Health
Study: U.S. Media’s Covid Coverage Slants Heavily Negative
Those who’ve been led to an exaggerated perception of their personal risk are more prone to support strict government policies to counter the virus.
If you’ve felt the media has heavily emphasized bad news throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, your judgment now has some scholarly corroboration.
Dartmouth College and Brown University researchers have analyzed tens of thousands of Covid-19 articles and found major U.S. media outlets have overwhelmingly pushed negative narratives about the virus.
“The most striking fact is that 87 percent of the U.S. stories are classified as negative, whereas 51 percent of the non-U.S. stories are classified as negative,” according to the study by Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth’s Ranjan Sehgal and Brown University’s Molly Cook.
Thwarting Public Clarity About Covid-19
Though the study doesn’t delve deep into the societal implications, there’s little doubt excessive media negativity has contributed to public misunderstanding of the nature of the disease and the risk it poses to various segments of society.
Consider one of study’s most glaring findings: Even when Covid-19 cases were falling nationally between April 24 and June 27, major media discussed rising caseloads 5.3 times as frequently as falling ones.
The impact was evident: A June CBS News poll found a record number of Americans felt the fight against coronavirus was going badly. Of course, news of the poll was itself another negative story, feeding a media-facilitated vicious circle of fear.
In July, a Franklin Templeton-Gallup poll found Americans had a poor understanding of the risk of Covid-19 death for different age cohorts:
- Participants said people aged 55+ accounted for a little over half of the deaths, when the actual share was 92%.
- Those under age 25 accounted for just 0.2% of deaths—participants overestimated the share by a factor of 50.
The results aren’t surprising, given the media’s compulsion to accentuate rare occasions when teens and twentysomethings fall victim to the virus.
In June, CNN served up a particularly flagrant example of Covid scaremongering: an article titled “Healthy teenager who took precautions died suddenly of Covid-19.”
The many who skimmed the headline received an anecdotal infusion of fearful misinformation. The minority who made it to the tenth paragraph would finally learn that doctors treating the purportedly “healthy” yet visibly obese teen found he had Type 1 diabetes with a blood sugar level 10 times the norm.
Two months earlier, the Centers for Disease Control announced that about 90% of those hospitalized with the virus had one or more underlying conditions. Among the most common were obesity (48%) and diabetes (28%). Rather than using this teen’s grim story to enlighten the public about who is at greatest risk, CNN aggressively pushed a perception that nobody is safe.
The media’s failure to foster understanding of Covid-19 also seems evident in the many people still seen wearing masks while alone outdoors. According to Dr. Muge Cevik, an infectious diseases and virology scientist at the University of St Andrews, “outdoor risk is negligible unless it involves close interaction or you are in a crowded or semi-outdoor environment.”
Perceptions of the Virus Influence Policy Opinions
Overly-negative Covid-19 reporting has implications well beyond individual feelings and practices: Those who’ve been led to an exaggerated perception of their personal risk are more prone to support strict government policies to counter the virus.
A recent Pew Research poll confirms that individuals’ perception of the pandemic heavily influences their opinions about various government interventions.
For example, Pew asked if limiting restaurants to carry-out service has been necessary to counter the virus. Among those who think Covid-19 represents a minor threat to the U.S. population, 21% agreed. Support soared to 66% among those who deem the virus a major threat.
Many are likely opining from a position of ignorance: How many know that a New York contact tracing study attributed less than 2% of Covid-19 case transmission to bars and restaurants?
Negative About Positives
The Dartmouth and Brown researchers found “the negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive developments, including school re-openings and vaccine trials.”
When schools reopen to in-person teaching—a move validated by the experience of European schools—U.S. media has been quick on the scene with a wet blanket: The study found 86% of mainstream media articles about school reopenings are negative.
The easing of government restrictions reliably attracts negative media. Iowa governor Kim Reynolds’s lifting of the state’s mask mandate in early February sparked a wave of negative reporting and opinion pieces, including a Washington Post piece that was actually titled “Welcome to Iowa: a state that doesn’t care if you live or die.”
In September, similar derision was heaped on Florida governor Ron DeSantis when he lifted major statewide restrictions.
However, when neither Florida nor Iowa experienced negative consequences, there was little media reporting of the good news that government restrictions and mandates may not be worthwhile after all.
We see a similar pattern with the media’s never-ending cycle of warning that various holidays and special events will bring a surge in contagion. From Thanksgiving to Christmas to the Super Bowl and spring break, we’re constantly presented headlines stoking fears these occasions will cause major virus spikes.
