This entire article is a "both sides are equal" trash equivalency article. From CNN or not, it's just poor reporting.
From the article (I can't easily get the quote to change to CNN, sorry):
This is a trick question with a crap answer. They really do need to work on how to answer these. I'll completely agree that "a matter of habit" is a poor answer. But, the question also presumes a "conflict with new and relaxed administration guidelines". Sure, standing at a podium, he's clearly outside in an uncrowded location. There didn't appear to be anyone near him. But, 10 steps earlier, was that still true? Was he in a crowd then? Was he inside? Surrounded by support staff? Should he have whipped the mask off the second he crossed whatever threshold made the change into uncrowded outdoors? Or, did he wait until the timing was easier? Perhaps even for dramatic effect that he was now in a area where it could be removed. Tell us what was going on around that time, don't just tell us "at this second as if he arrived by magic alone in a circle outside he was wearing a mask when not needed, SHAME".
This part isn't even reporting about the guideline and following them or not. It's repeating an assertion that there's a controversy and then repeating that the same group is playing up the controversy. A thing that only exists because they say it does. Also poor reporting, it's practically just a press release.
This one is frequently common in political reporters covering other topics. They're political reporters, everything must be framed in that context. Give us some reporting on the underlying topics. Reporters should go find the studies that try and determine which actions provide which benefits and their value vs the trade offs. They skip that and just tell us one side says A and the other 1. That doesn't help anybody and is poor reporting. Might as well be a gossip column. Reporting on the value of the different guidelines would actually be useful commentary, not just what someone says.
I've definitely seen some opinions about the guidelines changing slowly, both when they started and now as they pull back. But, most of those opinions are about very specific distinct activities. The guidelines in general try to deal with all the edge cases, all the transition zones between those distinct activates. At this point, after a year, I would expect the guidelines to be to slow in general in an effort to include all those transition zones. If they're going to report on medical experts giving opinions, ask them how we tell when we're switching zones? When someone is walking from the parking lot through the ticket gate, down the concourse, to their seat in loanDepot park, where are the transition points between "outdoor uncrowded" and not? What about if they use the bathroom? What about if the roof is closed? Get the science reporter out there digging into the definition of the transition zone. The political reporting of we found two options to contrast is just junk in comparison.
Another example of a political reporter playing both sides because every political story is a two sided fight or it's not worth reading. Go get the science guy, have them get us some information on why they have that recommendation. Is there a reason, is a medical one, is it sociology one, is just a power trip to feel woke? The CDC messaging is an issue here too, they're not saying why very well. It's all wishy washy on you might this or might that and we're not sure. They need to explain not just the might, but the solid reasons that you use mitigations when spread is high even if you're vaccinated. This is also playing into the same trick as above, using "while walking to a microphone at an outside announcement". Where did he come from right before that?
Is he really? Or, is that just a talking point being shared as part of the story?
Some more he said, she said. How about some reporting on how identifying "someone who has been fully vaccinated" would work in real life? The pro and con of how someone goes to the grocery story and know which someone is? If it's even possible to do in that scenario and what it would mean. How it would impact people day to day? Otherwise it's just hand waiving for a magical scenario that cannot exist so they can do a both sides. It's like a physics class that talks about "in a frictionless world, how would A be different from B", since the problem maker knows damn well that in a world with friction the problem completely falls apart.
Nobody should pressure or stigmatize group that wants to pee in the pool. Look they've been told not to and they've been told (by my friends) there's plenty of chlorine it doesn't matter. What should they believe? Why do we still just report "what someone said" as if it can stand on it's own? How lazy has the reporting become?
This is at least correct.
Once you read every news article with this type of perspective, the political reporting from even some of the most balanced sources can make you scream.
