How to Know If the Latest Coronavirus Headlines Can Be Trusted
With so much writing about the COVID-19 pandemic every day, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by all the information available. And with that in mind, it’s harder than ever to figure out which ones really deliver quality reporting and which ones are worth looking out for. So how do we know what to read and who to trust?
Dr. Karl Bergstrom , professor of biology at the University of Washington (and a former guest on The Upgrade ), recently spoke with Scientific American about how to consume and evaluate COVID-19 news reports without being “intimidated” (their words). As an expert at spotting and reporting bullshit, Bergstrom has shared tips to help you figure out which COVID news is worth reading and believing. Here are some of our favorites.
Wait 12-18 hours to read the “breaking news” article.
There are some news items in which speed and immediate reporting are important, such as the death of public figures or major global events. But this type of “breaking news” instant messaging isn’t always the best option – for example, if it includes medical or scientific details related to an ongoing global pandemic. Bergstrom recommends slowing down:
“Quality information is not directly related to timeliness on a scale of minutes to hours. It all depends on how well this information has been verified, triangulated and presented. What I encourage people to do in a crisis like this is to slow down and [read] a newspaper article published 12 hours ago – or 18 hours ago, or 36 hours ago – written by a professional infectious disease reporter. illness for years [and] who spoke to a group of experts to synthesize what was happening, interpret things and put [them] in context.
I encourage people to turn to their traditional sources of information, which they trust, not Twitter, Facebook or WhatsApp, because when you do this, you do get information that is a little more recent, but the quality of that information is much, much lower. You are very susceptible to any rumors spreading over the Internet, and this can be a big problem. “
Find and subscribe to specific journalists with experience writing about health and / or infectious diseases.
Regardless of what the journalist had before the pandemic, almost everything went to COVID coverage. The problem here is that not everyone has the experience and training to work with this type of report. This, coupled with the need for speed, means that many COVID articles may contain inaccurate information or analysis.
Bergstrom says that for him finding the best news sources comes down to analyzing individual reporters. Those he reads include STAT’s Helen Brunswell because he says she has over 20 years of experience in the infectious disease field. “She understands the whole picture and portrays it brilliantly, ” he tells Scientific American . “I think the point is to find the voices you trust and then rely on those voices.”
Changing views or advice is good.
The main challenges for reporting a pandemic are evolving science and changing public health messages. Once we were told not to wear masks, and after a few weeks they became mandatory. Some media consumers may think that if a publication or journalist changes their position or advice on something, it means that their reporting is inaccurate. But, as Bergstrom points out, the opposite is actually true:
“The first thing to acknowledge [is] as science changes, the advice you get from health professionals also changes over time. You’ll see people say, “Well, you can’t trust [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Institute director Anthony] Fauci because he said one thing in February and another in July.” It is completely the opposite. People you cannot trust are the ones who have not changed their views and advice, despite the fact that they have much more evidence. Those who change their views and advice based on facts are those who do science and those who make good recommendations. ”
For more information on Bergstrom, check out his appearance on The Upgrade .