Let me get this straight—so the @WSJ encourages its employees to work from home—but publishes COVID-is-over pieces telling you it’s safe to goto work & send kids without masks, ventilation or HEPA filters. Got it.
The irony is rich—and dangerous. #CovidIsNotOver
The irony is rich—and dangerous. #CovidIsNotOver
https://twitter.com/katie_robertson/status/1496157554199646209
To be fair, WSJ does publish a few good pieces on COVID risk. But the @WSJopinion section tends to publish more much “COVID is not a big deal” pieces by 10:1 ratio or more. wsj.com/articles/one-m…
Also @WSJopinion is still WSJ dot com website & carries weight of WSJ editors who commission them and approve them. To the lay public they are one and the same just like how prime time Fox News pundits = Fox News. Plus, sources that WSJ reporters quote also define a story angle.
Also the WSJ and Guardian both covered the 1 mil excess deaths. But I argue the Guardian’s coverage is much better. Small things make a difference.
https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1495021668112154630
P.s. if @WSJopinion is separate of WSJ News—Why not move WSJ opinion to a diff domain? By putting both together on WSJ dot com it conflates them together. The cross promoting of articles in sidebar and footers also very confusing to lay readers — and reveals the synergy of both.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
