This Vox article claims that the opioid epidemic could kill hundreds of thousands in the next decade but concludes that America can beat it.
Source: How to stop the deadliest drug overdose crisis in American history – Vox
This article highlights sloppy standards of journalism that are so prevalent these days. There’s a concatenation of quotes from ‘so-called’ experts bundled together with limited argument, poor analysis, and conclusions. Clearly, a highly paid editor influenced the headline maximizing fear with deeply worried readership.
Vox is well-known for explanatory journalism using technology but surely journalists must be able to add some value?
I generally tend to agree with you and applaud your choices for highlighting certain articles over others. But here, I don’t get it. This is an excellent article, well-thought out and deeply researched, the writer, German Lopez talked directly to a lot of the people involved, experts, doctors and opioid victims. I read the article carefully right to the end. The examples and quotations made are all relevant and add to the argument. The positive example of Iceland is heartening and does point to the way out – although it is unquestionably a difficult road to travel. To solve the opioid crisis will require a lot of efforts and dedication. And attention from the political world that so far isn’t coming.
Yet.solutions do exist. They only need to be used and used with discernment. All in all, this is really good and useful journalism, and it adds to the good work already undertaken by the New York Times’ Kristof. It’s the kind of journalism we need more of. Why on earth are you panning it?
Thank you for sharing your views. You asked me why I was so critical about this article?
It’s probably a question of bias, style and my age. I rate traditional quality newspapers, like the NYT, the Economist, the FT etc. I respect that popular newspaper have another way of getting their content across to their readership. I’m old fashioned in that I believe that content should be evidence-based and opinion should be in editorials or op-eds. I’m deeply troubled by false news. Young peoples’ views are being swayed by ‘drip-feeding’, using highlights in social media. Also I have a doctorate and am trained to follow logic and argument.
For me, the story didn’t feel or smell right. As I said, it was a simplistic ‘concatenation of quotes from ‘so-called’ experts, bundled together with limited argument, poor analysis, and conclusions’.
I guess I don’t rate Vox as quality journalism. I can identify with the critiques in their Wikipedia page.
In particular, Vox’s deployment of technology blurs fact, argument and conclusion. But then Vox is pitched at millennials which I’m sadly not.
Here’s an interview with the author and it speaks for itself.
View at Medium.com
Anyway, thanks for visiting my blog!
It’s good to debate alternative viewpoints:)