I disagree - stating the different situations in different ways is entirely reasonable and to be expected. Can you find me some "serious journalism", ever, which operated in the way you describe?
It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.
>> COVID-19 doesn't suddenly become a "different situation" depending on the political orientation of the mass gathering.
> It's not the political orientation of the mass gathering - it's the purpose. One is the President organising a gathering in an attempt to boost his election campaign - the other is some random people who came together to protest a specific thing.
How does the purpose of a public gathering alter a virus? Does it have political awareness and dynamically modify its transmissibility according to the righteousness of the cause?
Or perhaps the purpose of a public gathering justifies journalistic framing (altering the description of the severity of the virus, which in turn alters readers mental model of reality). If it's this, what is the logic behind the justification?
I am not about to jump into a debate about which of the two is "worse", because no matter the outcome it is absolutely disingenious to frame COVID-19 as "deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country" in one context and plain "coronavirus pandemic" in the other. It is the same virus. If you don't see the bias in that then consider the possibility that you share it.
