Category: USA Today

  •  

    Much like the front page, breaking-news newsletters demonstrate which stories news outlets think deserve the most attention. It’s important real estate: By pushing these stories to readers, they influence the way we think about the world, even what in the world we should be thinking about. Even if readers don’t click through, just seeing the headlines can shape our perceptions. And, as a new FAIR study has found, those headlines often feed into predictable patterns that parrot official narratives, and prioritize clicks over well-informed citizens.

    Breaking News: Get informed as important news breaks around the world.

    Outlets like the New York Times promise to send readers alerts about “important news.”

    Most major outlets produce a variety of email newsletters for readers, which have increasingly broad reach. Subscription numbers are generally not made public, but the New York Times‘ top newsletter, the Morning, reportedly has over 5 million readers daily, and CNN advertises over 1 million total newsletter subscribers.

    To see what kinds of stories outlets present to readers as urgently important, FAIR studied four national outlets that offer unpaywalled breaking news email alerts over the course of two months. We subscribed to alerts from the New York Times, USA TodayCNN and Fox News from April 1 to May 31, 2024, and recorded each alert sent. These outlets advertised that subscribers would receive “24/7 alerts” as the “biggest” and most “important” stories to “stay on top of the news.”

    We excluded the occasional roundups of top stories, as these were outside the “breaking news” format. The Times and USA Today periodically offered op-eds as breaking news alerts, and we did include these. FAIR recorded 630 alerts during the study period.

    We coded each alert by topic (National Politics, International Politics, Business/Economy, Crime, Entertainment, Sports, Health, Science, Disaster, Personal Advice, Miscellaneous) and subtopic (e.g., Gaza Protests, Abortion Rights, Foreign Aid Bill). Seventy-five alerts were assigned to more than one topic; for instance, a story about the trial of a celebrity might be coded as both Crime and Entertainment.

    National politics dominates

    NYT: Stormy Daniels Describes Sexual Encounter With Trump and Is Grilled by His Lawyer

    Trump’s hush money trial, with its titillating details, was the subject of numerous breaking news alerts (New York Times, 5/7/24).

    The outlets put out alerts with varying frequency—USA Today put out the most (224, or almost four per day) and CNN the fewest (83)—but National Politics stories dominated across all outlets, making up 274 (43%) of 630 total alerts. Within these stories, Donald Trump figured prominently, referenced in 121 alerts (44% of all National Politics stories). Eighty-eight of these, or 73% of the total stories about Trump, were about his trials—predominately his criminal trial in Manhattan, which ran through all but the first two weeks of the study period.

    The Times, with 207 alerts sent out overall, devoted the highest percentage of its National Politics alerts (79) to Trump’s legal woes (39%), while Fox, with 116 alerts sent out, afforded them 17 articles of 63 National Politics stories—the smallest percentage of the four outlets (27%). Twice—the day Stormy Daniels testified (5/7/24) and the day the jury announced its guilty verdict (5/30/24)—the Times sent three trial-related alerts to its subscribers over the course of the day.

    President Joe Biden received far less attention in National Politics stories; he was referenced in 35, or 13% of them. Fifteen of these stories were about the election, of which only two (USA Today, 5/28/24; Fox News, 5/1/24) did not also mention Trump.

    Gaza, at home and abroad

    After the Trump trials, the top National Politics topics included the university campus protests for Gaza (41), abortion rights (16) and the foreign aid bill (6). (We coded stories about abortion into the Health category as well.)

    Twenty-six (61%) of the 41 alerts about campus Gaza protests came from Fox News, accounting for 22% of all Fox alerts across categories, making it the outlet’s single most frequent alert topic. On seven days between April 17 and May 3, Fox sent multiple alerts about the protests; its fixation peaked on April 30, when the network sent five such alerts in a single day.

    Fox’s encampment alert subject lines consistently referred to protesters as “agitators,” calling them “anti-Israel” and even “antisemitic” (4/30/24). (The New York Times called them “pro-Palestinian protests,” and USA Today simply referred to them as “protests.”) “Columbia University, Anti-Israel Agitators Fail to Reach Agreement as Unrest Continues” read a typical Fox subject line (4/29/24). “Facilities Worker Says Anti-Israel Columbia University Agitators ‘Held Me Hostage’” read another the next day (4/30/24).

