When you cover someone, you lend them your credibility.

The more we see something, the more fond of it we become. That's the mere-exposure effect. So, the more we cover nutballs endangering the public health, the less dangerous they seem to the public, which is dangerous. /3

As nutball coverage spreads, it creates the perception that far more people than there really are believe the lockdown is stupid, which gives their behavior credence.

"If so many people think it's time to end the lockdown, shouldn't I?" That's social proof at work. /4

Social proof can become an information cascade. For example, nutball coverage has become more prevalent on the state and local level because national outlets led the way.

"Oh, if the bigs are covering it, there must be a good reason so we should too." /5

Journalism is evolving, not dying. So hopefully, the change will bring greater willingness to measure harm than refining the metrics that justify ad rates. Then maybe j-schools will include more social and behavioral psychology and network theory in the curriculum. /fin

Recommended reading:

"Redirect" by Dr. Timothy Wilson - http://bit.ly/redirectbook 

"Wise Interventions: Psychological Remedies for Social and Personal Problems" by Dr. Wilson & Dr. Greg Walton. http://bit.ly/wiseinterventions

Information Cascades (pg. 483-504): http://bit.ly/networkstextbook