What Americans die from vs. what the news reports on

https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die-from

Does the news reflect what we die from?

What do Americans die from, and what do the New York Times, Washington Post, and Fox News report on?

Our World in Data

I think this would be more useful if compared early death statistics to news reporting.

Everyone dies and everyone knows that everyone dies. I’m not really interested in how I’m going to die of old age, but what I have to worry about today to avoid an early death.

I think there’s probably still a difference in media reporting and probability but i’m guessing younger people 20-30 are most likely to die from vehicle accidents, accidents, suicide and drugs? I’m not sure though and I don’t have any evidence.

I get what you're saying but on the flipside, heart disease is primarily not age-related. Something like 80%-90% of cases are preventable through lifestyle choices. And it's the number one cause of death.

Cancer at #2 is more age-related. But that too is fairly preventable. Roughly 50% of cancers are thought to be related to poor lifestyle choices.

Point being - these are major causes of early death.

Fatal heart disease is in fact primarily age related.

Age and health feed into a ton of the top killers.

Diet and exercise reduces the risks of a lot of health related deaths.

It really is simple math for most people. Reduce your calories, limit your salt, and eat more vegetables.

Stipulate that, and fatal heart disease is still in fact primarily age related.

Right. But what age it happens at can (often) be shifted.

Same for stroke, kidney disease, diabetes, cancer. Those all usually hit older ages and have an age-related component, the risk of them at any age group is reduced by diet and exercise. Those two things can be true.

Of course there are outliers in each.

The claim was "heart disease is not primarily age related". This is a thread about causes of death. If we interpret that claim as "fatal heart disease is not primarily age related", it's straightforwardly false.
The dubious unstated premise of this piece is that, "newsworthiness" notwithstanding, all causes of death are equally impactful on society. But that's not true. Violent crime and terrorism are destabilizing in ways heart disease and cancer are not. Independent of the prurient interests of the news audience, there can be strong arguments for giving outsized coverage to homicide.
To ensure they're destabilising?
I mean, maybe? To engage seriously with the argument, you'd have to account for iatrogenic effects of media intervention. That's an established concern, first with suicidality and increasingly with mass shooters. But you'd also have to consider that poorly covering events that are certain to percolate through the public consciousness might do worse things than covering them accurately. It's a tough question!