A few months ago, I was writing about the economic impact of the Zika virus, when a series of emails came in.
The messages were from a handful of high-profile journalists, many of whom I have corresponded with over the years, all of whom were asking the same questions: What’s going on?
Why are we getting more stories about Zika than about Ebola?
The messages seemed to come from journalists in different industries and different industries in different parts of the country, and it was a familiar story: a steady stream of stories about how Zika is making people sick, or even how the virus is causing them to die.
This time, the messages were not from tech journalists, but from journalists at other media organizations.
This was not unusual, as many of these messages are typically delivered to news organizations through social media platforms, where they can be shared across a network of friends and colleagues.
The stories often have been written about the same time, in the same place, in ways that suggest a common theme: The news organizations are worried about their credibility, about the accuracy of the stories they are publishing.
The response from these journalists to the messages was typically a combination of disbelief and anger.
The most common reaction I heard was, “You guys are wrong about Zika.
You guys are doing your job by telling us how bad things are.”
But I was not surprised.
In fact, I found the messages to be so typical of the response that they became my default response to the questions that journalists asked about Zika and Ebola.
The emails that came in, from journalists, seemed to follow a pattern.
They began with a question about what was going on, and followed with a list of stories that they felt had been published.
Sometimes the questions seemed to be aimed at the journalists themselves, such as when an email asked why they were not using the word “zika” when referring to the virus.
Others were directed at the news organizations themselves, like when an editor asked if the stories were being updated with new information about the virus, and if the media was getting the message that they were getting it wrong.
But most of the emails were not about Zika or Ebola at all.
They were about the effect that the Zika and other recent outbreaks of the virus have had on the way people think about and communicate about health, politics, and business.
One of the first questions I got was from a business reporter who was writing a piece about the health effects of Zika in her newsroom.
She had heard that people were sick from Zika.
She wanted to know how many people were showing symptoms.
And she wanted to ask what she could do about it.
I said, “First of all, I’m a business journalist, so I’ll ask you this question: Do you think you can handle the Zika outbreak?”
She looked at me and said, no, I can’t.
She did not think she was going to be able to handle it.
That was the response I received from many of the journalists who received my emails.
I did not get any questions about whether the media could handle Zika or whether the public should not worry about the spread of the disease.
The questions were about whether I would have enough credibility to get stories written about Zika, or whether I could do a good job of it.
The responses to my emails were largely in the form of anger, incredulity, and incredulities about the media’s ability to handle the situation.
They often focused on the fact that Zika had been declared a public health emergency by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just a few days before I started writing about Zika—a declaration that was never fully enforced by the press, which was reluctant to share details about how the outbreak had started.
The press was not really equipped to cover the situation accurately, and there were a lot of journalists who thought they were better equipped to do their jobs.
They did not know the facts, and they did not understand how the information about Zika spread through social networks, or how a small group of scientists had identified the virus and declared it a public threat.
But the message to journalists about the Zika situation, the message of panic and fear, was the same one that I had heard from the newsrooms I had corresponded and with other news organizations over the last few years.
The message from the business reporters, who had been working on Zika, was not that the business was in a state of panic.
Rather, it was that the company was in trouble.
This is a lesson that should not be lost on anyone who has ever worked in the newsroom: There are a lot more things than just news stories that should be in the hands of the business media.
And there are many journalists who are working hard to make sure that the public gets their news and information from the right sources.
That includes me, because I am the CEO of the company I founded, and because I have a good relationship with the company’s management. It