Empathetic verification: covering ‘Long COVID’ in Norwegian newsrooms By Hanne Østli Jakobsen. 2022. Reuters Institute Oxford

[Esther12]

https://reutersinstitute.politics.o...&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue newsletter

This is listed as a 'Journalist Fellowship Paper', and I don't know if it's something likely to be read by many people, or more of an online student essay, but I thought there were bits of interest in there.

eg:

Others wanted to focus more on the majority who don’t develop COVID, and a
desire not to scare them unnecessarily. “I have the utmost respect for the fact
that many become really sick, and I’ve interviewed people who’ve been really
sick. But I also have respect for the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy – so we
think carefully about this coverage,” said Tine Dommerud, the Aftenposten
health reporter.51

It is interesting that these perspectives mirror who the journalists met first in
their work on this topic: Wergeland had his first introduction to Long COVID
through an interview with Arne Søraas, whereas Dommerud and Marie Golimo
Kingsrød from VG first talked about this phenomenon with other researchers
who’ve been more focused on the risk of creating fear. Kingsrød was even
warned by a researcher, early on in the pandemic: “The more you write about
Long COVID, the more Long COVID there will be.”52

It can be useful to read something written for more insiders than the public.

I had trouble accessing some of the links in the references, eg for [54] above it has :

54 Dommerud, Experiences and reflections after covering Long COVID.

Linking to this: https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?6mxeRi

Is this some new technology I'm not understanding?

There's some CFS stuff, eg:

The ghost of the chronic fatigue debate
The backdrop for this discussion – and for my interest in the coverage of Long
COVID – is the ghost of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), or ME. CFS is another
contested illness, with patients suffering often-unexplained but persistent and
sometimes debilitating symptoms. These patients have been met with disbelief
from some doctors and no good answers from scientists. It has led to a lot of
acrimony, and both researchers and journalists now say they shy away from
working or reporting on CFS.58

Reference 58 is Fiona Fox's book.

They also cite some stuff from Julie Rehmeyer.

I thought it made some sensible points, but also had bits that indicate some real problems with the current culture and the way a lot of these controversies are framed and understood by those trying to be fair minded.

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

I also have respect for the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy – so we
think carefully about this coverage,” said Tine Dommerud, the Aftenposten
health reporter.51

Perhaps that might explain some of the articles on ME/CFS that appeared in Aftenposten, like this one:
Do not deprive ME sufferers of the opportunity for treatment that works (aftenposten.no)

Linking to this: https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?6mxeRi

Zotero is a popular reference manager, a way for researchers to store publications and help with getting the right citation in papers. So it's probably just an error where they linked to their local zotero files instead of the correct URL.

 

[Esther12]

Zotero is a popular reference manager, a way for researchers to store publications and help with getting the right citation in papers. So it's probably just an error where they linked to their local zotero files instead of the correct URL.

Thanks. A bit annoying - I'd like to read those original documents. There was already some interesting stuff in there for helping understand the perspectives and assumptions of these people.