-
33 votes
-
The opaque industry secretly inflating prices for prescription drugs
18 votes -
A celebrated surgeon, a trail of secrets and death
5 votes -
The NYT's partisan tale about COVID and the unvaccinated is rife with sloppy data analysis
2 votes -
Anti-vaccine protesters storm BBC HQ – years after it moved out
14 votes -
How major media outlets screwed up the vaccine 'breakthrough' story
12 votes -
Hiding COVID-19: How Trump Administration guidance suppresses photography of the pandemic
6 votes -
How to interpret news about vaccine trials
5 votes -
A spectacularly bad Washington Post story on Apple and Google’s exposure notification project
3 votes -
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has criticized the Financial Times and The New York Times after they reported that Russia’s coronavirus death toll could be much higher than government officials are saying
9 votes -
Your thoughts regarding the media coverage?
I skim-read multiple news aggregators daily, and for weeks now, every single day, 75% or more of the news is specifically about Covid-19. By comparison, it is worth reminding younger readers that...
I skim-read multiple news aggregators daily, and for weeks now, every single day, 75% or more of the news is specifically about Covid-19.
By comparison, it is worth reminding younger readers that we didn't even know about the Spanish Flu until ~30 years ago. During WWI, we (humans) suffered the deadliest pandemic of the modern era, and it took 60-70 years before anyone even noticed.
If you didn't grow up before the Spanish Flu became common knowledge, that may be a hard thing to grasp ... but during the late-80s and into the '90s, there was this slow, years-long trickle of news from medical researchers, historians and (FFS) archeologists (?!!?) about how there might actually have been a massive global pandemic during WWI that no one knew about.
Today in Wikipedia, there is just one little tidbit about how various things like (intentional) under-reporting and co-mingling of flu deaths with war casualties, led to it being nicknamed "the forgotten pandemic" ... which doesn't really capture that sense of "Holy Fuck"-ness when you discover that up to 100 million people died of the flu one year, and no one even noticed.
Okay ... at any rate .... you get my point. In 1919, the news intentionally under-reported it worldwide (except in Spain ... hence the name), in part to help prevent panic.
Today, the news media coverage is just incredible. Nothing on Earth happens any more, except Covid-19. A few thousand people die (I'm sorry, but yeah, more people die in car accidents), and the Media loses its mind.
OTOH, honestly, it's mostly been pretty good, accurate, up-to-the-second coverage (as best I can tell), really driving home the message of "we know it sounds lame, but wash your hands, dammit ... a lot", and etc.
So ... thoughts? This constant in-your-face media coverage ... good or bad? How much is media causing the panic vs just reporting on it?
17 votes -
I’m not under quarantine, am I? A journalist in Milan argues that much of the international press is exaggerating the level of restrictions in Italy
6 votes -
Inside the drug industry’s plan to defeat the DEA
5 votes -
The mental health zine giving the power back to patients
5 votes -
Dialysis firm cancels $524,600.17 medical bill after journalists investigate
10 votes -
Media frame: Fentanyl panic is worsening the overdose crisis
5 votes -
The fake sex doctor who conned the media into publicizing his bizarre research on suicide, butt-fisting, and bestiality
14 votes -
This business helped transform Miami into a national plastic surgery destination. Eight women died.
6 votes -
Why you should be skeptical of the latest nutrition headlines
11 votes -
The incredibly frustrating reason there’s no Lyme disease vaccine
6 votes