Tucker: The New York Times' coronavirus coverage can be explained in 4 steps

[Cathoholic]

Tucker: The New York Times’ coronavirus coverage can be explained in 4 steps​

Published on Apr 2, 2020

The establishment press has botched coronavirus from the beginning. #FoxNews #Tucker

Tucker: The New York Times' coronavirus coverage can be explained in 4 steps | On Air Videos | Fox News

Tucker: The New York Times' coronavirus coverage can be explained in 4 steps | Fox News Video

 

[1cthlctrth]

Here’s a CNN article that was printed by the New York Times on February 21, 2020:
https://news3.x-itm.com/whats-sprea...ults-and-ignorant-attacks-against-asians-cnn/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Since this is a CNN article, why not link to the original article on CNN?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/us/coronavirus-racist-attacks-against-asian-americans/index.html

 

[dvdjs]

Here is a conservative publication dispelling the nonsense about the press coverage.

The Media Is Not the Problem with COVID-19 - by Cathy Young

the … narrative of politically motivated media malfeasance relies on cherry-picking and, sometimes, outright misrepresentation.

The New York Times coronavirus coverage in late January and most of February focused primarily on China (and, contrary to the suggestion some conservatives have made that the press was kowtowing to the Chicoms, much of it was highly critical of the Chinese regime). But there were also, in early and mid-February, alarming reports of the virus’s spread in Europe and of experts’ warnings that a pandemic lay ahead. And while a few op-eds and columns lectured smugly on irrational fears, others warned that the situation could be dire. “I’m no epidemiologist, but what I’ve seen looks pretty scary,” Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote on January 30, chastising commerce secretary Wilbur Ross for his suggestion that the coronavirus outbreak in China could have the salutary effect of bringing jobs back to America.

Could the media have done better? Of course it could have—that is always true.
But there is a world of difference between such introspection and using cherry-picked “headlines from the left” to deflect criticism of Trump’s negligence or of coronavirus denialism on the right.

Media criticism is an important task. But it needs to rely on actual (and factual) analysis of coverage and commentary, not critique by screenshot—especially since, in the current climate, even well-intentioned media criticism is easily appropriated for Trump-excusing propaganda. The propaganda, in this case, is particularly brazen.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is a Feb 2 NYT article:

Wuhan Coronavirus Looks Increasingly Like a Pandemic, Experts Say - The New York Times

“It’s very, very transmissible, and it almost certainly is going to be a pandemic,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.

 

[Theo520]

Since this is a CNN article, why not link to the original article on CNN?

Thanks for sharing, what a sad example of journalism it is.

They gave a few anecdotal examples and never justified it was exploding in numbers. They finish by stating the Flu is a bigger threat.

The article certainly hasn’t aged well

 

[Theo520]

Here is a conservative publication dispelling t

The Bulkwark is a ‘never trump’ publication, don’t use them as representative of anything else.

 

[dvdjs]

The Bulkwark is a ‘never trump’ publication,

It is conservative publication.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Kind of like you dragging out Bill Krystol as your usual conservative opposition to Trump. Shocking.

 

[Theo520]

It is conservative publication.

You wish,
It does seem to be the only non progressive source you like to tout.

 

[dvdjs]

It does seem to be the only non progressive source you like to tout.

The bulwark publishes publishes quality articles that are a far cry from the fringe material that too often litters this forum. But if you checked, you would find that I link to a broad range of publications.

Now, anything, on topic?