    Fox: King Charles returning to royal duties following cancer diagnosis

    The only Fox News alert (4/26/24) for an international issue other than Gaza was about King Charles’ health.

    There were many other Gaza protests occurring around the country during the study period (Democracy Now!, 4/18/24, 4/24/24, 5/22/24, 5/30/24, 5/31/24), yet only one alert (Fox News, 4/9/24) mentioned any besides those on college campuses.

    The second-most prevalent news category was International Politics, which had 97 alerts (15% of all). Sixty-three of these (65%) pertained to the ongoing Gaza crisis (not including the campus Gaza protests, which were coded as National Politics). Iran was sometimes mentioned in Gaza-related alerts, but it was also featured in eight unrelated alerts (8%) concerning the helicopter crash that killed Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. Other recurring topics included Ukraine and the Ukraine War (6%), the shooting of the Slovakian president (5%), British elections (3%), China (3%) and Julian Assange (2%).

    Curiously, while Fox advertises its breaking news alerts as keeping subscribers “in the know on the most important moments around the world,” it only produced seven alerts on international issues—six of them on the Gaza crisis. (The other article discussed King Charles’ return to royal duties after his cancer diagnosis.) That’s just one more alert on Gaza during the entire study period than Fox put out on its peak day of breaking news coverage of the encampments. At the other three outlets, International Politics stories were the second most frequent alerts.

    Climate crisis not breaking news

    CNN: Planet endures record-hot April, as scientists warn 2024 could beat heat records for second year in a row

    This CNN story (5/7/24) about climate change breaking heat records was not deemed urgent enough to qualify as breaking news.

    It’s impossible to argue that the climate crisis isn’t an ongoing urgent news story. Yet the Science/Environment category had the fewest number of alerts, at 24, making up just 4% of alerts tracked. And only seven (1%) of the subject lines that appeared in our inbox referred or even alluded to climate-related topics.

    During the study period, there were multiple major climate crisis stories that CNN, USA Today and the Times (but not Fox) reporters covered—but, for the most part, the outlets chose not to include these stories in their breaking news alerts.

    It’s perhaps unsurprising that a right-wing outlet like Fox put out no alerts about climate change; its lone science story (4/8/24) was about the April solar eclipse. But CNN and the New York Times did only marginally better. CNN sent alerts for two Science stories, only one of which (4/15/24) was about the climate crisis: “Ocean Heat Is Driving a Global Coral Bleaching Event, and It Could Be the Worst on Record.”

    At the same time, CNN‘s website reported on extreme ocean temperatures causing mass marine mortalities (CNN, 4/21/24), extreme heat causing health emergencies (CNN, 4/18/24) and April’s record-breaking heat (CNN, 5/7/24), among other climate change–related topics. On the days that these stories were published, however, CNN only sent out National Politics alerts, or simply no alerts at all.

    One of the eight Science stories that the Times pushed was directly about the climate crisis, a story (5/13/24) about federal regulations impacting renewable energy (which we also coded as National Politics). Another Science article (7/3/24) that was not primarily about the climate crisis did mention its role in increasing turbulence experienced on airplane flights.

    The Times does offer a paywalled newsletter for stories about climate, called Climate Forward. But they also have a free newsletter called On Politics, offering election-related news alerts—and that didn’t stop them from promoting eight articles directly related to the 2024 presidential election as breaking news.

    In its online and print editions, the Times reported plenty of stories related to the climate crisis—but, as at CNN, they simply didn’t deem them important enough to send as breaking news alerts. On April 10, the Times published a story about ocean heat shattering records, and on April 15 it covered the coral bleaching event. Neither were sent as alerts.

    NYT: The Best Mattresses for 2024

    The New York Times found mattress reviews more urgent than climate change.

    On May 28, the Times published a piece headlined “Climate Change Added a Month’s Worth of Extra-Hot Days in Past Year”; that story wasn’t deemed “important news” that day by the Times’ breaking news alert team, but the “Best Mattresses of 2024” was.

