing this polio vaccine to other polio vaccines is relevant and valuable, in part because of the general rise in unfounded fears of all vaccines. While we are in the midst of a pandemic for which we hope to have an effective vaccine soon, I don't think every story about any vaccine has to be related to COVID-19.

macspoofing 6y ago
>Do you think the author of the AP article would react to feedback about it this way? I have no doubt, regardless of the validity of the 'feedback', you can certainly bully the author or the news agency into pushing any narrative you want. All you have to do is frame this story as 'dangerous' and pushing 'misinformation' or 'undermining faith in vaccines'. >By replying repeatedly to people providing context not in the article, you're indicating that reasonable people can't disagree with you regarding what's "good-faith context." The question I posed is why one cannot have a regular fact-driven news article without pushing some other larger narrative (that has tenuous connection, AT BEST, to the actual story) and the 'good-faith' context that OP provided is ... pushing a larger narrative that has NOTHING to do with the actual story. I mean, he's trying to link it to a COVID-19 vaccine, which has NOTHIG to do with this polio vaccination effort. In other words, why is it critical for a story about Sudan to argue against American anti-vaxxers or opinionate on American COVID-19 policy, or other political goals you're trying to push in America. So what I meant by 'good-faith context' is context that is directly linked to understanding the facts detailed in the story, not context for larger narrative that pushes other policy and political goals. This article is actually quite good - it communicated an issue with polio vaccine and provided a larger and historical context of vaccine efforts in the region, and how it is viewed by public health authorities and the WHO. I got the gist of the story. >I think more context comparing this polio vaccine to other polio vaccines is relevant and valuable, in part because of the general rise in unfounded fears of all vaccines. What if the general distrust of authoritative sources and news media stems from precisely this kind of reasoning ... that you need tell people what to believe, play down or omit any countervailing facts and preferably tie it to national politics and policy as much as you can (for completeness). Let me turn it around on you: how is it that you are able to read this story and frame it in your mind within the larger context of vaccines, but others aren't? Why do you need to the writer to editorialize and push a point of view? You clearly understood that this polio outbreak does not mean all types of vaccines are dangerous.
- extra88 6y ago
  > how is it that you are able to read this story and frame it in your mind within the larger context of vaccines, but others aren't? A) I didn't know the information from the link in the first comment you replied to, about older and newer polio vaccines. B) I'm able to because I'm already better informed about vaccines and vaccine safety than most people. I am by no means an expert. And, not to dance around it, I'm also smarter and better educated than most people; I'm above average in those areas and I assume you are too. > editorialize and push a point of view Editorializing is offering an opinion. Including salient facts about different polio vaccines or vaccine safety is not editorializing. Everyone has a point of view, that's not contrary to doing good journalism. > You clearly understood that this polio outbreak does not mean all types of vaccines are dangerous. And yet there are instances of this story being used as "proof" that vaccines are dangerous. It's confirmation bias on their part and it would be more difficult to make that mistake if this story had more facts about vaccines for context. Growing distrust in all vaccines and science in general is a huge problem so while I wouldn't choose to include information in this story about how this isn't bad news for possible COVID-19 vaccines, I would understand the choice. I do think stories that try to stick to just the narrowest facts do a disservice to their audience. For instance, good-faith context for extreme weather stories should routinely include information about how human-caused climate change is a reason for increased frequency and severity.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    We'll have to agree to disagree that news articles should be fighting American political and culture wars.

macspoofing 6y ago

>Do you think the author of the AP article would react to feedback about it this way? I have no doubt, regardless of the validity of the 'feedback', you can certainly bully the author or the news agency into pushing any narrative you want. All you have to do is frame this story as 'dangerous' and pushing 'misinformation' or 'undermining faith in vaccines'. >By replying repeatedly to people providing context not in the article, you're indicating that reasonable people can't disagree with you regarding what's "good-faith context." The question I posed is why one cannot have a regular fact-driven news article without pushing some other larger narrative (that has tenuous connection, AT BEST, to the actual story) and the 'good-faith' context that OP provided is ... pushing a larger narrative that has NOTHING to do with the actual story. I mean, he's trying to link it to a COVID-19 vaccine, which has NOTHIG to do with this polio vaccination effort. In other words, why is it critical for a story about Sudan to argue against American anti-vaxxers or opinionate on American COVID-19 policy, or other political goals you're trying to push in America. So what I meant by 'good-faith context' is context that is directly linked to understanding the facts detailed in the story, not context for larger narrative that pushes other policy and political goals. This article is actually quite good - it communicated an issue with polio vaccine and provided a larger and historical context of vaccine efforts in the region, and how it is viewed by public health authorities and the WHO. I got the gist of the story. >I think more context comparing this polio vaccine to other polio vaccines is relevant and valuable, in part because of the general rise in unfounded fears of all vaccines. What if the general distrust of authoritative sources and news media stems from precisely this kind of reasoning ... that you need tell people what to believe, play down or omit any countervailing facts and preferably tie it to national politics and policy as much as you can (for completeness). Let me turn it around on you: how is it that you are able to read this story and frame it in your mind within the larger context of vaccines, but others aren't? Why do you need to the writer to editorialize and push a point of view? You clearly understood that this polio outbreak does not mean all types of vaccines are dangerous.

extra88 6y ago
> how is it that you are able to read this story and frame it in your mind within the larger context of vaccines, but others aren't? A) I didn't know the information from the link in the first comment you replied to, about older and newer polio vaccines. B) I'm able to because I'm already better informed about vaccines and vaccine safety than most people. I am by no means an expert. And, not to dance around it, I'm also smarter and better educated than most people; I'm above average in those areas and I assume you are too. > editorialize and push a point of view Editorializing is offering an opinion. Including salient facts about different polio vaccines or vaccine safety is not editorializing. Everyone has a point of view, that's not contrary to doing good journalism. > You clearly understood that this polio outbreak does not mean all types of vaccines are dangerous. And yet there are instances of this story being used as "proof" that vaccines are dangerous. It's confirmation bias on their part and it would be more difficult to make that mistake if this story had more facts about vaccines for context. Growing distrust in all vaccines and science in general is a huge problem so while I wouldn't choose to include information in this story about how this isn't bad news for possible COVID-19 vaccines, I would understand the choice. I do think stories that try to stick to just the narrowest facts do a disservice to their audience. For instance, good-faith context for extreme weather stories should routinely include information about how human-caused climate change is a reason for increased frequency and severity.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  We'll have to agree to disagree that news articles should be fighting American political and culture wars.