4 ms·

Reuters is just reporting an event. Nobody goes to the front page of Reuters to see what stories are important. It’s aggregators like… hacker news… that are fan

Reuters is just reporting an event. Nobody goes to the front page of Reuters to see what stories are important. It’s aggregators like… hacker news… that are fanning the flames.

PraetorianGourd 5y ago
Reuters used to represent a “just the facts” news wire. But now it just isn’t. Yes this is an event in the same way that someone relapsing in cancer is an event. It alone is pointless and does not a trend make.
- bmarquez 5y ago
  > Reuters used to represent a "just the facts" news wire. After reading the article I'm still not seeing the problem. The sentences in the article are factual information, there is no obvious editorial bias like a CNN or Fox article, and there is nothing telling you how to feel (e.g. "You should be afraid" NYT title). Reuters still seems pretty good compared to what's available out there.
  - PraetorianGourd 5y ago
    Publishing the story is itself an editorial decision.
    - nathanaldensr 5y ago
      Are you asking for self-censorship of facts?
      - trobertson 5y ago
        From the GP: > Two people having breakthrough infections for any variant is not at all unlikely The point is that this fact isn't newsworthy... unless Reuters is running an agenda. This article is blatant fearmongering.
        smoldesu 5y ago
        News is a two way street. People want to stay informed about Coronavirus, Reuters is happy to run stories on the topic. They've probably got a few editors focused on the topic, and maybe today was what you might call a "slow news day" in the industry. You can't stand in front of the firehose and complain about being wet though.
        PraetorianGourd 5y ago
        I most certainly can when the person operating the firehose does so under the guise of professional standards where they claim to only use their granted powers to inform, not to convince or persuade. Reuters isn’t like CNN or Fox who hide their prime time talking heads behind some technicality of “entertainment vs news”. Reuters claims to be news, full stop. If they live by that sword they better be prepared to be judged by that sword
        native_samples 5y ago
        Of course it's news. Governments are massively ramping up booster programmes specifically because of Omicron, and here are two doctors at the very same hospital who had it despite having had three shots. Note these are not "two random doctors separated in time by a large amount", they're two doctors who work together. Conclusion: booster shots do not stop people getting it or getting infected. People flagging this thread are in denial. This is an event of direct relevance to the justification for government policies affecting billions of people, that's why Reuters considers it newsworthy.
        seba_dos1 5y ago
        > Conclusion: booster shots do not stop people getting it or getting infected. ...and that's a non-news. We know that, we didn't expect anything else for a long time now since it's also true for other variants. Booster policies were made with that information already taken into account.
        native_samples 5y ago
      - dwaltrip 5y ago
        You want to hear all of the facts? Well, sit down and get comfy, we are going to be here for a while…
raxxorrax 5y ago
Journalists should strive for neutrality (good ones try to despite what boulevard tells you, they are on a completely different mission) even if they can never reach it. A case where neutrality fails often is deciding what is newsworthy and what is not. That said, I don't see that as egregious and of interest because the effectiveness of the vaccine against this mutation is as well. It does not provide answers and the focus on the researchers is questionable, but I don't really see it as a problem or fear mongering.

Reuters is just reporting an event. Nobody goes to the front page of Reuters to see what stories are important. It’s aggregators like… hacker news… that are fanning the flames.

PraetorianGourd 5y ago

Reuters used to represent a “just the facts” news wire. But now it just isn’t. Yes this is an event in the same way that someone relapsing in cancer is an event. It alone is pointless and does not a trend make.

bmarquez 5y ago
> Reuters used to represent a "just the facts" news wire. After reading the article I'm still not seeing the problem. The sentences in the article are factual information, there is no obvious editorial bias like a CNN or Fox article, and there is nothing telling you how to feel (e.g. "You should be afraid" NYT title). Reuters still seems pretty good compared to what's available out there.
- PraetorianGourd 5y ago
  Publishing the story is itself an editorial decision.
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    Are you asking for self-censorship of facts?
    - trobertson 5y ago
      From the GP: > Two people having breakthrough infections for any variant is not at all unlikely The point is that this fact isn't newsworthy... unless Reuters is running an agenda. This article is blatant fearmongering.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        News is a two way street. People want to stay informed about Coronavirus, Reuters is happy to run stories on the topic. They've probably got a few editors focused on the topic, and maybe today was what you might call a "slow news day" in the industry. You can't stand in front of the firehose and complain about being wet though.
        PraetorianGourd 5y ago
        I most certainly can when the person operating the firehose does so under the guise of professional standards where they claim to only use their granted powers to inform, not to convince or persuade. Reuters isn’t like CNN or Fox who hide their prime time talking heads behind some technicality of “entertainment vs news”. Reuters claims to be news, full stop. If they live by that sword they better be prepared to be judged by that sword
      - native_samples 5y ago
        Of course it's news. Governments are massively ramping up booster programmes specifically because of Omicron, and here are two doctors at the very same hospital who had it despite having had three shots. Note these are not "two random doctors separated in time by a large amount", they're two doctors who work together. Conclusion: booster shots do not stop people getting it or getting infected. People flagging this thread are in denial. This is an event of direct relevance to the justification for government policies affecting billions of people, that's why Reuters considers it newsworthy.
        seba_dos1 5y ago
        > Conclusion: booster shots do not stop people getting it or getting infected. ...and that's a non-news. We know that, we didn't expect anything else for a long time now since it's also true for other variants. Booster policies were made with that information already taken into account.
        native_samples 5y ago
    - dwaltrip 5y ago
      You want to hear all of the facts? Well, sit down and get comfy, we are going to be here for a while…

raxxorrax 5y ago

Journalists should strive for neutrality (good ones try to despite what boulevard tells you, they are on a completely different mission) even if they can never reach it. A case where neutrality fails often is deciding what is newsworthy and what is not. That said, I don't see that as egregious and of interest because the effectiveness of the vaccine against this mutation is as well. It does not provide answers and the focus on the researchers is questionable, but I don't really see it as a problem or fear mongering.