3 ms·

The evidence of the past year or two suggests otherwise. For the first few months of 2020, media outlets were constantly downplaying the threat of pandemic. Th

The evidence of the past year or two suggests otherwise. For the first few months of 2020, media outlets were constantly downplaying the threat of pandemic. They consistently under-reported the risk. "Should we be worried? No! The threat is remote!" What also sells papers (or attracts eyeballs) is giving people an impression of superiority: "look at all those ridiculous other people panicking!" There's also the generation of anger: "you're being lied to! It's all a hoax / other people are trying to manipulate you by making you scared!" Another angle is making people feel good: "everything is fine, don't worry about anything!"

lb0 5y ago
I agree, its strange the different bubbles we live in, but none of my news sources didn't have the "Omicron likely weaker" headline?!
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  Mine had. Not less than 24hours before the story emerged. Which result in 2 things: loss of trust in public authorities public faces ("omicron is a christmas gift !") and loss of trust in the scientific public faces ("omicron may be milder").
flavius29663 5y ago
I think it's more of "all of the above". Anything and everything that creates engagement will be published and spread out.
BoxOfRain 5y ago
>For the first few months of 2020, media outlets were constantly downplaying the threat of pandemic. They consistently under-reported the risk. "Should we be worried? No! The threat is remote!" This hasn't been my experience, in fact the British government's SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) was advising the government to lean on the press in order to increase 'the perceived level of personal threat' early in the pandemic[1]. I really do think the use of behavioural psychology to encourage compliance with government policy is one of the lesser-discussed aspects of the pandemic that future historians will correctly give more importance to than we did at the time. In all honesty this isn't so much a criticism of how the British government acted during the pandemic but how it acts in general. This institutional bent towards the manipulative is partially what led us into the unmitigated disaster that is the War on Terror in my opinion, consent for which largely stemmed from a state of fear among the general public made worse by poor journalistic norms. >Another angle is making people feel good: "everything is fine, don't worry about anything!" I've not seen a single bit of serious journalism along those lines, it's either been 'COVID is going to kill us all and it's the plaguebearing hordes of the unvaccinated who are to blame' or 'The government is turning totalitarian and it's the fault of out-of-touch bureaucrats that need to be removed' (the article I linked is very much a member of that species). I've come across very little in the way of sober analysis, almost every piece of journalism I've come across on the topic carries some kind of moral judgement against $group in it. The point I'm making is that moral judgement sells and feels good to dole out to people you don't like, but it also robs us of a little humanity every time we do it. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit...
- Heliosmaster 5y ago
  I think GP is referring to earlier than that: when Covid was in China and was starting to blow up in Italy
  - crummy 5y ago
    Like this: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fears-contagion-how-infection-spreads https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fe...
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      But at the time the risk was still small, because the virus was mostly not in the US yet. Article doesn't say the risk will remain small in the future, does it?
    - ctoth 5y ago
      Oh man remember this? If they’re used correctly, P95 and P100 face masks can reduce the likelihood of being exposed to coronavirus by blocking contaminated air particles. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises against people in the US using face masks because most people who aren’t trained medical professionals may not know how to fit them properly, and the risk of exposure in the US is so low to begin with.

lb0 5y ago

I agree, its strange the different bubbles we live in, but none of my news sources didn't have the "Omicron likely weaker" headline?!

johnchristopher 5y ago
Mine had. Not less than 24hours before the story emerged. Which result in 2 things: loss of trust in public authorities public faces ("omicron is a christmas gift !") and loss of trust in the scientific public faces ("omicron may be milder").

flavius29663 5y ago

I think it's more of "all of the above". Anything and everything that creates engagement will be published and spread out.

BoxOfRain 5y ago

>For the first few months of 2020, media outlets were constantly downplaying the threat of pandemic. They consistently under-reported the risk. "Should we be worried? No! The threat is remote!" This hasn't been my experience, in fact the British government's SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) was advising the government to lean on the press in order to increase 'the perceived level of personal threat' early in the pandemic[1]. I really do think the use of behavioural psychology to encourage compliance with government policy is one of the lesser-discussed aspects of the pandemic that future historians will correctly give more importance to than we did at the time. In all honesty this isn't so much a criticism of how the British government acted during the pandemic but how it acts in general. This institutional bent towards the manipulative is partially what led us into the unmitigated disaster that is the War on Terror in my opinion, consent for which largely stemmed from a state of fear among the general public made worse by poor journalistic norms. >Another angle is making people feel good: "everything is fine, don't worry about anything!" I've not seen a single bit of serious journalism along those lines, it's either been 'COVID is going to kill us all and it's the plaguebearing hordes of the unvaccinated who are to blame' or 'The government is turning totalitarian and it's the fault of out-of-touch bureaucrats that need to be removed' (the article I linked is very much a member of that species). I've come across very little in the way of sober analysis, almost every piece of journalism I've come across on the topic carries some kind of moral judgement against $group in it. The point I'm making is that moral judgement sells and feels good to dole out to people you don't like, but it also robs us of a little humanity every time we do it. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit...

Heliosmaster 5y ago
I think GP is referring to earlier than that: when Covid was in China and was starting to blow up in Italy
- crummy 5y ago
  Like this: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fears-contagion-how-infection-spreads https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fe...
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    But at the time the risk was still small, because the virus was mostly not in the US yet. Article doesn't say the risk will remain small in the future, does it?
  - ctoth 5y ago
    Oh man remember this? If they’re used correctly, P95 and P100 face masks can reduce the likelihood of being exposed to coronavirus by blocking contaminated air particles. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises against people in the US using face masks because most people who aren’t trained medical professionals may not know how to fit them properly, and the risk of exposure in the US is so low to begin with.