It is my opinion, based on Dan's unwavering defense of the media whether they're wrong or not and his tendency to excuse virtually every instance of fake news as a "mistake", that Dan likes to believe the fiction that the mainstream media operates under the unbiased, facts only code of ethics from back in the day.
Apparently this started with Buzz Feed News under the headline, "A Man Died After Self Medicating With A Drug Promoted As A Potential Treatment For The Coronavirus". The first paragraph of the actual story is also misleadingly written.
At some point, an NBC reporter goes on social media with a misleading story about the potential for Chlorquine to be helpful against the Wuhan Virus, no one on the left gets too upset about that fake news.
The point is that burying the lede, deep in the story with a misleading headline IS fake news, as is a headline that doesn't actually accurately represent reality.
But, as usual, the Dan's of the world will stay silent, or at best offer some sort of bland generalities.
Self described journalist Tara Haelle, when reporting on this story chose to use a picture of blister pack of pills to accompany the story in Forbes. The story itself was similarly misleading in it's early paragraphs.
In a world, where people read headlines, and possibly the first paragraph or two on their phone (maybe only until they hit the first ad), burying the lede until the end of the story is clearly an example of fake news.
““I want them to be appreciative,” the president says of governors who are criticizing the federal response.”
NYT reporter Maggie Haberman
Actual, entire quote.
“"I want them to be appreciative. We've done a great job. And I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about Mike Pence, the task force, I'm talking about FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers.”
I’m sure Dan has an excuse for that too.
“Trump on what he wants from governors: "I want them to be appreciative. We've done a great job."
Peter Baker NYT
36 comments:
Just to keep things grounded in reality...
1. Dan has been quite clear that all people, turn list included, and Pisces. Some to left and some to the right and otherwise. Best true today, it was true that years ago. It's always been true. People have icees. That's the fact and I've never said otherwise.
2. The media does operate under a code of ethics. You go to school to learn it. Real news agencies enforce it. That's just the fact of it all.
3. It's by the petting that code of ethics, media groups will sometimes err one way or the other. That's true and always has been.
4. Being biased and making errors does not want make one fake news. Fake news is when one deliberately posts false a misleading comments for the purpose of being false and misleading.
No, the question for you, Craig, is to live by your own standards. You just made at least one false claim and multiple misleading comments. Does that make you a fake news source? Or just human and prone to error? Indeed, your sloppily written post would never make it in real media groups. There is no citation, there is no support for your empty claims. This is not even a good editorial.
So, the reason why this would never make it - even as an opinion piece - in an actual news organization is the entire lack of specificity in your comments. WHAT media? WHAT reports? WHAT specifically was done wrong? Where are the links.
Here's an actual news story covering what you're speaking about. What SPECIFICALLY is fake news about this news story?
https://kfor.com/news/arizona-man-dies-after-taking-medicine-touted-by-trump-to-treat-covid-19/
Be specific so that you sound like a rational adult.
The very serious problem of the Trump approach to making stupidly empty and false claim that so many have embraced (as you embrace in this argument) is that there is nothing specific to deal with... to either agree about or disagree about. When people like Trump and you make these sorts of empty, vague charges against the media, the point (intentional or not) is to demonize and cause distrust in the media, NOT to correct a problem. And causing distrust in the media is part of the reason why you can have some 40% of the nation trusting a fundamentally untrustworthy and corrupt man.
1. Gibberish
2. I learned all that when I went to school for it. I don’t see it practiced now.
3. Gibberish
4. You are making a huge leap, unsupported by any facts at all. You’re choosing to write off a choice made by at least 4 media outlets to slant a story by burying the lede and using misleading pictures and even more misleading headlines as a “mistake”.
Of course your second comment ignores the fact that I referenced 3 news sources specifically. FYI, NBC nightly news with Lester Holt continued to use the same misleading pictures last night.
Your trotting out of vague and factually wrong excuses to defend the purveyors of fake news are as absurd as they are expected.
