https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fh603p/how_the_new_york_times_stoked_covid_alarmism/
A Bias for Panic
How the New York Times stoked Covid alarmism
/ Eye on the News / Health Care
Sep 10 2024
/ Share
A 2018 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans believe the media
is biased. Did such bias affect coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic? I run
a research team in the department of epidemiology at the University of >California�San Francisco. In our report, the first to analyze a
newspaper systematically, we found significant evidence of bias in the
New York Times, considered by some to be the newspaper of record, on
pandemic coverage�skewed toward overstating the threat posed by the virus.
Our study examined all corrections issued by the New York Times to
articles relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. Between 2020 and 2024, the >newspaper issued 576 corrections for 486 articles. Naturally, in times
of crisis, facing uncertain and evolving information, reporters will get >facts wrong. Sometimes they may, for instance, over- or underreport the >number of children who have died or misstate the effectiveness of >interventions like lockdowns. If news organizations are unbiased, one
would expect such errors to occur with relatively equal frequency.
That�s not what we found. Instead, the paper�s errors tended to
exaggerate the harm of the virus (or the effectiveness of
interventions). Corrections were made for such errors nearly twice as >frequently as for errors that downplayed harms. Fifty-five percent of
errors overstated the harm of the virus, while only 24 percent
understated (the rest were equivocal). In other words, when the New York >Times got things wrong, it tended to do so in a way that falsely stoked
fear and encouraged harmful social restrictions.
In October 2021, a particularly notable correction read as
follows�inviting questions as to how such a remarkable mistake could
make it into print at all:
An article on Thursday . . . misstated the number of Covid
hospitalizations in U.S. children. It is more than 63,000 from August
2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic.
Glad they could straighten that out.
Not all reporters were equally culpable; some required more corrections
than others. One in particular, Apoorva Mandavilli, was responsible for
7 percent of all corrections. When the �science and global health
reporter� erred, she tended to exaggerate the risk of the virus:
This same reporter is known for inserting her feelings into her content.
In 2021, she tweeted the following: �Someday we will stop talking about
the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas,
that day is not yet here.� To my knowledge, the New York Times has not >reassigned any reporter on the Covid-19 beat for getting things
wrong�even when those errors appear to be byproducts of the author�s >underlying prejudice.
Over the last few years, the newspaper has faced more scrutiny of its >ideologically skewed coverage. Opinion editor James Bennet, dismissed
for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton in the summer of 2020,
wrote a lengthy article in the Economist documenting how progressive
ideology has captured the newsroom. Don McNeil was dismissed as chief
science reporter for comments he had made years before. McNeil, it's
worth noting, was open to the possibility of the lab-leak theory, having >published essays that reignited mainstream interest in the subject�in >contrast with his successor, Mandavilli.
In any event, the newspaper�s distortions are skewed in the same
direction as its political bias. When it came to Covid-19, Republicans
tended to be more skeptical of sweeping governmental and public-health >interventions like lockdowns, masking young children, and closing
schools, and more concerned about their negative consequences. Florida >governor Ron DeSantis reopened his state�s schools in the spring of
2020, against the advice of experts like Anthony Fauci, and opposed
masking kids. Democrats, meantime, came to embrace stronger government >policies, such as vaccine mandates. The Biden administration enforced
the masking of toddlers in Head Start programs. The New York Times�s
tilt on these matters appeared consistent with its traditional political >sympathies.
It should concern all of us that legacy media displayed such a strong
bias during an unprecedented pandemic. Perhaps our research can prompt
an internal audit at the Times to assess the paper�s role in
intensifying fear and legitimizing harmful social policies. At a
minimum, newspapers should implement more substantive checks and
balances to ensure more balanced coverage�and avoid unduly promoting
panic the next time a crisis strikes.
