8 ms·

This is a good example of the kind of news that a) should be reported on since it's an important development relating to an ongoing global crisis but b) will be

This is a good example of the kind of news that a) should be reported on since it's an important development relating to an ongoing global crisis but b) will be ruthlessly abused by the media to generate clicks, adding to the ever-increasing confusion among the general public about the pandemic. I'd almost rather it not be reported on since it will only diminish, not enhance, most people's understanding of the virus.

dfxm12 6y ago
I'd rather the BBC responsibly report that there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work, to any alternative. Facts will get out. You say "the media" as if each outlet is the same, but that's not the case - both responsible sources and conspiracy theorists (among other types of reporters) are represented among "the media". If you want people to have a better understanding of this, it's better that responsible sources get ahead of misinformation.
- standardUser 6y ago
  Maybe we should start calling it the "clickbait media". I do see the BBC as a different type of news outlet that generally plays it straight, and the wording of this particular article sounds very responsible to me. But much of the rest of the media will have a field day with this.
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    > But much of the rest of the media will have a field day with this. Until that happens, isn't blanket-labelling them a guilty party a little premature?
wayne_skylar 6y ago
The pandemic has really made me second guess my blind trust in the "trusted" sources. When the WHO released a statement saying that it hadn't been proven that antibodies prevent covid, the media ran with the sensationalist "antibodies are ineffective" slant. I simply can't believe that the news organizations that ran with that version didn't do it on purpose. The same can be said for reinfections and perhaps even long-term effects. The narrative surrounding these concepts is so common that I hear it from friends as if it were common knowledge. I don't know about the long-term effects but I am pretty certain that reinfections are very rare. But the prevalence of either seems to be omitted from the story. Of course we don't know because the news often reports anecdotes when there is no data or even when there is data. The news isn't held to the standard of giving a whole picture, just a glimpse of the current moment. In that they find a lot of wiggle room to publish things that are in the "public interest" while also benefiting from sensationalism.
- cm2187 6y ago
  I have the same reaction. We have listened to falsehoods after falsehoods. A few other examples from the top of my mind: - Masks protect you / masks don't protect you (I don't know which is true but it is one or the other) - Infection fatality rates > 5%. - Virus also dangerous for young people - Drawing any conclusion from comparing daily cases from the first wave to the second wave (when orders of magnitude more tests were done during the second wave) - Virus as dangerous as Ebola (read on the front page of the Times in the UK!) - Hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug - You must stay locked-down until there is a vaccine, even if you had it, as we may not develop immunity (it is either one or the other, if we don't develop immunity there will be no vaccine). - The virus is not a concern if you go protest BLM - The virus doesn't respect borders (of course it does because it is carried by humans) I am sure I could think of more. But my point is the media did everything they could to terrorize the population. And the outcome is x% of the public terrorised, and (1-x%) of the public not believing a word from the media anymore.
  - abraae 6y ago
    You've made it fairly clear which camp you are in by the framing of your "falsehoods". Masks primarily protect others, so whether they protect you is a secondary question. And no-one (with any credibility) is really stating any of the other positions you've listed.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      The simple fact that you are framing it as "a camp" shows the problem. So there is my camp vs your camp. And one camp is right and the other is wrong? Is that how we deal with infectious diseases?
      - scrollaway 6y ago
        If GP had used the word "mindset" instead of "camp", would you feel better? Their point is still valid, you're the one framing things here. You're right that there's a lot of dubious claims out there, and yes there are plenty of examples of overreactions, but it's easy to overcorrect no matter which "side" you lean. Now explain to me though, if this isn't a "camp" thing, why is it nearly always the case with americans that one political side is claiming the virus isn't dangerous, and one is claiming that it is?
52-6F-62 6y ago
Problem is, you could report the most well-sourced, well-worded article and some portion of the readership would only glean a few details, wrapped up in the context of their own understanding or existing outlook, and then repeated through their own interpretation. There's really nothing to be done to prevent this except to note how important it is to consider all of the associated information, and present its context. You'll never control how the information is processed by each receiving party, and nor should you. It's good to have this information—it's good to let people know that there is always the potential for something similar, or worse, to arise. Similar to knowing your entire house might be wiped out [by a major storm] someday if you move to Florida—which wouldn't surprise anyone anymore. Repeated dispersal of the information will help prevent rampant hysteria... once a semblance of understanding and context is normalized.
sleepydog 6y ago
Are there any news sources that aren't quite so breathless? I'm not talking about left/right biases, there's a general tendency for all news outlets to report stories that highlight negative aspects and generally choose words that induce anger in one group or another (think of the over-use of words like "slam").

