Rethinking pandemic coverage
The Associated Press revealed last week it has instructed its reporters to avoid emphasizing COVID-19 case counts in their coverage of the pandemic.
It’s a smart choice by the global news wire, but what took it so long?
Many of us have said since 2020 that case counts are an unreliable metric, one the inclusion of which in news reports serves primarily to cause unnecessary panic. Unlike hospitalizations and deaths, case counts don’t really tell us much about the state of the pandemic.
It has been known for the better part of two years. Yet, it’s 2022, and the Associated Press is just now getting around to waving its reporters away from emphasizing cases? So, pardon me if I’m somewhat annoyed by the news organization’s Johnny-come-lately attitude.
“For two years,” the Associated Press said last week in a report explaining its recent editorial decision, “coronavirus case counts and hospitalizations have been widely used barometers of the pandemic’s march across the world. But the omicron wave is making a mess of the usual statistics, forcing news organizations to rethink the way they report such figures.”
The report adds, “The number of case counts soared over the holidays, an expected development given the emergence of a variant more transmissible than its predecessors. Yet these counts only reflect what is reported by health authorities. They do not include most people who test themselves at home, or are infected without even knowing about it. Holidays and weekends also lead to lags in reported cases.”
If one attempted to add up all these disparate, disjointed, and unreliable figures, and one can’t, the apparent number of case counts would likely be much higher than the numbers reported by public health agencies.
“For that reason, the Associated Press has recently told its editors and reporters to avoid emphasizing case counts in stories about the disease,” the news wire explained. “That means, for example, no more stories focused solely on a particular country or state setting a one-day record for number of cases, because that claim has become unreliable.”
Associated Press news editor Josh Hoffner said, “We definitely wanted people to go a little deeper and be more specific in reporting.”
The report continues, explaining hospitalizations and deaths are likely more reliable and meaningful figures.
Yes, we know. Some of us, including FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, have been saying this since 2020! Many of us noted at the time that, as the Associated Press and other media outlets now concede, the hospitalizations figure includes people who were admitted with COVID-19, not because of COVID-19. So, even this metric is somewhat unreliable, though not as unreliable as case counts.
Look, I don’t want to ding the Associated Press too hard for making a prudent editorial change, instructing its reporters to stop emphasizing case counts. It’s a good decision!
But, seriously. What took so long?
Blaming the victim
Last week, ABC News was responsible for creating a mini fake news cycle regarding COVID-19 deaths and comorbidities.
Amazingly, CNN largely blames right-wing commentators, not ABC, for the muck up.
ABC’s Cecilia Vega sat down last week with CDC chief Dr. Rochelle Walensky. However, when the network aired the interview, it cut crucial context from the CDC chief’s comments.
The interview, as aired by ABC, showed Vega refer to “this new study showing just how well vaccines are working to prevent severe illness. Given that, is it time to start rethinking how we’re living with this virus, that it’s potentially here to stay.”
The network then showed a clip of Walensky saying in response, “The overwhelming number of deaths, 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities. So, really, these were people who were unwell to begin with. And yes, really encouraging news in the context of omicron. This means not only just to get your primary series but to get your booster series. And yes, we’re really encouraged by these results.”
After the interview aired, a mini fake news cycle soon cropped up on social media, as many users, including right-wing commentators, reasonably believed Walensky had just revealed that roughly 75% of all COVID-19 deaths occurred in people with at least four comorbidities.
What ABC News didn’t air, however, is the first half of the CDC chief’s response to Vega.
Walensky said: “A really important study, if I may just summarize it: a study of 1.2 million people who were vaccinated between December and October and demonstrated that severe disease occurred in about 0.015% of the people who received their primary series and death in .003% of those people.”
She was commenting specifically on a study of vaccinated people, not all COVID-19 deaths. It is a significant distinction. That said, you can’t really fault the people who heard something else. Taken out of context, it most certainly sounded as if Walensky was talking about all COVID-19 deaths.
ABC bungled it badly by clipping the full context of the CDC chief’s comments. Yet, for some reason, CNN suggested last week the real culprits in this bogus narrative are… right-wing social media users?
“That poorly edited clip created this tidal wave of misinformation,” said CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota. “How did this happen, and then how was it seized upon?”
“Seized upon”? Viewers merely responded to the news as it was presented to them! Shame on them, I suppose.
“Some right-wing commentators cut down the comments even further to just 11 out-of-context seconds and described her comments falsely,” claimed CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale. He pointed to an example of supposedly deceitful editing that doesn’t actually show any deceitful editing.
“Now, the CDC has been very clear since 2020 that people with health conditions are at higher COVID risk than people without them,” continued Dale, adding that “contrary” to “conspiratorial suggestion, this hasn’t been hidden until now.”
“The full comments show Walensky did not say what a bunch of people on the Right are claiming,” said Dale.
The only reason people on the Right claimed anything was because of how ABC presented Walensky’s comments!
Why are viewers being blamed for the production of sloppy news? How is it the viewer’s fault that ABC selectively edited Walensky’s remarks? How is it the viewer’s fault that ABC’s editing made it appear as if the CDC chief referred to all COVID-19 deaths, not a study of vaccinated people specifically?
Of all media institutions, you’d think CNN would cheer the fact that so many people took ABC’s reporting at face value. Then again, doing so would mean passing on an opportunity to attack the Right. So, you know, you have to weigh your options.
