Read on Twitter
Legitimate question that I'm not sure the answer to: what is the best practice (reporting-wise) for how to approach covering these ongoing protests? https://twitter.com/Colebehr_report/status/1250425696456826881
There are obvious good reasons for the coverage to date. Gov't has exerted large power (albeit justified) & pushback is not unusual; anxieties are real; and also just the novelty of DeWine/Acton getting strong criticism following a month of (also justified) praise
There is some value in giving exposure to these protesters, particularly the most polemical among them
At what point beyond the initial stories, though, is it a net harm to public good to amplify voices that may convince some citizens to also ignore the gov't health concerns?
At what point beyond the initial stories, though, is it a net harm to public good to amplify voices that may convince some citizens to also ignore the gov't health concerns?
Again, I'm asking an honest question. I'm not sure what the answer is. The coverage of the protesters to this point has been responsible, and I won't judge if coverage continues with the upcoming protests. Just wondering about the pros/cons here.
To expound/clarify further on the value of initial coverage, as Cole is saying. There's value in exposing the counter-arguments to DeWine/Acton's actions, and then reporting what the facts are with voices from experts. https://twitter.com/Colebehr_report/status/1250431182384140288
This is part of a broader consideration editors/reporters deal with often...
To conclude:
1. Are all voices worth reporting?
2. If so, do you risk amplifying bad info?
3. If not, do you risk letting their bad info percolate w/o addressing it thru reporting correct info?
To conclude:
1. Are all voices worth reporting?
2. If so, do you risk amplifying bad info?
3. If not, do you risk letting their bad info percolate w/o addressing it thru reporting correct info?