    All the outlets studied also failed to send out stories about major flooding disasters in Brazil, Afghanistan and Indonesia (Democracy Now!, 5/13/24, 5/14/24), or about the major heat waves in South Asia that killed hundreds of people (Democracy Now!, 5/28/24; CBS News, 5/15/24). All of these crises are major examples of how climate change is affecting people around the world in drastic ways.

    USA Today did best on climate, sending out 13 alerts under the Science/Environment category; four of them discussed climate change, including topics such as carbon emissions and pollution. That’s still less than 2% of the paper’s alerts during the two-month period.

    Corporate outlets have long been more than willing to leave climate change out of their stories about weather phenomenons and natural disasters around the world (FAIR.org, 9/20/18, 7/18/23, 6/28/24).

    According to data published by the Pew Research Center in August 2023, 54% of Americans view climate change as a major threat. According to data collected by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication up until the fall of 2023, 64% of the nation is worried about global warming, 58% believe global warming is already harming people in the US, and 70% think that global warming will harm future generations.

    If more than half of the public views global warming and climate change as an urgent issue, why do these major publications not treat it as one?

    Crime, entertainment over economy

    Fox: Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' armorer sentenced to maximum time in fatal on-set shooting

    Many Crime alerts involved celebrities, like one for this Fox News story (4/15/24) about Alec Baldwin.

    Although news media frequently report that the economy is “voters’ top concern,” leading into the 2024 election FAIR identified only 40 news alerts as belonging to the Business/Economy beat—6% of all.

    Fox and CNN suggested to alert subscribers that Crime stories were more than twice as important, making up 21% of Fox‘s alerts and 19% of CNN‘s. (USA Today and the Times only devoted 7% and 4% of their alerts to crime, respectively.) The violent crime rate has actually gone down 26% (and the property crime rate 19%) since President Biden’s inauguration in January 2021, according to the New York Times (7/24/24), but media (including the Times) still focus heavily on the topic (FAIR.org, 7/25/24).

    Mass shootings made up 21% of Crime alerts (13) across all outlets, which is not surprising, considering there have already been 348 mass shootings in 2024.

    Celebrity crimes made up a large portion of Crime alerts across all outlets, at 25 (40%) out of 62. Many of these stories were about Alec Baldwin (5), OJ Simpson (5) and Scottie Scheffler (5).

    Fox’s Crime alerts featured headlines meant to catch a reader’s attention—but not provide a lot of information. Take the May 17 news alert from Fox, “Pelosi Hammer Attacker Learns Fate During Sentencing,” for example. Why not include what the sentence was—30 years in prison—in the alert itself?

    On April 15, when three out of four alerts sent out by Fox were about Crime (the fourth was a story about Trump’s hush money trial, coded as National Politics), one was headlined “Search for Kansas Women Takes a Turn as Spokeswoman for Investigators Gives Update.” The “turn” was an announcement that officials had given up hope of finding the missing women alive.

    For its part, the New York Times gave its readers more Entertainment alerts (18) than Economy alerts (14), pushing out 46% of all Entertainment stories tracked in the study. The paper also put out the highest number of Personal Advice (81% of all) and Miscellaneous stories (72%). The Times and USA Today were the only outlets to send out Personal Advice stories as breaking news alerts, such as “The Six Best White Sneakers” (New York Times, 5/15/24) and “Being a Bridesmaid Can Be Expensive. Should You Say Yes or No?” (USA Today, 5/5/24).

    A few New York Times Personal Advice stories (5/15/24, 5/28/24, 5/30/24) were from Wirecutter, the product-review website the Times bought in 2016. The website states at the top of each article that “when you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.” (This process is explained in a bit more depth here.) In the Times’ annual report, revenue made from Wirecutter commissions is listed as part of “Other Businesses,” a category that made the Times $265 million in 2023. These Wirecutter stories are not urgent news stories—but they do help the Times make a profit off its readers (FAIR.org, 6/17/21).

