rojo wrote:
I don't agree with what Maria Valeria Fabre said "we know that people gathering in this way is a major factor in transmission.” I just don't think that's true.
Hey, everyone, Rojo doesn't agree with the doctor from John Hopkins. How dare the Washington Post ask an actual MD for their opinion on this situation. What a biased piece of leftist propaganda.
Ok, hadn't checked this thread in a couple days. Should clarify (I guess?) that I am not a Washington Post subscriber and never intend to be. Let's be honest, I read Jacobin with my spare time. The article was never behind a paywall for me.
It seems like Rojo has pulled his classic move & we all bit -- miscategorize something to drive clicks/views & double down on a bad view without showing the ability to learn/communicate with others. In the process, Rojo also bashed journalism, which given our current political climate, is disappointing. I know by know Rojo will never change an opinion on something like this but, as someone who runs this website, it matters how you present information to us. I, too, would like real proof that the Washington Post shamed the JFK 50 Miler. Shaming is different from you disagreeing with what was written. That's an important point. We are living through a pandemic that, by all accounts, is worsening. The article went through the safety protocols that the race has in place & agreed that they are doing everything they can. Why is it a problem if medical experts then say that that might not be good enough? Why does that outrage you so much? The race did a good job putting safety protocols in place but, by going through with what is not a local race anymore (1200 runners from 40ish states), the impact of their event goes well past some relatively healthy runners socially distancing themselves in the woods. You can't ignore that. It's fair for a news source to run a piece on a 1200 person event and prevent facts. They didn't launch a campaign to cancel the event and their work should help similar sized events think about these issues in the future. I don't see the harm in the article. And I'm not here to express any ill feelings that the race happened. I feel for RDs (the good ones) missing out on income & runners with limited racing opportunities. I don't mind reading about the impact of staging an event during a pandemic with information about what the race did to implement safety measures and what medical professionals have to say about them.
Bias does not necessarily come from when you see something you do not agree with. The Washington Post ran a public interest story on a large event happening during a pandemic, They talked about the race. They added opinions from medical professionals. This was not some hit job even if you are 1000% pro this race happening. You can hold that opinion (& you absolutely should if that's how you feel) and separate out an article detailing the situation. Rojo does us all a disservice presenting things in the way he does. The framing should have been do you think the race should be happening -- not the Washington Post is coming for the JFK 50 Miler's throat. Then people could have chimed in with the precautions the race set up or what they are hearing from medical professionals -- ya know, the information that was in the article in the first place.