New York Times journalist David Leonhardt discusses reporting on the pandemic

Rob Tornoe

How well do you think the media has covered the pandemic?

I think the media has excelled in some huge ways, [such as the] presentation of COVID data in ways that are both useful and also in context. … I think about some of the investigative work on the CDC’s treatment failures by multiple news organizations, including my own and The Washington Post. I think about some of the explanatory science journalism that has been so good.”

David Leonhardt, The New York Times newsletter “The Morning”

COVID-19 cases are declining rapidly. States are lifting their mask mandates. Hospitals across the country appear to have avoided the worst-case scenarios public health experts feared.

This is all great news for a country that’s been forced to weather a once-in-century pandemic for two straight years. But with vaccines widely available for everyone over the age of five and the omicron wave fading away as quickly as it washed in, journalists across the country are left wondering what comes next.

One thing that seems certain is that COVID-19 will remain an important story that continues to evolve and touch just about everyone in the community you cover. Even the term “endemic” has been mutated by many to mean the situation is suddenly safe and harmless. As Ariz Katzourakis, a professor of evolution and genomics at Oxford, recently pointed out in the journal Nature that malaria is endemic and still killed more than 600,000 people in 2020.

So how should local reporters be framing and reporting on an ever-present virus most readers are sick of hearing about? For advice, I turned to Pulitzer Prize winner David Leonhardt, who has been covering COVID-19 and other subjects for the daily New York Times newsletter “The Morning.”

(This conversation is edited for length and clarity.)

 How well do you think the media has covered the pandemic?

This has been a complex story for people to cover, because it’s been unlike anything else in our lives.

I think the media has excelled in some huge ways, [such as the] presentation of COVID data in ways that are both useful and also in context. … I think about some of the investigative work on the CDC’s treatment failures by multiple news organizations, including my own and The Washington Post. I think about some of the explanatory science journalism that has been so good.  

One thing I have argued is that we haven’t been perfect. And if you’re looking at media writ large, I do think there is a bad news bias that we should grapple with a little bit. We can also overweigh good news, but I do think there’s a little bit of a bad news bias in which if cases are rising, we say, “Cases are rising.” And if cases are falling, we say, “Cases are falling, but they might soon rise.”

Do you think the problem is that reporters don’t want to inadvertently signal bad behavior in their community, or if it’s just that reporters like reporting on car crashes?

I think it’s a couple of things. We have to have skepticism, and many of the most important pieces of journalism that get produced in a given year spring from saying, “Wait a second; I think things are worse than they’re saying.” That’s a much, much bigger factor than, say, chasing clicks.

I do think what you raise is also correct, that reporters say, “Wait a second; I don’t want to encourage any kind of bad behavior.” The instinct itself isn’t problematic. It’s problematic if it then makes a leap that the only kind of problem we could potentially have is COVID.

It’s really important to think holistically about how this pandemic has harmed people. The virus itself has been horrific. The toll has been horrific. The side effects have not been small — increases in mental health problems, increases in suicide attempts among groups, soaring numbers of drug overdoses, widening gaps in educational quality by race and by income, an increase in Americans’ blood pressure and an increase in violent crime that certainly looks like the disruption and isolation of the pandemic played at least some casual role.

It’s not our job to solve people’s problems, but when we present them, present not only the cost of COVID but also the cost of disruption and help people think about both.

As we move forward, should local journalists move past looking at things like case numbers and take a wider view of COVID and its continued impact on the community?

What’s tricky about cases is that they are still useful and important, but they’re not as important as they were. So, I wouldn’t encourage anybody to ignore case numbers.

There are important stories on almost every side of COVID. The direct costs of the virus — including among the unvaccinated — is still a really important story… Hospitals being overwhelmed, or even when they’re not, we’re delaying all kinds of medical procedures that might have benefits to people. That’s an important story. The ways schools look different, but are actually functioning just as well, is an interesting story. And so are the ways in which schools are just not functioning as well because of the things we’re doing.

Journalists don’t actually have to come to a conclusion with each one of these and say, “And thus this should stop.” That’s not our role.

There are still a lot of critical COVID-related stories to tell. Some of them might cause readers to say, ‘Oh my goodness. We’re not doing enough.’ Some of them might cause readers to say, ‘Oh my goodness. We need to move back toward normalcy.’ Don’t be afraid of telling either type of story.

Vaccines have obviously become a polarizing subject. I get the sense that when we report on the success of vaccines, we’re largely reaching people who are vaccinated, and those that remain unvaccinated are just ignoring it. Any ideas on how to bridge that divide?

Our job is to reflect reality, even if it’s not changing any minds. … But I do think lots of people are really trying to grapple with what’s right and trying to make up their minds.

Sometimes it’s individual questions. We did a couple of pieces trying to help people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to think about what second shot they should get. But often, it’s broader questions, like how should someone feel about a mask mandate in their community or their schools?

So I actually think with COVID, huge numbers are people are grappling with how they personally think about this policy or that policy. By us giving them information, it can help them do that. And they’re going to come to different conclusions, and that’s great.

What resources would be beneficial for reporters as they continue to cover the pandemic?

I think in most communities, there are institutions with scientists and epidemiologists. I think talking to those people is really helpful.

Experts are going to disagree. Experts who have one expertise might emphasize one part of a problem, whereas others might emphasize another part. So it’s not simply a matter of looking for the most expert person and then outsourcing your judgment to that person. You want to get many different expert views and people you come to respect, and think about how they all fit together. And be honest with readers by saying here’s an area they agree, and here’s an area they disagree.

In addition, there is a lot of COVID data available. … You can use The New York Times COVID map to compare how your county differs from the rest of your state or from similar counties in other states. You can do similar things on Our World in Data. And although Twitter gets a bad rap, I do find it’s extremely useful to use it as a way to aggregate expert opinion quickly.

As COVID begins to shift from a pandemic to endemic, what stories should journalists focus on?

I do think the ups and downs of cases still matter. We should also assume there will be some other variant. At this point, it’s foolish to assume we’re on a one-way trip to zero.

I think schools are enormously important. They’re not nearly back to normal. I think the return to the office is a big story since it seems like there are few places that went from five days a week to zero that are going to go back to five.

Then I’d look at everything that changed during the pandemic. It’s not just about the pandemic by any means, but it’s a big deal when crime is rising in society. I know some people exaggerate it, but it’s a real story, and I think it’s important to cover.

You’re a journalist. You’re not a doctor. Your job is to ask the questions that ordinary people ask and give people answers that are useful to them and their lives. Talk to experts, look at the data, use logic and write about it.

Rob Tornoe is a cartoonist and columnist for Editor and Publisher, where he writes about trends in digital media. He is also a digital editor and writer for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Reach him at robtornoe@gmail.com.