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fh603p/how_the_new_york_times_stoked_covid_alarmism/
A Bias for Panic
How the New York Times stoked Covid alarmism
/ Eye on the News / Health Care
Sep 10 2024
/ Share
A 2018 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans believe the media
is biased. Did such bias affect coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic? I run
a research team in the department of epidemiology at the University of
California–San Francisco. In our report, the first to analyze a
newspaper systematically, we found significant evidence of bias in the
New York Times, considered by some to be the newspaper of record, on
pandemic coverage—skewed toward overstating the threat posed by the virus. >>
Our study examined all corrections issued by the New York Times to
articles relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. Between 2020 and 2024, the
newspaper issued 576 corrections for 486 articles. Naturally, in times
of crisis, facing uncertain and evolving information, reporters will get
facts wrong. Sometimes they may, for instance, over- or underreport the
number of children who have died or misstate the effectiveness of
interventions like lockdowns. If news organizations are unbiased, one
would expect such errors to occur with relatively equal frequency.
That’s not what we found. Instead, the paper’s errors tended to
exaggerate the harm of the virus (or the effectiveness of
interventions). Corrections were made for such errors nearly twice as
frequently as for errors that downplayed harms. Fifty-five percent of
errors overstated the harm of the virus, while only 24 percent
understated (the rest were equivocal). In other words, when the New York
Times got things wrong, it tended to do so in a way that falsely stoked
fear and encouraged harmful social restrictions.
In October 2021, a particularly notable correction read as
follows—inviting questions as to how such a remarkable mistake could
make it into print at all:
An article on Thursday . . . misstated the number of Covid
hospitalizations in U.S. children. It is more than 63,000 from August
2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic.
Glad they could straighten that out.
Not all reporters were equally culpable; some required more corrections
than others. One in particular, Apoorva Mandavilli, was responsible for
7 percent of all corrections. When the “science and global health
reporter” erred, she tended to exaggerate the risk of the virus:
This same reporter is known for inserting her feelings into her content.
In 2021, she tweeted the following: “Someday we will stop talking about
the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas,
that day is not yet here.” To my knowledge, the New York Times has not
reassigned any reporter on the Covid-19 beat for getting things
wrong—even when those errors appear to be byproducts of the author’s
underlying prejudice.
Over the last few years, the newspaper has faced more scrutiny of its
ideologically skewed coverage. Opinion editor James Bennet, dismissed
for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton in the summer of 2020,
wrote a lengthy article in the Economist documenting how progressive
ideology has captured the newsroom. Don McNeil was dismissed as chief
science reporter for comments he had made years before. McNeil, it's
worth noting, was open to the possibility of the lab-leak theory, having
published essays that reignited mainstream interest in the subject—in
contrast with his successor, Mandavilli.
In any event, the newspaper’s distortions are skewed in the same
direction as its political bias. When it came to Covid-19, Republicans
tended to be more skeptical of sweeping governmental and public-health
interventions like lockdowns, masking young children, and closing
schools, and more concerned about their negative consequences. Florida
governor Ron DeSantis reopened his state’s schools in the spring of
2020, against the advice of experts like Anthony Fauci, and opposed
masking kids. Democrats, meantime, came to embrace stronger government
policies, such as vaccine mandates. The Biden administration enforced
the masking of toddlers in Head Start programs. The New York Times’s
tilt on these matters appeared consistent with its traditional political
sympathies.
It should concern all of us that legacy media displayed such a strong
bias during an unprecedented pandemic. Perhaps our research can prompt
an internal audit at the Times to assess the paper’s role in
intensifying fear and legitimizing harmful social policies. At a
minimum, newspapers should implement more substantive checks and
balances to ensure more balanced coverage—and avoid unduly promoting
panic the next time a crisis strikes.
In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<FLUSH GOOK BABBLE>
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 14:48:40 -0400, HeartDoc Andrew
<[email protected]> wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<FLUSH GOOK BABBLE>
Did you 'greek' him like you did that poor girl?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hungry-doctor-diet-kill-georgia-teenager/story?id=16661077
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJLojgoZwsw
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 09:59:38 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,972 |