Media Coverage of COVID -19

[Yew]

My understanding is that media critique of the governments decisions at the moment is limited under emergency powers.

 

[adc82140]

My understanding is that media critique of the governments decisions at the moment is limited under emergency powers.

Untrue. There is no restriction of freedom of the press.

 

[kristiang85]

Untrue. There is no restriction of freedom of the press.

This is broadly true. But OFCOM do have standards on 'misinformation', which is basically defined as anything against the government narrative on COVID, which can be construed as restricting the freedom of the press. In this report I've linked here, they give some examples of what they deem as misinformation: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/ass...week-twenty-five-misinformation-deep-dive.pdf

- Face masks/coverings offer no protection
- No. of deaths is much lower in reality
- Potential dangers of a Coronavirus vaccine
- No. of cases is much lower in reality
- Theories linking Coronavirus to 5G technology
- Schoolchildren can be tested without parents' permission

Now, the first four of those are very legitimate challenges to the government narrative, but it seems if broadcasters go down the route of discussing these, they will likely get a rap on the knuckles. Certainly it explains why talking heads on BBC going down these routes get quickly shut up, and thus it's the smaller news orgs who tend to air the alternative views. Thus the debate is less open to the general viewing public.

These are the OFCOM regulations:

However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include:
- health claims related to the virus which may be harmful;
- medical advice which may be harmful; and,
- accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it.

The final point basically forbids discussion of the items above.

 

[adc82140]

That's only for broadcast journalism, which has traditionally been more regulated than the print media. The likes of the Express have been printing nonsense for years, and are still free to do so.

 

[bramling]

This is broadly true. But OFCOM do have standards on 'misinformation', which is basically defined as anything against the government narrative on COVID, which can be construed as restricting the freedom of the press. In this report I've linked here, they give some examples of what they deem as misinformation: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/ass...week-twenty-five-misinformation-deep-dive.pdf

- Face masks/coverings offer no protection
- No. of deaths is much lower in reality
- Potential dangers of a Coronavirus vaccine
- No. of cases is much lower in reality
- Theories linking Coronavirus to 5G technology
- Schoolchildren can be tested without parents' permission

Now, the first four of those are very legitimate challenges to the government narrative, but it seems if broadcasters go down the route of discussing these, they will likely get a rap on the knuckles. Certainly it explains why talking heads on BBC going down these routes get quickly shut up, and thus it's the smaller news orgs who tend to air the alternative views. Thus the debate is less open to the general viewing public.

These are the OFCOM regulations:



The final point basically forbids discussion of the items above.

Very interesting. I had no idea there was that level of restriction.

Certainly not good, as television will be the main source of information for most people.

 

[kristiang85]

That's only for broadcast journalism, which has traditionally been more regulated than the print media. The likes of the Express have been printing nonsense for years, and are still free to do so.

Well most of the discussion on here has been based on TV coverage, hence why I highlighted.

We all know much of the print media is absolute nonsense, although the Daily Mail is (sadly to say) one of the few that do consistently write decent and evidenced contrary views to the government's narrative. Unfortunately, it is easily dismissed by many because it is the Daily Mail.

 

[adc82140]

Well most of the discussion on here has been based on TV coverage, hence why I highlighted.

We all know much of the print media is absolute nonsense, although the Daily Mail is (sadly to say) one of the few that do consistently write decent and evidenced contrary views to the government's narrative. Unfortunately, it is easily dismissed by many because it is the Daily Mail.

I'm finding myself increasingly agreeing with the opinions in the Daily Mail. Which is scary and unsettling.

 

[brad465]

Well most of the discussion on here has been based on TV coverage, hence why I highlighted.

We all know much of the print media is absolute nonsense, although the Daily Mail is (sadly to say) one of the few that do consistently write decent and evidenced contrary views to the government's narrative. Unfortunately, it is easily dismissed by many because it is the Daily Mail.

I'm finding myself increasingly agreeing with the opinions in the Daily Mail. Which is scary and unsettling.

While many might dismiss the Daily Mail for that reason, ultimately many of their readers likely support the incumbent Government, so by being fed a narrative attacking them, this may lead to a change of public perception in the areas that matter most.

If the Daily Mirror for example towed the line of ending restrictions and acknowledging other health concerns it would be ignored more easily.

 

[Grecian 1998]

It is a strange time indeed when the Guardian and Express are aligned on one side (generally in favour of most restrictions) and the Daily Mail is on the other (against them). I assume The Guardian is happy to attack the government for failing to look after the vulnerable, a criticism arising long before COVID, whilst the Express is probably mindful that virtually its entire readership seems to be over 65. Certainly it's been a long time since I saw anyone reading it in public who didn't appear to be around that age.

