What the Pfizer-approval story says about our media ecosystem

In recent weeks, amid broader questions about the surge of the Delta coronavirus variant in the US and the vaccination campaign to counter it, journalists have periodically pressed health officials as to when the Food and Drug Administration might fully approve the vaccines, which had been administered, up to now, under emergency-use authorization. Two weeks ago, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, whether the FDA “needs to be doing more”; Collins assured him that the agency is working “twenty-four seven” on the approval process, then stressed that there is already “incredible evidence” for the vaccines’ safety and effectiveness, and urged the unvaccinated to get a shot immediately. “If you’re on the fence, get off the fence,” Collins said. “Go.” Late last week, the New York Times reported that the FDA hoped to approve Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine for US adults as soon as Monday, accelerating its self-imposed Labor Day deadline, and that was exactly what happened. The approval was a huge story across the mainstream media landscape, knocking the crisis in Afghanistan off the top of many news homepages and TV bulletins. “We begin tonight with a major breakthrough in a different type of forever war,” Joy Reid said on Monday, at the top of her show on MSNBC—“the war against COVID-19.”

Stories about the approval usually cited two main reasons for its importance: the possibility that it might assuage the concerns of some vaccine skeptics, and the extra cover it would give employers to mandate vaccination among their staff. (A number of institutions, including the US military, were quick to make use of the cover.) Some reporters and commentators balanced the two reasons; others emphasized one over the other. Reid described the approval as “a shift from a vaccine push to a vaccine must.” Those who focused on the first reason often cited recent polling, from the Kaiser Family Foundation, suggesting that around three in ten unvaccinated Americans might be more likely to get a shot if it were formally approved. Others cautioned against placing too much faith in that figure, noting Kaiser’s own caveat that it might be “a proxy for general safety concerns” since a large majority of unvaccinated respondents to its poll either thought the vaccines were approved already or didn’t know one way or another. “The news of the full authorization would seem to be likely to push familiarity with that status higher,” Aaron Blake wrote, in the Washington Post. “From there, it’s about whether that actually makes the difference for enough people. Being ‘more likely’ to get the vaccine doesn’t mean you’ll do it.” Alison Buttenheim, an expert on vaccine hesitancy at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Times that we’re likely talking here about “a vanishingly small number of people in real life.”

ICYMI: Regulatory repression as Russia turns the screw on independent journalism

In general, the coverage of the approval channeled a contradiction of sorts. The story is premised on institutional credibility—if the FDA weren’t a trustworthy messenger, its approval would be meaningless. And yet the main reasons the story matters are inextricably bound up with persistently high rates of vaccine skepticism in America, a phenomenon that is itself inextricable from widespread distrust of credible institutions; what’s more, the reasons pull in opposite directions, offering a carrot and wielding a stick. This is not to say that the approval isn’t a big story, or to criticize the coverage. Nor are the contradictions here irreconcilable—indeed, they could actually help the press to tease out the diversity of fears and motivations among vaccine skeptics, some of whom may respond better to carrots and others to sticks. As I’ve written before, coverage of vaccine skeptics has sometimes had an unhelpful flattening effect—tarring them all with the same brush of irrational, Trump-loving crazy.

Nonetheless, the contradictions here do illuminate some truths about our information environment. One has to do with how different outlets respond to institutional cues. The same mainstream outlets that treated the FDA’s verdict as big news in and of itself have also, by and large, made it clear from the beginning that the vaccines are safe and effective, and generally serve audiences that are already vaccinated at higher rates than the country at large (and, on the whole, are probably more likely to trust government authorities, especially under President Biden). By contrast, outlets, notably on the right, whose coverage has been more skeptical of the vaccines were never likely to do a U-turn based on the word of Biden’s FDA. According to CNN’s Brian Stelter, Fox News covered the approval story much less than CNN and MSNBC on Monday—and some network voices who did talk about it brought a skeptical tone, including by renewing their opposition to vaccine mandates. Laura Ingraham, a host, said that Biden was using the approval “to take away your rights”; Marty Makary, a guest, suggested that the administration had manipulated the approval and other COVID stories to distract attention from Afghanistan. “They can sit here and confirm and make official whatever they want,” Dana Loesch, a right-wing radio host, said, on a Fox show hosted by Jesse Watters. “It doesn’t change the fact that there are people who have questions.”

