One thing I have called for repeatedly this year is for newspapers to think more about 'cause and effect'. Meaning if you report something in one way, what bad effects might that cause?
[thread]
[thread]
One example is the R number used to identify whether infections are rising or not.
For instance, here is the UK: gov.uk/guidance/the-r…
What we report is this:
R > 1: The situation is getting worse
R = 1: The situation is stable
R < 1: The situation is getting better
For instance, here is the UK: gov.uk/guidance/the-r…
What we report is this:
R > 1: The situation is getting worse
R = 1: The situation is stable
R < 1: The situation is getting better
What's wrong with this, you ask? Well, the problem is when R = 1.
This is the situation we currently have here in Denmark. After a period of massive increase (R > 1), we have now ended up with a similar level of new infections per day.
But look at where that is.
This is the situation we currently have here in Denmark. After a period of massive increase (R > 1), we have now ended up with a similar level of new infections per day.
But look at where that is.
So, the situation is not stable. It's at a seriously high level, and it's staying there. And it's causing massive problems for our society.
We should do everything we can to get down from this level. So reporting that things are stable is totally misleading.
We should do everything we can to get down from this level. So reporting that things are stable is totally misleading.
So think about a news story like this one:
It's not a bad story, but it creates the entirely wrong behavior.
It's not a bad story, but it creates the entirely wrong behavior.
What I mean is, as a newspaper, you know that how you report this influences how the public behaves, and yet, you go out, and you tell people that "The epidemic is now stable".
Meaning, people think: "Oh, okay, so I don't have to worry anymore."
Meaning, people think: "Oh, okay, so I don't have to worry anymore."
This is exactly what caused us to have this problem in the first place. Here in Denmark, we have had many periods of R = 1 (or very close to it), and every time, the virus came back because people thought this meant they didn't have to be careful anymore.
So as a journalist, think about what behavior you are creating. Reporting that R = stable is factually true. But the *behavior* you are creating is the opposite, leading to an increase in the virus because people stop acting the right way.
The other problem with this is that it also creates a sense of 'normal'. When you report that 'the epidemic is stable', you are implying that this is something we should accept and that the current level of spread is acceptable.
It's not. Nothing is stable at the moment.
It's not. Nothing is stable at the moment.
The way we report things have a huge influence, and it's because of how we report about this that the virus has now come back the way it has.
Things are not stable until we bring the virus down to isolated and manageable pockets. In Europe, we never reached this point.
Things are not stable until we bring the virus down to isolated and manageable pockets. In Europe, we never reached this point.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