    Questionable urgency

    NYT: Taylor Swift Has Given Fans a Lot. Is It Finally Too Much?

    Stop the presses! The New York Times (4/22/24) reports that some songs on Taylor Swift’s latest album “sounded a whole lot like others she has already put out.”

    The New York Times and USA Today sometimes considered op-eds newsy enough to dedicate an entire alert to, in addition to their regular “breaking news.” An op-ed about Gmail’s 20th anniversary warranted an alert, just like the impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas did. An op-ed on the dangers of sexual choking got the same weight as the news of the ICC preparing arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders. And in both instances, alerts were pushed on the same day within hours of each other.

    The Times also published the most Health stories (21) about seemingly random (rather than breaking news) topics, such as whether oats and apple cider vinegar can really help you lose weight, why we age and tips for a better sex life. (Many of these Health stories were dually coded into Personal Advice.) These types of stories may have surprised readers who subscribed in order to, as the Times advertises, “get informed as important news breaks around the world.”

    Times alerts of questionable urgency were often sent out with no apparent rhyme or reason, in the midst of other, more obviously newsworthy alerts. For example, on April 24, the Times sent out alerts about abortion laws in Arizona and Idaho, and the US secretly sending long-range missiles to Ukraine—along with a story headlined “Has Taylor Swift Fatigue Finally Set In?”

    The next day, April 25, the Times pushed a story called “‘Eldest Daughter Syndrome’ and the Science of Birth Order” at 8:37 am, and then another email listed as “The U.S. economy grew at a 1.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter, a sharply slower pace than late last year.” just six minutes later. The article about “eldest daughter syndrome” was actually published by the Times ten days earlier, making it clear that it wasn’t exactly “breaking” news.

    Many of the Times’ stories we coded as “Miscellaneous” had obvious clickbait headlines, like “A Hiker Was Lost in the Woods. Snow Was Falling. Time Was Running Out” (4/30/24) and “These Couples Survived a Lot. Then Came Retirement” (5/8/24). The latter was linked to the New York Times Magazine, the Times‘ weekly Sunday magazine that highlights interviews, commentaries, features and longer-length articles—again, not urgent news.

    On May 27, when over 2,000 people died in Papua New Guinea, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented on the tent massacre in Rafah, the Times thought it reasonable to also send alerts about Manhattanhenge, nude modeling and a celebrity obituary that linked to its recently-acquired sports news site, the Athletic. As we’ve seen before (FAIR.org, 6/7/24), the Times enjoys focusing on trending and glamorous topics.

    These media outlets offer newsletters that promise comprehensive news alerts about important breaking stories occurring everywhere. After tallying the topics covered, we can confidently state that that’s not what subscribers are getting.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    USA Today: Weighing the Risks of Vaccine for Kids

    USA Today (10/28/21) framed vaccinating children against Covid as a “tough decision” that involved “weighing the risks.”

    After an FDA advisory panel authorized Pfizer/BioNTech’s pediatric dose for kids ages 5–11 in a 17–0 vote (with one abstention), USA Today (10/28/21) responded with the headline, “Weighing the Risks of Vaccines for Kids: Unknowns Will Make It a Tough Decision for Some.”

    In its online version (10/27/21), the paper phrased it: “Covid Vaccines for Kids Aren’t as Clear-Cut as for Adults: Five Factors for Parents to Consider.”

    The clear message in either case was that parents would need to navigate a high degree of uncertainty about whether they should vaccinate their children.

    The problem with that message is that the public health consensus is in fact clear: The risks of vaccination are far lower than the risks of Covid, so children should be vaccinated. (Beyond the FDA’s expert panel approval, see, for example, the American Academy of Pediatrics, 8/5/21; Time, 10/30/21; Johns Hopkins, 10/27/21.)

    ‘Factors to consider’

    USA Today‘s Karen Weintraub introduced the article by contrasting adult vaccination, for which “the evidence…is clear,” with vaccinating the 5–11 age group, for which “the story…isn’t as clear-cut.” Vaccination makes an adult six times less likely to contract Covid, Weintraub explained, and 11 times less likely to die from it.