At one point, two Fox hosts asked within a minute of each other whether the FDA’s decision was “rushed” and “what took so long?” The dissonance was widely mocked online. But it spoke, in a sense, to another apparent contradiction in coverage of the approval—the FDA has, in fact, moved both quickly and slowly, depending on how you define those terms. Again, different commentators emphasized different definitions, with some stressing that the FDA accelerated its processes compared to how long it typically takes to approve a vaccine, while others argued that it didn’t go fast enough to meet this moment of acute crisis; David Leonhardt, of the Times, wrote—in an article headlined “FDA, not FDR”—that “American history is rich with examples of government officials doing what the FDA decided not to do in this case: overhaul their process in a time of crisis.” The debate is a new iteration of one that has recurred in media coverage throughout the pandemic: the proper balance between rigor and urgency. It’s another example, too, of scientific processes that would normally not attract much media attention playing out under a spotlight of harsh scrutiny—changing public perceptions of routine procedures and, sometimes, altering incentives for decision-makers. Progress that looks quick in the cool light of history can look glacial in the glare of the twenty-four-hour cable news cycle.

The historic speed of the approval arguably makes it an important story regardless of its immediate impact on vaccine skepticism. But the feeling persists that, in a country with a more responsible, better-adjusted information ecosystem—and much higher levels of early vaccine uptake—the approval would probably not have been seen as that big a deal. The mainstream news media is part of that ecosystem, even if it isn’t responsible for its worst ills. The approval hasn’t been the only FDA story in the news this week—the agency also responded to reports that some Americans have been taking ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that is typically given to livestock, to ward off the coronavirus. “You are not a horse,” the FDA wrote in a tweet. “You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” The eye-catching putdown echoed, predictably, through many a headline—offering a stark contrast to the institutional sobriety of the approval story. It was yet another jarring tonal clash in an era that has been full of them.

Below, more on the coronavirus:

• Poison ivey: The ivermectin story is playing out notably in Mississippi, a state with low vaccination rates. Last week, state health officials put out a warning following an increase in calls to poison control linked to ingestion of a version of the drug intended for animals. At least one person has been hospitalized; the Mississippi Free Press has more. As CNN’s Oliver Darcy reports, right-wing media figures, including several Fox News hosts, have mentioned (human) ivermectin as a possible COVID treatment, despite a dearth of evidence as to its effectiveness against the virus.
• Origin story: In the spring, with media commentators and others granting fresh credence to the controversial theory that COVID may have its origins in a Chinese laboratory, President Biden said that his intelligence community was split on the question, and ordered a further assessment, to report back in ninety days. Yesterday, Biden received the intelligence community’s conclusion—and it was inconclusive. The report is classified for now, but intelligence officials are said to be working to declassify parts of it in the coming days. (ICYMI, I wrote about lab-leak coverage in June.)
• Out of print: Nieman Lab’s Sarah Scire reports that student publications, both in the US and overseas, are having to scrap or scale back their print editions due to the pandemic. “The long-term outlook for student newspapers wasn’t exactly rosy before the pandemic hit,” Scire writes. “Still, deserted campuses and slashed student life budgets have taken a particularly high toll on student newspapers and magazines over the last year.” The Associated Collegiate Press told Scire that the group has not been tracking exact numbers but has seen “significant shifts to digital” since COVID hit.
• Nix’ed: Yesterday, the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences announced that it has revoked an honorary Emmy it awarded to Andrew Cuomo—the disgraced, now-former governor of New York—for his “masterful use of television” press conferences early in the pandemic. “His name and any reference to his receiving the award will be eliminated from International Academy materials going forward,” the organization said. Cynthia Nixon, the actress and activist who ran against Cuomo for governor in 2018, rubbed salt in the wound, tweeting: “The difference between me and Andrew Cuomo? Neither of us is governor, but I still have my Emmy(s).”