When predicted surges don’t happen, the media gives little attention to the happy news that their alarms proved false. Instead, they’re apparently hard at work drafting warnings about whatever’s next on the calendar.
It’s as if mainstream journalists feel duty-bound to stoke Covid-19 fear, while paternalistically shielding us from welcome facts that could lead us to “let our guard down.” In doing so, they negligently disregard the collateral harm they do to mental health and our quality of life.
Hope for Greater Media Balance?
The Dartmouth-Brown study on U.S. media negativity prompted The New York Times’ David Leonhardt to call for introspection: “If we’re constantly telling a negative story, we are not giving our audience the most accurate portrait of reality. We are shading it.”
That’s a welcome acknowledgment: Until recently, Leonhardt’s own Times email newsletter has mirrored the negative slant found across U.S. media.
There are hints of a growing balance. For example, in recent weeks, major outlets have finally started acknowledging that Florida’s post-reopening experience conflicts with the media-reinforced notion that shutdowns are an essential strategy.
Concluding his review of the study, Leonhardt expressed gratitude to researchers Sacerdote, Cook and Sehgal for “holding up a mirror to our work and giving us a chance to do better.” Let’s hope his sentiment proves highly contagious.
Health
FDA Committee Members Reviewing Pfizer Vaccine For Children Have Worked For Pfizer, Have Big Pfizer Connections
“The industry defends the attempts to influence committee members as simply efforts to best present their case”
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is holding a virtual meeting Tuesday October 26 to discuss authorizing a Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus vaccine for children between the ages of 5 to 11 years old.
This committee has a lot of sway with the FDA and their findings will be relevant, considering the Biden administration is getting ready to ship vaccines to elementary schools and California has already mandated the vaccine for schoolchildren pending federal authorization.
But the meeting roster shows that numerous members of the committee and temporary voting members have worked for Pfizer or have major connections to Pfizer.
Members include a former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines, a recent Pfizer consultant, a recent Pfizer research grant recipient, a man who mentored a current top Pfizer vaccine executive, a man who runs a center that gives out Pfizer vaccines, the chair of a Pfizer data group, a guy who was proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine, and numerous people who are already on the record supporting Coronavirus vaccines for children. Meanwhile, recent FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb is on Pfizer’s board of directors.
HERE’S THE MEETING ROSTER: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee October 26, 2021 Meeting Draft Roster.
Acting Chair Arnold S. Monto was a paid Pfizer consultant as recently as 2018.
Steven Pergam got the Pfizer vaccine: Building trust in safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines (fredhutch.org)
Committee member Archana Chatterjee worked on a research project related to vaccines for infants between 2018-2020, and the research project was sponsored by Pfizer.
Myron Levine has mentored some U.S. post-doctoral fellows, and one of his proteges happens to be Raphael Simon, the senior director of vaccine research and development at Pfizer.
James Hildreth, temporary voting member, made a financial interest disclosure for this meeting in which he disclosed more than $1.5 million in relevant financial interests, including his work as president of Meharry Medical College, which administers Pfizer Coronavirus vaccines.
Geeta K. Swamy is listed as the chair of the “Independent Data Monitoring Committee for the Pfizer Group B Streptococcus Vaccine Program,” a committee sponsored by Pfizer. Duke University states that “Dr. Swamy serves as a co-investigator for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial.”
Gregg Sylvester previously served as a vice president for Pfizer Vaccines, where he launched Pfizer vaccines including one for children.
Among the meeting’s “temporary voting members,” Ofer Levy, Boston Children’s Hospital, is for the Pfizer vaccine for children, Eric Rubin is pro-vaccine for children, Jay Portnoy supports authorizing Coronavirus vaccines for kids, and Melinda Wharton complained over the summer about how orders for the CDC’s “Vaccines For Children” program dropped.
FDANews stated last December: “FDA advisory committee members in the past have frequently been the target of heavy politicking by industry representatives of whatever drug they were considering for a recommendation at in-person meetings. That process has been somewhat altered by the fact that during COVID-19, meetings are being held virtually. But it’s likely that behind-the-scenes pressuring still goes on. The industry defends the attempts to influence committee members as simply efforts to best present their case.”
Health
FDA Panel Backs Pfizer Shot For Kids: “We’re Never Going to Learn About How Safe This Vaccine Is Unless We Start Giving It”
The same FDA panel approved the rollout of boosters earlier this month based off “gut feeling” rather than data.
