Read on Twitter
What does balance look like when you’re covering covid restrictions? For every stranded traveller and café owner a journalist uses to frame restrictions negatively, balance requires that you speak to someone in a vulnerable covid cohort who is thrilled govt is keeping virus out.
I would have thought this was obvious but clearly needs to be said: if you only look for sources who want to complain about downsides of covid restrictions, your coverage - narrative - about the restrictions is negative. If you don’t report positives, public are not informed.
How about interviewing a business who has experienced a city which has eliminated the virus and are thriving because of it? Doesn’t fit the negative frame, but does this mean it’s less entertaining a news story? Scrutiny of a policy doesn’t mean just reporting its downsides.
I don’t feel journalists have delivered balanced coverage of the pandemic by balancing out the sources used to show impact of covid restrictions for a fair and reasonable assessment of both the downsides AND the considerable upsides. They’ve gone straight for negative - as usual.
Majority of Victorians supported covid policies which were incredibly difficult for them to live through, but were no where near as difficult as what millions going through overseas with out of control covid. Sources from overseas would have told journalists this if they’d asked.
Something I think journalists really need to remember is that they choose the frame. They choose the angle they want to take and then find sources to back this up. If you choose to report covid restrictions negatively, the public is only seeing one frame and are not informed. End