Quandt and his team gave journalism a good report for the initial phase, but criticized later periods for focusing too heavily on the same experts. All of this brought Quandt two things: international resonance - "I was surprised when the Washington Post asked me for an interview" - but also massive criticism. It came from many sides asia rcs data because, in his opinion, some people were not happy that he did not accuse the media of a complete failure or of not being an "orchestra of panic." In particular, from circles that believe in conspiracy theories, hurtful verbally, with strong language and threats, including those directed at people's private lives.
The subject's cognitive potential has not been fully exploited
Linards Udris from the Research Center for Public Opinion and Society at the University of Zurich painted a similar picture from his study of Covid reporting in Swiss media ( persoenlich.com reported ). The topic dominated up to 70 percent of media coverage, and the quality was high, despite some shortcomings, for example in the classification of certain developments and a high level of dependence on experts, with women rarely being given a voice. Traditional opinion leaders dominated the debate on the internet.