You report things that happen, e.g. crash happened on X road. You can report that "CDC says mask don't work" but if you write it as truth, which Vox stated in January, you are either a parrot or inept.
If journalism is just reporting what others say, and not questioning what they say and the underlying assumptions, then it is at best just a weak form of Wikipedia, and at worst a propaganda mechanism.
Journalists need to get some teeth back and challenge authorities rather than relying on what is said as gospel. Jounalists should have led the charge on all of this, starting with questioning Chinese numbers through to Masks and the assumptions of the modelling, rather than playing, to be kind, catch up and to be mean interference on people doing their job for them.
Mathematicians report 1+1=2. Where do you draw the line? At some point you need to draw the line and say "Actually, my article isn't an expose on the CDC." It's not the job of every journalist at every second to be challenging literally everything. At the end of February the US Surgeon General was not just telling people that masks don't help - he said:
> U.S. Surgeon General
@Surgeon_General
Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
>They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
I completely agree that someone should be questioning when the CDC says "Masks don't help", but firstly, you need to be really damn sure if you're going to second guess the CDC on the eve of a pandemic, and secondly, it's not everyone's job to be writing that story. Someone should, but for every earth shattering pullitzer prize winner, there's going to be 1000 articles that just adhered to the status quo and that's not neccessarily a bad thing.
> Mathematicians report 1+1=2. We investigated, and found no credible dissenting voices
That's reporting. Which leads to this:
> WHO and CDC say masks ineffective. We investigated and found the one study they relied on was flawed, as these credible experts who disagree explain.
If journalism is just reporting what others say, and not questioning what they say and the underlying assumptions, then it is at best just a weak form of Wikipedia, and at worst a propaganda mechanism.
Journalists need to get some teeth back and challenge authorities rather than relying on what is said as gospel. Jounalists should have led the charge on all of this, starting with questioning Chinese numbers through to Masks and the assumptions of the modelling, rather than playing, to be kind, catch up and to be mean interference on people doing their job for them.