    Without offering an immediate contrast with outcomes for children that would explain why the story is less clear-cut, Weintraub went on to note that the FDA advisory panel “concluded the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks for this age group.”

    The prospect of CDC approval this week, she wrote, means that

    parents are likely soon to be faced with a choice: Would they rather take the small chance of their child falling seriously ill from Covid-19, or the even smaller chance that they will be harmed by the shots intended to protect against it?

    USA Today is here “to help with that decision,” the article continued, offering a wide array of information about Covid and vaccination in kids, including several points that seemed intended to support the argument against vaccination, like “even without vaccination, it’s possible to protect children by wearing masks indoors and vaccinating the adults in their lives,” and “every vaccine brings some risks.”

    Under a subsection titled, “Factors to Consider,” the article noted that “a vaccine provides more predictable protection than infection, but an infection may offer broader protection against variants, studies in adults have shown”—as if it’s an either/or choice. (To suggest that parents might choose infection with Covid, which has killed 177 children in the US between 5 and 14 years old, as an alternative to vaccination is shockingly irresponsible.)

    ‘Public perception of vaccines’

    USA Today: COVID vaccines for kids aren't as clear-cut as for adults: 5 factors for parents to consider

    Online, USA Today (10/27/21) said that “Covid Vaccines for Kids Aren’t as Clear-Cut as for Adults”—but acknowledged 18 paragraphs in that “the risks are theoretical.”

    Four paragraphs from the end, Weintraub wrote, concerning “a parent’s anxiety level”: “There are no known serious risks from vaccination and its effectiveness is clear, so a parent who would feel better if their child is vaccinated can easily justify their decision.”

    In other words, the scientific consensus—that the vaccines are safe and effective—becomes, in USA Today‘s telling, not the main takeaway and the foundation for parental decision-making, but something that’s primarily relevant only to those who are anxious about Covid.

    For those less concerned, Weintraub gave the lone abstaining FDA panelist the last word:

    While there are clearly high-risk groups in the 5–11 age group for which the vaccine would significantly reduce serious disease, I do not expect protection from infection to last more than a few months, and this may negatively affect public perception of vaccines.

    Public perceptions of vaccines are largely shaped by the information they’re given about them. Surveys show that up to two-thirds of their parents are reluctant to vaccinate their kids when the shot becomes available. It’s a major information gap that credible news media should be working to overcome, not to reinforce.

    ACTION:

    Please tell USA Today that its reporting on child Covid vaccination should lead with the fact that “there are no known serious risks from vaccination and its effectiveness is clear.”

    CONTACT:

    Michael McCarter

    Managing Editor for Standards, Ethics & Inclusion

    Email: mmccarter@gannett.com
    Twitter: @therealmccarter

    Remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread.

    The post ACTION ALERT: USA Today Stokes Parents’ Fears of Child Vaccination appeared first on FAIR.


    This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Julie Hollar.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  •  

    USA Today: CRT reminds us that systemic racism exists. In my classroom we don't bury it, we discuss it

    In USA Today‘s print edition (7/6/21), this op-ed was headlined, “Teaching Critical Race Theory Is Patriotic, Not Anti-American.”

    After working the right up into a lather over Black Lives Matter (FAIR.org, 5/27/21), Fox News and its conservative media allies have turned white rage onto a more actionable target: critical race theory. Though the theory is a longstanding and specific academic lens for understanding systemic racism, the right has transformed it into a catchall for anything that encourages talking about and addressing racism.

    It’s textbook backlash politics: Racist police violence sparked a movement demanding a re-examination of racism in America and systemic reform that might challenge white privilege, so the right launched its own movement to shut down conversations about race and white privilege in any and all institutional arenas, most prominently schools, government offices (including the military) and corporations, that could possibly make that happen.

    It’s unsurprising that the right would turn the focus to white victimhood rather than anti-Black violence and discrimination. But mainstream corporate media have also given far too much space and legitimacy to the tactic. In June, 424 articles could be found in major US newspapers that mentioned “critical race theory,” according to a Nexis search–compared to four articles in August 2020, the month before the right-wing attack on critical race theory was rolled out on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show (9/2/20).