An FDA vaccine advisory panel on Tuesday voted unanimously 17-0 in favor shooting up kids aged 5-11 with Pfizer’s experimental mRNA injection with panelist Dr Eric Rubin stating, “we’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.”
Full context:
“We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it,” Dr Rubin said, urging other panelists to vote for it. “That’s just the way it goes.”
The panel voted in favor of experimenting on tens of millions of helpless children with zero long-term data on side effects because 94 children between 5 and 11 have died with COVID-19 (they claimed “of”) and “all have names. All of them had mothers,” to quote the emotional gobbledegook uttered by panelist Patrick S. Moore.
From The Washington Post:
“To me, it seems that it is a hard decision but a clear one,” said Patrick S. Moore, a University of Pittsburgh microbiologist and committee member. He noted that 94 children between 5 and 11 have died of covid-19, and “all have names. All of them had mothers.”
As the WSJ reported:
Members of the FDA’s vaccine-advisory panel supported Moderna’s booster dose even though the evidence for it was from a small study and had mixed results.
“It’s more a gut feeling rather than based on really truly serious data,” said Patrick Moore, a member of the committee and a professor of molecular genetics and biochemistry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “The data itself is not strong, but it is certainly going in the direction that is supportive of this vote.”
This is how they “follow the science.”
Health
Governor takes over state’s PRIVATE businesses, mandates vaccines for all
‘His message was crystal clear, obey or lose your job’
The governor of Washington has begun a process that could result in a statewide mandate for all workers to accept the experimental COVID-19 shots in order to be able to get a paycheck.
Across America already, universities, schools and hospitals have COVID vaccination mandates – even though as experimental treatments those actions remain under court challenge in many cases.
President Biden also has ordered the vaccinations for federal workers and the military. And companies with more than 100 employees.
But now Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee in Washington has moved the agenda even further.
A report at the PostMillennial explains under Inslee, the Washington Department of Labor and Industries has proposed an emergency package of rules addressing the “emergency powers” given Inslee to respond to COVID-19.
“This package, which is an extension of current mandates, grants Inslee the ability to enforce COVID vaccine mandates on all private businesses in the state of Washington, according to elected officials,” the report said.
It was a statement from Republicans Jim Walsh and Jesse Young of the legislature that revealed the actions.
“This mandate from L&I demonstrates a complete lack of transparency, which dilutes public trust in our government and fails to show the agency’s good faith in promulgating the rule. The reality is this move by L&I is a blank check for the agency to enforce any of the governor’s mandates or edicts on private employers,” they wrote.
They explained if the state agency wants such a rule, officials should request it in “an open and transparent manner that allows public review and comment.”
“Even if an opportunity for review and comment is not afforded the public, L&I’s website should host the proposed rulemaking to grant easy access to the public,” they said.
They also warned about arbitrary enforcement because of the proposal’s vagueness.
“There is no clear case for ‘good cause’ or ‘the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare’ as the governor’s proclamation already addresses these issues, making L&I’s mandate arbitrary and capricious,” they said. “We call on the governor to immediately repeal this mandate. If L&I wants to push this policy, it needs to go through the proper channels and work with the Legislature.”
The report explained Inslee’s recent vaccine mandate was unlike others in that it provided no opt-out for testing instead.
“His message was crystal clear, obey or lose your job,” the report said. “Despite mass protests across the state with thousands of state workers in attendance, Inslee followed through on his orders and terminated thousands that decided not to comply.”
The report warned, “If Inslee follows through on L&I’s emergency rulemaking package, all businesses and employees in the state of Washington will be subjected to submitting proof of vaccination as a condition of employment.”
Real Clear Policy earlier explained that Americans simply don’t like Biden’s orders and mandates.
The article pointed out that health authorities have openly misled the public, including top medical adviser Anthony Fauci’s multiple flip-flops on COVID issues.
He deceived the public, for example, by saying the public didn’t need to wear masks, then again when commenting about “herd immunity.”
Join the community.
McMaken: The Fed’s Inflation Is Behind the Supply-Chain Mess
‘White People, You Are The Problem’: AT&T’s Internal ‘Racial Reeducation Program’ Leaked
Matrix? Misdirection? Cringe? Zuckerberg’s presentation of future life in ‘metaverse’ sparks fear, loathing, marvel and mockery
New York facing streets without cops because of COVID vaccine mandate
The Establishment Is Hiding Mass Resistance To Vaccine Mandates With The “Striketober” Farce