dfxm12 6y ago

I'd rather the BBC responsibly report that there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work, to any alternative. Facts will get out. You say "the media" as if each outlet is the same, but that's not the case - both responsible sources and conspiracy theorists (among other types of reporters) are represented among "the media". If you want people to have a better understanding of this, it's better that responsible sources get ahead of misinformation.

standardUser 6y ago
Maybe we should start calling it the "clickbait media". I do see the BBC as a different type of news outlet that generally plays it straight, and the wording of this particular article sounds very responsible to me. But much of the rest of the media will have a field day with this.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  > But much of the rest of the media will have a field day with this. Until that happens, isn't blanket-labelling them a guilty party a little premature?

wayne_skylar 6y ago

The pandemic has really made me second guess my blind trust in the "trusted" sources. When the WHO released a statement saying that it hadn't been proven that antibodies prevent covid, the media ran with the sensationalist "antibodies are ineffective" slant. I simply can't believe that the news organizations that ran with that version didn't do it on purpose. The same can be said for reinfections and perhaps even long-term effects. The narrative surrounding these concepts is so common that I hear it from friends as if it were common knowledge. I don't know about the long-term effects but I am pretty certain that reinfections are very rare. But the prevalence of either seems to be omitted from the story. Of course we don't know because the news often reports anecdotes when there is no data or even when there is data. The news isn't held to the standard of giving a whole picture, just a glimpse of the current moment. In that they find a lot of wiggle room to publish things that are in the "public interest" while also benefiting from sensationalism.

cm2187 6y ago
I have the same reaction. We have listened to falsehoods after falsehoods. A few other examples from the top of my mind: - Masks protect you / masks don't protect you (I don't know which is true but it is one or the other) - Infection fatality rates > 5%. - Virus also dangerous for young people - Drawing any conclusion from comparing daily cases from the first wave to the second wave (when orders of magnitude more tests were done during the second wave) - Virus as dangerous as Ebola (read on the front page of the Times in the UK!) - Hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug - You must stay locked-down until there is a vaccine, even if you had it, as we may not develop immunity (it is either one or the other, if we don't develop immunity there will be no vaccine). - The virus is not a concern if you go protest BLM - The virus doesn't respect borders (of course it does because it is carried by humans) I am sure I could think of more. But my point is the media did everything they could to terrorize the population. And the outcome is x% of the public terrorised, and (1-x%) of the public not believing a word from the media anymore.
- abraae 6y ago
  You've made it fairly clear which camp you are in by the framing of your "falsehoods". Masks primarily protect others, so whether they protect you is a secondary question. And no-one (with any credibility) is really stating any of the other positions you've listed.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    The simple fact that you are framing it as "a camp" shows the problem. So there is my camp vs your camp. And one camp is right and the other is wrong? Is that how we deal with infectious diseases?
    - scrollaway 6y ago
      If GP had used the word "mindset" instead of "camp", would you feel better? Their point is still valid, you're the one framing things here. You're right that there's a lot of dubious claims out there, and yes there are plenty of examples of overreactions, but it's easy to overcorrect no matter which "side" you lean. Now explain to me though, if this isn't a "camp" thing, why is it nearly always the case with americans that one political side is claiming the virus isn't dangerous, and one is claiming that it is?

52-6F-62 6y ago

Problem is, you could report the most well-sourced, well-worded article and some portion of the readership would only glean a few details, wrapped up in the context of their own understanding or existing outlook, and then repeated through their own interpretation. There's really nothing to be done to prevent this except to note how important it is to consider all of the associated information, and present its context. You'll never control how the information is processed by each receiving party, and nor should you. It's good to have this information—it's good to let people know that there is always the potential for something similar, or worse, to arise. Similar to knowing your entire house might be wiped out [by a major storm] someday if you move to Florida—which wouldn't surprise anyone anymore. Repeated dispersal of the information will help prevent rampant hysteria... once a semblance of understanding and context is normalized.

sleepydog 6y ago

Are there any news sources that aren't quite so breathless? I'm not talking about left/right biases, there's a general tendency for all news outlets to report stories that highlight negative aspects and generally choose words that induce anger in one group or another (think of the over-use of words like "slam").