I too find it unnerving agreeing with the Mail, but as the saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day. It has apparently overtaken the Sun to become the best selling newspaper in the UK, so certainly does have influence, particularly given the general Conservative and conservative outlook of its readership.

TBF under the current editor Geordie Greig it seems slightly more towards the centre than under the previous incumbent Paul Dacre. Please note 'towards the centre' doesn't mean centrist.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I think this belongs here. Quite frankly the reporting in this article is abysmal.

Thousands of deaths could be prevented by Christmas if two-week lockdown is imposed, scientists say

Two scientists say between 3,000 and 107,000 lives could be saved by January if the UK acts with a two-week lockdown.

news.sky.com

Two scientists say between 3,000 and 107,000 lives could be saved by January if the UK acts with a two-week lockdown.

Thousands of coronavirus deaths could be prevented before Christmas if a two-week 'circuit breaker' lockdown is imposed during half-term, two of the government's scientific advisers have said.

Between 3,000 and 107,000 deaths could be avoided by January, according to Graham Medley, who sits on the scientific advisory group for emergencies (SAGE), and Matt Keeling, a member of the scientific pandemic influenza group on modelling.

They told the Financial Times they will be publishing a joint paper on Wednesday modelling the effects of a short lockdown between 24 October and 7 November.

Here herein lies the "exact science" that the media are reporting on. Between 3,000 and 107,000 lives. Have they plucked these numbers out of thin air? Aren't these deaths just being postponed, not prevented? And of course we're now using Christmas as an excuse for anything that won't be favoured by the public.

What these "scientists" can't "calculate", however, is how many deaths will be caused by a two-week lockdown and a crashed economy.

 

[bramling]

I think this belongs here. Quite frankly the reporting in this article is abysmal.

Thousands of deaths could be prevented by Christmas if two-week lockdown is imposed, scientists say

Two scientists say between 3,000 and 107,000 lives could be saved by January if the UK acts with a two-week lockdown.

news.sky.com

Between 3,000 and 107,000 lives. Have they plucked these numbers out of thin air? And of course we're now using Christmas as an excuse for anything that won't be favoured by the public.

What these "scientists" can't "calculate", however, is how many deaths will be caused by a two-week lockdown and a crashed economy.

That is absolutely ridiculous having that much gap between the two ends. How on earth can they expect that to be taken credibly? It’s like saying I will take my train to work tomorrow and I calculate the unit will likely be something between 700103 and 700154.

 

[brad465]

I think this belongs here. Quite frankly the reporting in this article is abysmal.

Thousands of deaths could be prevented by Christmas if two-week lockdown is imposed, scientists say

Two scientists say between 3,000 and 107,000 lives could be saved by January if the UK acts with a two-week lockdown.

news.sky.com

Here herein lies the "exact science" that the media are reporting on. Between 3,000 and 107,000 lives. Have they plucked these numbers out of thin air? Aren't these deaths just being postponed, not prevented? And of course we're now using Christmas as an excuse for anything that won't be favoured by the public.

What these "scientists" can't "calculate", however, is how many deaths will be caused by a two-week lockdown and a crashed economy.

That is absolutely ridiculous having that much gap between the two ends. How on earth can they expect that to be taken credibly? It’s like saying I will take my train to work tomorrow and I calculate the unit will likely be something between 700103 and 700154.

Theoretically lockdowns could work of course, but you have to shut down more than just human nature. You literally would have to seal us in for a considerable amount of time, no going outside, no contact, no pubs, no restaurants, no trains, no buses, no offices, no shops, no doctors, no hospitals, I mean literally every facet of our existence would have to be shut down. But even then, the virus might just skip species and wait for us to come back out....

Unfortunately to make this worse the BBC have now caught onto the same thing, both by citing a similarly huge range in lives saved prediction and reporting a paper that hasn't even been peer-reviewed:

Covid: Two-week circuit breaker 'may halve deaths', report says

A circuit breaker could change the course of the epidemic and buy more time, a report says.

www.bbc.co.uk

A two-week circuit breaker at the end of October may halve Covid deaths between now and the end of the year, says a scientific report.

A circuit breaker would see tighter restrictions on lives, possibly similar to the original lockdown.

The researchers said this "buys more time to put other controls in place" but there is huge uncertainty.

And they caution a circuit breaker has to be balanced against the impact on the economy and society.

The point of a mini-lockdown, or circuit breaker, is to break transmission of the virus by introducing strict measures for a set period of time.

