Copy

View this email in your browser

Logo

Hi friends,

I hope you took some time to take care of yourself over the past week. I’m also hoping that, wherever you are, you’re staying cool! Here in Philadelphia temperatures have brought a scorching start to the summer.

I also have some bittersweet news to share from the Reframe team. Senior editorial associate John Hernandez will be leaving Resolve Philly to join the Texas Tribune as their assistant director of audience. We’re of course sad to be losing John, but hope you’ll join us in congratulating him on this next step. Please send him nice words on Twitter!

Talk soon,
Aubrey Nagle
Reframe editor

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Sign up for Freeze Frame here.

Headline Check ✅

Here we analyze and reframe a news headline to demonstrate how this important real estate can be optimized for user experience.

Both of the headlines below, first from CNBC and second from ABC News, refer to the same statements from the World Health Organization. In a recent briefing, the WHO's technical lead for monkeypox was asked whether the recent outbreak could turn into a pandemic. They replied, "The answer is we don't know, but we don't think so," and continued, "At the moment, we are not concerned about a global pandemic.”

WHO can’t rule out monkeypox pandemic risk, says there’s a window of opportunity to stop outbreak

Now, I’m not an epidemiologist and the WHO’s reputation for responding quickly to pandemics has been sullied quite recently. So, I don’t know which of these headlines is the fairest reading of the WHO statements.

I do know, however, that when given the same information, CNBC chose the glass-half-empty frame (“we can’t rule it out”) and ABC chose the glass-half-full frame (“it’s unlikely"). When reading either article, you’ll also notice that the “we are not concerned about a global pandemic” statement is over 250 words into the CNBC article, whereas the ABC article leads with that information. It’s impossible to attribute any intention to either framing or, again, any determination of accuracy. But surely the first headline is much more anxiety-inducing than the second.

Unlikely monkeypox outbreak will turn into a pandemic, WHO says

One Good Tweet 🐥

It’s just what it sounds like: a good Tweet that we think everyone should see!

An interview that also likely didn't need to happen. We *expect* survivors of gun violence to share all of their trauma with us in ways we wouldn't for other crime. Newsrooms should really ask why that is necessary.

Couldn’t agree more with journalist Lakeidra Chavis. The quotes from a Uvalde teacher in the referenced NBC News story from Mike Hixenbaugh beg the question of necessity. Journalists attempting to paint a broader picture of tragedy should be well-versed in trauma-informed reporting styles. The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma’s style guide and interview guide are good places to start.

It is literally the job of journalists to figure out what actually happened, explain to the public why the details changed, who lied, and how the people in power can and should be held accountable.

Had to add one more today. CNN’s Brian Stelter made some tone-deaf comments about how the public reacts to confusing news stories like the Uvalde shooting. Journalist Karen K. Ho is completely correct in the asserting reporters’ role in helping us all. It calls to mind the old news adage, “if you weren’t right, you weren’t first.”

A Link to Make You Think 🤔

Our must-read of the week.

Don’t Let the Cameras Turn Away

Earlier this week, Axios published the chart above showing how online engagement on stories about the Uvalde shooting took a nosedive after a few days, paling in comparison to attention paid to 2018’s Parkland shooting. (Not to mention how little comparative attention was paid to the Buffalo shooting by a racist extremist.) It’s damning and concerning. Is the attention span of the U.S. so fragile that even the killing of 19 children and two teachers in their classroom can’t hook us? Or are we so desensitized to gun violence (there have been 20 mass shootings since Uvalde — and I had to update this sentence this morning) that we no longer care? Or maybe we’re so exhausted by the trauma of it all that we’ve run out of empathy?

Regardless of the reason, we cannot turn away. I recommend two reads this week on why we need to keep our eyes on these recent tragedies. Brooke Baldwin at the Atlantic urges TV networks to forgo their usual assignment priorities to stick with the story.

Read the Story

And Jenny Deam at ProPublica recounts the seven mass shootings she’s covered. Her reflections underline how the impact and trauma stay with us, regardless of the churn of the news cycle.

Read the Story

Tip Line ☎️

Each week we’ll highlight relevant resources and guidance on language and framing.

It’s been a rough few weeks years. If you’re reporting on trauma, be sure to take care of yourself and check out the resources below.