On confirmation bias
An analysis speaking of one side's impatience inhibiting a consistent response, from a network notorious for its bent toward that side, is a reason to be glad I also read news that carry back-tracking headlines as examples that give that side cause for impatience. Move too quickly? Arrogant, brash, impulsive. Take the time to consider an expert opinion? Waffling. (Though I will agree, if both sides want to hear more often from the experts, letting those experts speak is a better idea than monopolizing the mic. How much do those experts get to speak, and how much time is dedicated to cutting away from the briefings in order to fact-check?)
This is another reminder of why I chose long ago to include in my media diet news outlets that aren't based within the country - not only does it give an outside view of national matters, it shows what's going on elsewhere while this noisome fog takes the larger share of media coverage. (I'm still double-checking my perception on the last one, but it still feels to me that their coverage balances both sides much better than some networks here.)
When all one side can do is ad hominem a person who won't shut up, it's time for the salt.
(And I'm thinking that this should be More on confirmation bias, because once again, this feels like a repeated argument with newer pieces.)
(Addendum - maybe I'm late on this point, but this is the first piece I've read with information on why hydroxychloroquine is a potential treatment.)
(On revealing the essence of humanity - good question, that. How are the governor and his reporter brother? Correction - the text is "essence of our identity.")
(Just playing with stock photos.)