Other notable stories:

• A team from Reuters investigated the death of their colleague Danish Siddiqui, a photojournalist who was killed last month while embedded with Afghan soldiers on a reporting trip near the border with Pakistan. The team found that Siddiqui and two Afghan commandos were killed by Taliban fighters after the unit with which they were traveling withdrew from a battle and mistakenly left them behind; the team also considered whether managers at Reuters could have done more to keep Siddiqui safe, with some colleagues questioning why he was allowed to continue with the embed after surviving an earlier grenade attack. Meanwhile, news organizations are still working to evacuate their Afghan colleagues following the recent fall of Kabul. Yesterday, CBS News said that dozens of workers and their family members made it safely to Qatar.
• Journalists in Myanmar continue to confront a dire situation following a military coup. Last week, the ruling junta arrested Sithu Aung Myint, a columnist for Frontier Myanmar and commentator on Voice of America, and Htet Htet Khine, a producer with a BBC charity. Danny Fenster, an American journalist who also worked for Frontier Myanmar, was jailed three months ago yesterday. US officials recently lost contact with him.
• CNN’s Stelter assessed possible changes to MSNBC’s prime-time lineup, with star host Rachel Maddow expected to step back from her weeknight show next year (she’ll still host specials on the network) and Brian Williams, whose contract will also soon be up, reportedly looking to move away from his late-night slot. Nicolle Wallace, Ali Velshi, and Ari Melber may be in the frame for a prime-time show, Stelter reports; whatever happens, the network “will look very different by spring,” a source said. In other MSNBC news, staffers including writers and producers have voted to unionize with the Writers Guild of America, East. Management had declined to recognize the union voluntarily.
• In other media-jobs news, Bill Deverell, the director of the Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West, will host a new podcast, Western Edition, about the region; its first season will focus on the West’s relationship with fire. Elsewhere, David Zurawik, the media critic at the Baltimore Sun, has retired after thirty-two years at the paper; his colleague Dan Rodricks paid tribute to his impact. And Allure promoted Jessica Cruel to editor in chief; Cruel succeeds Michelle Lee, who recently left the magazine to join Netflix.
• Last year, Alexis Johnson, a Black reporter at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, sued the paper for discrimination after editors barred her from covering racial-justice protests, saying she had shown “bias” in a tweet. (The tweet was innocuous; Johnson now works for Vice.) The Post-Gazette moved to dismiss the suit on First Amendment grounds, but a federal judge recently ruled that the First Amendment does not “allow a publisher to make any and all discriminatory personnel decisions.” Pittsburgh City Paper has more.
• Marc Tracy, of the Times, profiled Ebony, a magazine chronicling Black life in America that is staging a revival under new owners. “Because we acquired out of bankruptcy, we’re a start-up, which is a curse and the beauty,” Michele Thornton Ghee, the CEO, told Tracy. “We get the opportunity to take a historic brand and retrofit it.” Plans to also revive Jet magazine remain “on the drawing board” for now, Tracy reports.
• The R&B singer R. Kelly is currently on trial in New York, charged with sex trafficking and other crimes. Yesterday, an alleged victim of Kelly’s abuse told the court that Kelly banned the women in his home from watching a Lifetime documentary about his behavior, and also sought to control what two of them said in interviews with Gayle King, of CBS—standing to the side and coughing as a signal to keep them on message.
• The New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner spoke with Katie Strang, a reporter at The Athletic, about her work covering sexual misconduct in sports. “There is sometimes tension between journalistic entities, who are also rights holders or have some financial stake, and some of the institutions that require accountability,” Strang said, of sports media. “The Athletic provides me a real luxury in the sense that we are beholden to no one.”
• And, last week, Gene Weingarten, of the Post, wrote a humor column in which he listed foods “you can’t make me eat”; the list reduced the entirety of Indian cuisine to curries and “one spice,” sparking a backlash online. The Post issued a correction—“In fact, India’s vastly diverse cuisines use many spice blends and include many other types of dishes”—and Weingarten apologized for being “insulting.” CNN’s Kerry Flynn has more.

ICYMI: “In Kosovo, everybody has their own truth”