🧵: An unfortunately terrible example of COVID reporting in The New York Times, in which they give practically unhindered voice to a preprint paper by a controversial scientist who's being exploited by the it's-just-flu denialists, Fox News, Coulter... 1/
nytimes.com/2020/04/21/hea…
nytimes.com/2020/04/21/hea…
Preprint site's caveat: "Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information." 2/
Scientists I spoke with say there needs to be a rule: Any reporting on a preprint (not peer-reviewed) paper should include quotes from at least 2-3 scientists--other than its author--to react to it. They are easy to find on Twitter as I'll show next. buzzmachine.com/2020/04/08/cov… 3/
Within ONE DAY after the paper in the Times was released, leading scientists posted thoughtful, troubling challenges, none quoted in The Times.
+
+
+
+
4/
+
+
+
+
4/
Second rule: Use Google. Search a controversial source's history to see the threads in his work and reaction to them. 5/
In March, the same scientist wrote another controversial paper used by the it's-not-that-bad denialists to try to delay shutdowns. Here is just one of many takedowns from the experts, this from probably our most respected epidemiologist, @mlipsitch:
statnews.com/2020/03/18/we-…
6/
statnews.com/2020/03/18/we-…
6/
Third rule: Give context. Imagine how controversial results might be used in this highly politicized time. This scientist is being used to say that COVID-19 isn't so bad, that it has already spread, that it's just flu--thus surely Trump isn't so bad, and we should open up. 7/
I'm not saying that the scientist in question is a conspirator. He is a Stanford professor. What I am saying is that he is being used by the conspirators. They are exploiting his controversy to sow doubt. 8/
Fourth rule: Do a Twitter search to see how the controversial scientist's views are being politicized. Also note that the scientist is appearing on Fox News. I'll BET this paper will end up quoted by Trump, just like a certain much-criticized hydroxychloroquine paper. 9/
Here's Anne Coulter using the scientist.
What does that tell a reporter? 10/
What does that tell a reporter? 10/
Fifth rule: Stop treating the latest word as the last word. In any story on research, make clear that science is a process, an ongoing debate using data. Presenting preliminary research w/out the context of other research & reaction is irresponsible and these days dangerous. 11/
Mind you, I'm *not* a science journalist. I'm a guy who quotes @steak_umm admiringly. I'm just stating the obvious here. And here's what I said yesterday about how to adapt to an open information ecosystem in this crisis:
medium.com/whither-news/t… 12/
medium.com/whither-news/t… 12/
I do not understand--I am disappointed in--the Times' judgment. It acts as if it does not know its own power. When it gave op-ed space to an armchair epidemiologist who also said this ain't so bad, that became Trump cant. Bad editing is perilous.
medium.com/whither-news/t…
13/
medium.com/whither-news/t…
13/
Now I fear this latest story will be used by the forces that want to end the shutdown and get us all back to work. Lives will be lost. Journalism must be accountable for its impact. It cannot still say: Oh, we just report; you decide. 14/
Journalists must understand the dynamics of propaganda and how they are being used and exploited by forces with dangerous agendas to amplify half-facts and conspiracy theories. Again, we must recognize the open information ecosystem we now work in and adapt accordingly. 15/
If I'd assigned this story at all, I'd have wanted reporting on the impact of the politicization of epidemiology, how forces are exploiting incomplete information for political ends, such as ending the lockdown prematurely & defending Trump. 16/
I'd also have wanted the reporter to explain epidemiological modeling, because misunderstanding of predictive modeling is also being used by the forces of idiocy and danger. See:
17/
17/
Instead, the Times merely said: Oh, look, here's a paper that says something that might be a little controversial but we won't explain that to you because we don't want to take sides. We're journalists. We just report. 18/
The pity is, of course, that The Times has some of our finest journalists. Days before was an example of sterling reporting that took the time to add the context and explanation needed by Donald McNeil:
nytimes.com/2020/04/18/hea…
19/
nytimes.com/2020/04/18/hea…
19/
I was going to worry about other papers' coverage but then I went to @mercnews and found a very good report that offers the context and depth The Times does not by @lisamkrieger:
mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feu… 20/
mercurynews.com/2020/04/20/feu… 20/
I think this is the end of my rant. I could be wrong. 21/
