The "press" also causes active damage in these kinds of situations. "<X> shortage in stores" in the news will immediately cause a run on said <X> thus creating the shortage even if it didn't exist before.
So you're arguing that the press should self-censor in this situation? Their job is to report the news in factual and objective manner, not ensure that everyone has enough toilet paper. If the latter isn't true, how do you blame the press for "active damage" in this situation?
> Their job is to report the news in factual and objective manner, not ensure that everyone has enough toilet paper.
The job of the press is to inform the public--not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
Yes, they should have self-censored.
Shouting "Covid causing shortage of bottled water--News 6 reports!" does nothing to inform the public nor does it create a useful call to action. It only creates a problem--often where none previously existed. There was ZERO reason to believe that Covid would cause a water system failure or contamination.
This is different from "Hurricane incoming. Stock up on water. Here are the places which still have it." The information is useful, timely, and relevant.
Having the free speech protection of being the press does not absolve the press of the responsibility to not be a jerk.
> The job of the press is to inform the public--not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
But yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is only wrong when there isn’t one, no?
You go on to argue that it’s ok to have the press explicitly tell people do something (i.e. to stock up on water) when we live in a time when having the press directing anyone to do anything results in the exact kind of criticism you levied against them in your previous post. They reported that toilet paper is flying off the shelves. Arguably, an equally if not more effective solution would be to restrict to the number of units a customer could buy at once. But that doesn’t involve bashing the press.
A) You will note that I changed the example to "water" specifically because there was NO possibility that water was going to be an issue. And yet there was still panic and shortages, mostly due to reporting.
B) The press reported toilet paper was flying off the shelves. Except that before they did that, there were only marginal shortages in certain places, mostly because toilet paper is bulky and slow to restock. After the reporting, it was out everywhereinstantly. In this instance, that did great harm to those who couldn't just "stock and store".
C) "Arguably, an equally if not more effective solution would be to restrict to the number of units a customer could buy at once."
Sadly, this doesn't actually work. If most people buy toilet paper once a week, a shift to once every 5 days is way more than enough to cause a supply chain shock. There is no way to enforce a consumption level that wouldn't supply chain shock once the panic got started.