Instead of the epidemic powering ahead, it would be thrown into reverse. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) estimates it could rewind the clock by 28 days.

This scientific paper, seen by the BBC, is not yet publicly available and has not been reviewed by scientists.

The unpublished mathematical models attempt to calculate how locking down between 24 October and 7 November would change the course of the epidemic. This would coincide with school half terms.

However, the work by the University of Warwick and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is not a crystal ball, there is large uncertainty and some of the predictions would never happen in the real world.

The number of lives saved between now and the start of 2021 could range from 800 (pandemic grows slowly, mild restrictions used) to 106,000 (pandemic grows rapidly and severe restrictions used).

However, the highest numbers are highly unlikely to happen, say the researchers.

 

[DB]

The researchers said this "buys more time to put other controls in place"

Like what?

They've had seven months of attempting to prevent the tide from coming in, and other than slowing it down a bit what has that actually achieved?

All the threatre such as masks and one-way systems are unlikely to have had any impact at all - there certainly doesn't seem to be any evidence that they've made the slightest difference.

 

[DustyBin]

That is absolutely ridiculous having that much gap between the two ends. How on earth can they expect that to be taken credibly? It’s like saying I will take my train to work tomorrow and I calculate the unit will likely be something between 700103 and 700154.

Or like me being asked how much it will cost to resurface a carpark and replying “between £3k and £107k”. Are these people for real?!

 

[Yew]

Saved, will they really be saved, or just delayed a few months?

 

[Freightmaster]

I think this belongs here. Quite frankly the reporting in this article is abysmal.

Thousands of deaths could be prevented by Christmas if two-week lockdown is imposed, scientists say

Two scientists say between 3,000 and 107,000 lives could be saved by January if the UK acts with a two-week lockdown.

news.sky.com

Here herein lies the "exact science" that the media are reporting on. Between 3,000 and 107,000 lives. Have they plucked these numbers out of thin air? Aren't these deaths just being postponed, not prevented? And of course we're now using Christmas as an excuse for anything that won't be favoured by the public.

That is absolutely ridiculous having that much gap between the two ends. How on earth can they expect that to be taken credibly?

According to this DM article, they don't!!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8838727/Academics-circuit-breaker-study-admit-death-figures-estimated.html

Academics behind startling 'circuit breaker' study which found half-term lockdown could save up to 100,000 lives by New Year admit their death figures are wildly over-estimated and say they wish they'd never used them
Professor Keeling told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning: 'I really, really wish I hadn't put these numbers in the paper because they were there for illustration.

'We looked at a range of different scenarios from a relatively low growth rate going forward where we might reduce deaths by a third between now and new year to some extreme scenarios, which I think are the ones that have been quoted in the papers, which really were 'what happens if we don't do anything?' between now and the new year.'

Whoops!!!






MARK

 

[DustyBin]

That's only for broadcast journalism, which has traditionally been more regulated than the print media. The likes of the Express have been printing nonsense for years, and are still free to do so.

The Express.... I look at the website now and again just to check what’s happening with the Russian invasion....

 

[Ianno87]

That is absolutely ridiculous having that much gap between the two ends. How on earth can they expect that to be taken credibly? It’s like saying I will take my train to work tomorrow and I calculate the unit will likely be something between 700103 and 700154.

Or like me being asked how much it will cost to resurface a carpark and replying “between £3k and £107k”. Are these people for real?!

Pretty standard output for mathematical models for something as complex as this with a range if assunptions and variables to give a range of results ("High" scenario to "Low" scenario)

The problem is the media then just blindly quote these numbers to the ignorant masses without setting out would the numbers are actually telling you.

The author probably just assumed his/her paper would be looked at by fellow researchers to add to the available pool of evidence, not pumped straight out on mainstream media.

 

[AM9]

Pretty standard output for mathematical models for something as complex as this with a range if assunptions and variables to give a range of results ("High" scenario to "Low" scenario)

The problem is the media then just blindly quote these numbers to the ignorant masses without setting out would the numbers are actually telling you.

The author probably just assumed his/her paper would be looked at by fellow researchers to add to the available pool of evidence, not pumped straight out on mainstream media.

Which supports the theories that scientific facts need to be carefully presented to the lay public to prevent them getting the wrong end of the stick. So according to some here, the news industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't, - unless the news confirms their and their carefully selected experts' opinions of course.

 

[Ianno87]

Which supports the theories that scientific facts need to be carefully presented to the lay public to prevent them getting the wrong end of the stick. So according to some here, the news industry is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't, - unless the news confirms their and their carefully selected experts' opinions of course.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media is driven by revenue from ciculation and clicks - so all the public take in is the one-sentence headline (which often acts as confirmation bias of existing beliefs), whereas the devil is really buried deep, deep in the detail for research like this.

