Distortions shouldn’t fuel the fires

Is it me, or does comparing a few malleable statistics and out-of-context remarks to the steady flow of lies and distortions that have emanated from the Trump administration seem a little unfair?  While I share Cindy Kepner’s concern about too many of us getting limited perspectives from our respective media choices (“Why is the media controlling our thoughts,” Jan. 8), I fear that by comparing apples to oranges - or maybe stink fruit - she undermines her own argument.  A bit of fact-checking is in order:

1) She cites a CDC source showing that Texas and Florida had fewer COVID cases than Illinois, Delaware and New Jersey, despite mask requirements imposed in the latter three states. Having spent a long career working with statistics, I can assure Ms. Kepner that they can generally be arranged to tell whatever story is desired, but I’m not sure why she would choose to distort the fact that states that have ignored recommendations on masks generally have the highest per capita COVID cases. According to Statista (a respected statistical resource), the top 10 are North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Utah, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Idaho and Kansas (of which only Wisconsin, Rhode Island and - since November - North Dakota have enforced mask mandates, as has Texas, by the way).  And according to both Statista and the CDC, Delaware and New Jersey (though not Illinois) have somewhat lower per capita case rates than Florida and Texas at this time. Why claim that we are somehow being misled by the media when overall statistics certainly show that mask mandates have undoubtedly been effective in limiting the spread of the virus in many places?

2) Regarding Mr. Trump’s reference to COVID as a “hoax,” I agree that the media pushed the envelope on this one - as they are wont to do with many topics, ever in search of headlines.  In this case, Trump was referring, at a February campaign rally, to Democratic criticism of his response to the arrival of the virus in the U.S. as a “their new hoax” (following impeachment proceedings) not specifying that COVID was a hoax. But given that he downplayed the severity of the virus in the same speech, perhaps the media should be forgiven for concluding that he also considered it a machination not worthy of concern. On the other hand, his reference to “very fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville was indeed often edited - he went on to exclude neo-Nazis and white supremacists, although that was omitted from many reports. Then again, perhaps Trump’s frequent hesitancy to criticize those groups contributed to the freewheeling editing.

3) Regarding the Portland riots by some BLM protesters (or those claiming to be), I’m not sure why Ms. Kepner could not find references to them via a Google search. I had no trouble doing so. Recent citations included a New York Post article comparing the Jan. 6 mob attack on the Capitol to the Portland demonstrations and questioning why so many public figures who expressed outrage about the assault on the Capitol were more sympathetic to the Portland “rioters.” 

So much for one-sided media. Still, that comparison seems a bit unfair, given that the violence in Portland wasn’t encouraged/incited by public officials, like the president riling up his followers Jan. 6 with a series of lies purporting to prove that he won last year’s election “by a landslide” [read the transcript], despite the fact that no court, commission, or credible election official has found any evidence of substantive fraud.

Nevertheless, as a Democrat I support the paper’s right to have an opinion about actual facts (rather than merely presenting alternative ones).

Ms. Kepner denounces “mainstream” media, but mainly cites extremist outlets on YouTube to make her point.

I agree with her that the proliferation of internet outlets, many of which have no basis in fact, has surely fueled the divided state of our nation.

But we should be careful that distortions like those in her letter don’t fan those flames rather than calm them.