Seems to be sloppy reporting - taking scientific recommendations out of context - and then sensationalizing it. How is this different from the age-old phenomenon "yellow journalism"?
I think the difference is in the volume and frequency of these outraged articles. Previously there were only daily or 2x daily print + TV, now they're multiple times a day, 24/7.
Far too much journalism today is just that kind of "sharpshooting" that takes a cheap, often poorly researched shot at a topic to provoke a reaction from what is thought to be a "like-minded" audience. Note to NYT: quit thinking I'm so damned like-minded!
A large part of what I'm noticing, maybe due to maturity, maybe due to circumstance - are readers forgetting how to critically judge their resources? Were they ever taught in the first place?
But then there's also an argument to what extent do we consider journalists members of the public who have the readers' best interests at heart. Does moral journalism have an obligation to ensure they know, validate, and report without sensationalist bias? I would assume so...but making more of an effort to look at international news sources, and critically analyze my home news sources, shows otherwise.
Is there any chance you'd be interested in re-upping this discussion shortly? It's so important and yet I can't seem to engage with questions of vaccines, much as they affect my life pretty directly right now. Wondering if other subscribers feel the same and would like another chance to think about this.
Seems to be sloppy reporting - taking scientific recommendations out of context - and then sensationalizing it. How is this different from the age-old phenomenon "yellow journalism"?
I think the difference is in the volume and frequency of these outraged articles. Previously there were only daily or 2x daily print + TV, now they're multiple times a day, 24/7.
Far too much journalism today is just that kind of "sharpshooting" that takes a cheap, often poorly researched shot at a topic to provoke a reaction from what is thought to be a "like-minded" audience. Note to NYT: quit thinking I'm so damned like-minded!
I am not enjoying my first coup.
Not fun at all.
Ditto
A large part of what I'm noticing, maybe due to maturity, maybe due to circumstance - are readers forgetting how to critically judge their resources? Were they ever taught in the first place?
But then there's also an argument to what extent do we consider journalists members of the public who have the readers' best interests at heart. Does moral journalism have an obligation to ensure they know, validate, and report without sensationalist bias? I would assume so...but making more of an effort to look at international news sources, and critically analyze my home news sources, shows otherwise.
Is there any chance you'd be interested in re-upping this discussion shortly? It's so important and yet I can't seem to engage with questions of vaccines, much as they affect my life pretty directly right now. Wondering if other subscribers feel the same and would like another chance to think about this.
Yeah, absolutely. Will circle back to this! In the same place myself.
And thank you for all you do! Hope you're taking care of yourself (hope everyone is able to take care of themselves).
General covid measures: ambient humidity 40-60% as much as possible, BMI less than 30 and definitely less than 40
I guess this is what we miggt call a sliw news day...
I know, right?