Furthermore, these models *cannot* reasonably give a definitive black and white answer, nor should they be expected to. But its presented by the media as if they do

 

[Yew]

Unfortunately, the mainstream media is driven by revenue from ciculation and clicks - so all the public take in is the one-sentence headline (which often acts as confirmation bias of existing beliefs), whereas the devil is really buried deep, deep in the detail for research like this.

Indeed, unfortunately there has been an over-reliance on the ability of some questionable models to predict the future, and a reluctance for the media to examine the actual details and underlying assumptions of them.

 

[AM9]

... and a reluctance for the media to examine the actual details and underlying assumptions of them.

With an unrealistic expectation of the media to present raw 'uninterpreted' data for the very few that are able to understand them. Anybody who expects that should go to the source (usually) documents/records. I suspect that confirmation bias is the reason for those with such non-negotiable lay opinions about any aspect of the pandemic or measures taken to deal with it.

 

[Yew]

With an unrealistic expectation of the media to present raw 'uninterpreted' data for the very few that are able to understand them. Anybody who expects that should go to the source (usually) documents/records. I suspect that confirmation bias is the reason for those with such non-negotiable lay opinions about any aspect of the pandemic or measures taken to deal with it.

I thought the purpose of the "fourth estate" was to provide critique, to hold those in power accountable; rather than to sycophantically parrot anything they say in the quest for clicks.

Given that most scientists are open with the limitations of their work it doesn't take a genius to look through a paper and mention a few of these, or to provide a quick sanity check to some of the underlying assumptions.

 

[jtuk]

Indeed, unfortunately there has been an over-reliance on the ability of some questionable models to predict the future, and a reluctance for the media to examine the actual details and underlying assumptions of them.

Speaking of which, haven't we passed the end point of the Vallance "not a prediction" with nowhere near the cases "not predicted"? Where's the fury at this?

 

[Yew]

Speaking of which, haven't we passed the end point of the Vallance "not a prediction" with nowhere near the cases "not predicted"? Where's the fury at this?

If they're over, we did it wrong and should be punished, if they're under, Witty was a genius and saved us all.

 

[AM9]

I thought the purpose of the "fourth estate" was to provide critique, to hold those in power accountable; rather than to sycophantically parrot anything they say in the quest for clicks.

I didn't say that the media couldn't present the raw data, - indeed the BBC's Reality Check website does a pretty good job of delivering the actual facts that are available. Since the farce of the 2016 referendum the other national channels also have fact check pages associated with their news coverage where such things can be verified. At least we don't have a US style 'Fox News' scenario here.
Now the press is a different kettle of fish. As has been highlighted, they all have political agendas, usually whatever the proprietor wants and expressed through their editors. So expecting the press to eschew their practice of manipulating facts to (ultimately) influence votes, without any independant fact checking would be a fruitless exercise.

Given that most scientists are open with the limitations of their work it doesn't take a genius to look through a paper and mention a few of these, or to provide a quick sanity check to some of the underlying assumptions.

I don't think that a majority of the news-hungry populace would necessarily understand the full picture if they just "take a look through a paper" released by an expert. Relating the salient facts in such papers to actual governmental action is a step further, as the Government has a whole lot more experts/interests to involve/appease, - think behavioural psychologists, supply industries, law enforcement agencies, etc..

 

[jtuk]

I didn't say that the media couldn't present the raw data, - indeed the BBC's Reality Check website does a pretty good job of delivering the actual facts that are available. Since the farce of the 2016 referendum the other national channels also have fact check pages associated with their news coverage where such things can be verified. At least we don't have a US style 'Fox News' scenario here.

You cannot possibly be serious - we have exactly that sort of situation, except biased in the opposite direction

 

[adc82140]

You cannot possibly be serious - we have exactly that sort of situation, except biased in the opposite direction

The left say that the BBC is in the pocket of the Tories and their paymasters, the right say that the BBC is the voice of the Liberal elite. They can't both be right.

 

[DB]

The left say that the BBC is in the pocket of the Tories and their paymasters, the right say that the BBC is the voice of the Liberal elite. They can't both be right.

If both think that, it's probably fairly centrist in reality!

But this issue isn't about left and right - the leadership of both main parties are singing from the same hymn sheet at the moment.

 

[AM9]

You cannot possibly be serious - we have exactly that sort of situation, except biased in the opposite direction

Thank you for demonstrating my point, confirmation bias is rife everywhere in posted comments on social media about COVID-19 news reporting.