3 ms·

In just saying it’s not a good editorial decision to include excess data in an mainstream news article. If a more specialized publication wants to offer a more

In just saying it’s not a good editorial decision to include excess data in an mainstream news article. If a more specialized publication wants to offer a more explanatory story, fine. But I don’t think that’s what people are looking for from a regular newspapers. Knowing a vaccine is considered by experts to be effective is sufficient. The exact rates of reinfection aren’t important and can be confusing.

int_19h 5y ago
In a free media market, editorial decisions are made based on audience engagement. If the readers are more likely to read the article with more numbers (and thus see the ads in it), that's what will be published.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  In a free market, editorial decisions are made based on advertising revenue. That’s not always a good thing. Simply because something is factually true and increases audience engagement doesn’t mean it’s relevant or responsible to include. For example, COVID had a fatality rate of 2%. That’s a fact. It also will increase engagement amount certain media markets. But that’s also very misleading. 2% of the world is 140 million people. The fact that it’s piece of “true data” that increases audience engagement doesn’t mean it belongs in mainstream articles.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I just don't see what you can do about it within a capitalist framework without some kind of centralized censorship - which is even worse in the long run.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      I don’t think misleading data increases user engagement that much. And editors usually do a pretty good job not naming victims of sexual assault, reporting in suicides, etc. Most editors want to maintain high standards, and that means excluding irrelevant data.
  - manwe150 5y ago
    Isn’t that 2% of CFR (particularly also hospitalizations), not IFR? Still many people (and thus is the reason that historically regions of the US, dating back to George Washington, mandated some vaccines), just not the whole world.
effie 5y ago
> Knowing a vaccine is considered by experts to be effective is sufficient. The exact rates of reinfection aren’t important and can be confusing. Sufficient to whom? Experts often disagree and if they disagree, I want to know where and why and what the data is. Just because I am not expert on the topic does not mean I can't make judgements on incomplete information. You are seriously underestimating people that may want to read mainstream sources, as if they need to be told what to think. True, MSM unfortunately regularly does that instead of impartial reporting, but how could anyone be a proponent that all MSM articles being like this is desirable for informed society. The increased focus on narrative pushing from MSM is the source of distrust in MSM and the reason why people turn to alternative sources.

int_19h 5y ago

In a free media market, editorial decisions are made based on audience engagement. If the readers are more likely to read the article with more numbers (and thus see the ads in it), that's what will be published.

pyuser583 5y ago
In a free market, editorial decisions are made based on advertising revenue. That’s not always a good thing. Simply because something is factually true and increases audience engagement doesn’t mean it’s relevant or responsible to include. For example, COVID had a fatality rate of 2%. That’s a fact. It also will increase engagement amount certain media markets. But that’s also very misleading. 2% of the world is 140 million people. The fact that it’s piece of “true data” that increases audience engagement doesn’t mean it belongs in mainstream articles.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I just don't see what you can do about it within a capitalist framework without some kind of centralized censorship - which is even worse in the long run.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    I don’t think misleading data increases user engagement that much. And editors usually do a pretty good job not naming victims of sexual assault, reporting in suicides, etc. Most editors want to maintain high standards, and that means excluding irrelevant data.
- manwe150 5y ago
  Isn’t that 2% of CFR (particularly also hospitalizations), not IFR? Still many people (and thus is the reason that historically regions of the US, dating back to George Washington, mandated some vaccines), just not the whole world.

effie 5y ago

> Knowing a vaccine is considered by experts to be effective is sufficient. The exact rates of reinfection aren’t important and can be confusing. Sufficient to whom? Experts often disagree and if they disagree, I want to know where and why and what the data is. Just because I am not expert on the topic does not mean I can't make judgements on incomplete information. You are seriously underestimating people that may want to read mainstream sources, as if they need to be told what to think. True, MSM unfortunately regularly does that instead of impartial reporting, but how could anyone be a proponent that all MSM articles being like this is desirable for informed society. The increased focus on narrative pushing from MSM is the source of distrust in MSM and the reason why people turn to alternative sources.