    A July 6 USA Today editorial page dedicated to the CRT “debate” exemplified the wrong way to cover the issue. The editorial board’s own opinion was accompanied by not one but two opposing views: For the left, it tapped Kevin Cokley (7/5/21), a professor of African studies at the University of Texas, whose subhead argued, “I Always Challenge My Students and Never Place Racial Guilt on Them.

    USA Today: What I discovered about critical race theory in public schools and why it shouldn't be taught

    USA Today (7/5/21) provided space to the critic who said he wanted to “recodify” critical race theory to “annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”

    For the right, the paper invited Christopher Rufo (7/5/21), the right-wing provocateur (and Fox News regular) from the Manhattan Institute who invented the CRT-as-anything-conservatives-hate rallying cry. Rufo has explicitly stated that his

    goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think “critical race theory.” We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.

    Rufo’s op-ed, “What I Discovered About Critical Race Theory in Public Schools and Why It Shouldn’t Be Taught,” carried the subhead: “State Legislatures Are Wise to Ban Schools From Promoting Race Essentialism, Collective Guilt and Racial Superiority Theory.”

    Note the emphasis on white guilt in both subheads. The debate centers on whether CRT should be taught, but the question is hinged on whether white students might be made to feel any responsibility for historical and contemporary racism and white privilege—the implicit assumption being that they should not. It’s quite a victory for the right, which just a year earlier was uncomfortably forced to debate whether police are killing too many Black people.

    The paper’s editorial board (7/5/21), for its part, staked out a “middle” ground: “Critical Race Theory Fear a Mix of the Predictable, the Outlandish and the Justified.” While some criticism is explicitly “justified,” at times critics have gone too far, it suggested: “Responding to all these concerns by policing classroom discussions about race with a state law is like using a shotgun to drive mosquitoes out of a bedroom.”

    The mosquito simile suggests that existing culturally responsive curricula in schools aren’t exactly dangerous, but certainly annoying, and worth getting rid of—presumably with a flyswatter rather than a shotgun. The board prefers that “school board members, principals and teachers themselves” make curriculum decisions.

    Of course, the right is working that angle, too, trying to take over school boards with activists, which would render USA Today‘s position even more untenable. This isn’t an issue that can be both-sidesed or depoliticized. Media need to treat it as it is: an attempt to shut down speech across institutions when power is being challenged.

    Kimberle Crenshaw

    Kimberlé Crenshaw (MSNBC, 7/6/21): “When we start dictating what can be taught, what can be said, and what is unsayable, we are well, well down the road towards an authoritarian regime.”

    As Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of critical race theory’s earliest exponents, told MSNBC (7/6/21):

    Understand what risk we all face if they are allowed to dictate what can be said, what can be taught, what can be learned, who can vote, and who can protest. This is a recurrence of redemption. All of these things are exactly what happened at the end of Reconstruction….

    When we start dictating what can be taught, what can be said, and what is unsayable, we are well, well down the road towards an authoritarian regime. People keep asking, “Can it happen here?” If you look at Black history, it has happened here.

    Racism will be the vehicle through which authoritarianism rises in this country. That’s what we’re seeing happening right now. And the only question is whether people who believe in this country, if they recognize that they have a dog in this fight. Only if people wake up and see that this implicates all of us can we have hope that this is not going to be a replay of redemption in the 19th century.

    Crenshaw may have been talking about the public generally, but major media, with their key role in framing narratives and legitimizing political positions, are certainly implicated as well. Too many in the media came to realize too late the danger of covering Trump as just another politician (FAIR.org, 12/1/16); it is urgent they don’t make the same mistake again.

    The post How Not to Cover Critical Race Theory appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  •  

    Texas lifted its mask mandate on March 10, allowing all businesses to open at full capacity, one week after Gov. Greg Abbott’s March 2 announcement that “it is clear from the recoveries, vaccinations, reduced hospitalizations and safe practices that Texans are using that state mandates are no longer needed.”

    NPR: Texas And Mississippi To Lift COVID-19 Mask Mandates And Business Capacity Limits

    NPR (3/2/21) reported that Texas and Mississippi “have seen declines in the average daily number of new cases of Covid-19″—emphasis on the “have,” since the declines had stopped and cases were going back up by the time their governors announced an end to mask mandates.

    Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves made a similar announcement the same day. Both cited declining hospitalizations in their states and vaccine distribution as their rationale, which was repeated uncritically by some corporate media outlets reporting on the decision, including NPR and USA Today.

    What these outlets failed to mention is that Covid-19 cases and deaths were rising significantly in Texas and Mississippi in the days leading up to their governors’ announcements. In Texas, average daily new cases rose from 4,252 on February 20 to 7,754 on March 1—an increase of 82% in nine days. Average daily deaths went from 127 on February 20 to 230 on March 1, an 81% rise.

    Mississippi—whose per capita rate of Covid infection is similar to that of Texas—saw average daily new cases rise 42% in just six days before Reeves’ declaration, with deaths rising 68% over the same period.

    What’s more, the test positivity rate in both states also put them among the 10 worst in the country at the time—as did their vaccination rates. At the time of Abbott’s announcement, Texas ranked last among the states in vaccines administered per capita. (Currently Texas is still last in terms of the proportion of its population fully vaccinated.)

    But rather than pointing out that these states’ relaxation of Covid restrictions were coming in the midst of an alarming upswing in both cases and deaths, NPR (3/2/21) offered selective numbers that supported the governors’ arguments. After quoting both governors and a brief rebuttal from CDC director Rochelle Walensky, the report continued:

    Both states have seen declines in the average daily number of new cases of Covid-19. In the past week, the New York Times reports, Texas has seen an average of 7,693 cases per day—down 18% from the average two weeks earlier. The average daily number of deaths has declined by 13% over that period.

    In Mississippi, the declines have been more pronounced. The state’s average daily number of new cases declined by 27% over the average two weeks earlier, and average daily deaths declined by 34% in that same period.

    NPR picked a timeframe that gave the impression that cases were falling at the time the governors made their announcements. While average new cases were indeed lower than they had been at the peak of the pandemic in January, the declines had hit a trough, and case numbers were rising again when the governors announced their elimination of public health measures.

    91-DIVOC: Average New Deaths from COVID-19, Texas and Mississippi

    By the time the governors of Texas and Mississippi announced an end to mask mandates, both average new cases of Covid-19 and average new deaths (shown in chart from 91-DIVOC) had been rising in both states for roughly a week.

     

    USA Today: Five states are rolling back mask mandates. More could be on the way. Here's what it could mean for all of us.

    USA Today (3/3/21) wrote that on March 2, “275 new coronavirus deaths were reported and more than 7,200 people tested positive for the virus.” It then noted that positive tests were much higher in January—but didn’t point out that Covid deaths were about the same in January.

    USA Today (3/3/21) gave more space to public health experts critical of the governors’ decision, but still included this data purporting to offer more context:

    On Tuesday, 275 new coronavirus deaths were reported and more than 7,200 people tested positive for the virus. That is far less than the 22,000 people a day who were testing positive in January.

    But 275 deaths is not many fewer than the 290 people on average who died from Covid per day in Texas in January.

    In another brief USA Today article (3/2/21), headlined “Texas Isn’t Alone. These 15 States Also Do Not Currently Have a Statewide Mask Mandate,” the paper allowed Abbott’s argument to stand without criticism:

    Abbott said on Tuesday that it is time for the state to completely reopen, as Covid-19 hospitalizations are declining across the state and more people are being vaccinated against the coronavirus.

    Again, readers would never guess that people are being vaccinated in Texas at a slower rate than in any other state.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Shop. Click. And the next day, your purchase is on your doorstep. Amazon has changed the face of shopping, but at a surprisingly high cost to its workers. With Black Friday and Cyber Monday coming soon, we look at what’s behind those smiling packages to reveal the dangers of working at Amazon.

    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • A giant mysterious illegal dump in Chicago was part of a federal investigation that brought down a dozen corrupt politicians, but it left neighborhood residents angry and feeling used.

    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.