The problem with your knee jerk, defend anything that makes Trump look bad approach, is that it simply undermines any shred of credibility you might have once had. Instead of choosing the rational, unbiased route of agreeing that this story has been reported in such a way as to give a false impression of what actually happened, you trot out the same old excuses and bull shit.
I love how the story you cite, uses literally the same misleading photograph as the NBC stories.
Oh, I forgot NBC and Forbes aren’t “actual” news organizations.
Dang it. I can't trust the phone to do this stuff.
1. Dan has been quite clear that all people, journalists included, have biases. Some to left and some to the right and otherwise. That's true today, it was true that years ago. It's always been true. People have biases. That's the fact and I've never said otherwise.
2. The media does operate under a code of ethics. You go to school to learn it. Real news agencies enforce it. That's just the fact of it all.
3. In spite of that code of ethics, media groups will sometimes err one way or the other. That's true and always has been.
4. Being biased and making errors does not want make a story fake news. Fake news is when one deliberately posts false a misleading comments for the purpose of being false and misleading.
The question for you, Craig, is to live by your own standards. You just made at least one false claim and multiple misleading comments. Does that make you a fake news source? Or just human and prone to error?
======
Sorry for the sloppy post. I tried posting quickly by dictating to the phone and obviously didn't go back and check it.
Craig... agreeing that this story has been reported in such a way as to give a false impression of what actually happened, you trot out the same old excuses and bull shit.
I HAVE NO DATA THAT SAYS this story (the link I cited) is wrong. WHAT is wrong? Give data, give specifics, provide support, make your case and do so clearly based upon observable data, not vague accusations.
WHAT is wrong with the image of the pill pack? WHAT is misleading? Was there NOT a man who died because of self-medicating? Did he not do it because of Trump's endorsement of a potential treatment? Where is the data to support these claims?
YOU went to journalism school?? Me, too. And your constant vague nothing attacks would never have passed muster at my school (and it was only a community college!)
“The question for you, Craig, is to live by your own standards. You just made at least one false claim and multiple misleading comments. Does that make you a fake news source? Or just human and prone to error?”
1. What false claim have I made that is objectively false?
2. I’m not, nor have I ever claimed to be a news source.
3. One thing they teach in J school is proofreading, you should try it.
Then you’re an idiot.
I specifically pointed out that the picture used in both your story and in others, is not representative of the product that these people invested, nor of any form of Chloroquine, that I’ve ever seen.
The lengths you’ll go to in order to excuse anything you think makes Trump look bad are amazing. The lengths you’ll go to to impose your prejudices on a conversation are also amazing.
Especially your insistence that I’ve not been specific, while bitching about specific examples I used.
Is the image of the pill pack representative of what the people ingested?
Is the pill pack labeled Chloroquine?
Is the pill pack representative of how Dr prescribed Chloroquine is dispensed?
Did Trump “endorse” self medicating?
Did Trump specifically say, take fish tank cleaner?
Did Trump specifically say that actual medically prescribed Chloroquine was the same as fish tank cleaner?
Do any of the referenced stories mention the fact that the problem was taking the wrong chemical in the first paragraph?
Isn’t Cuomo also touting the benefits of Chloroquine?
If Trump was really saying what you claim he was saying, why has this only happened to two people?
Did I claim the story you cited was wrong? No, I didn’t. Between your laziness in proofreading, your demand that you be spoon fed every little detail (instead of doing your own research), and your weak attempt to misrepresent what I actually said about the story you cited, it’s surprising that your JUCO even let you have as associates degree.
I’ll note that I referenced 3 specific examples in my original post, and a fourth in the comments. You’ve cherry picked one.
FYI, did your JUCO not tell you that burying the lede is bad journalism. Also, did they not mention the concept of leaving one’s bias out of one’s reporting. I learned things like that in reporting 101.
Do you understand how news organizations disseminate news in the 21st century?
Do you understand how stories are formatted and headlines written to when news organizations put news stories on social media?
Do you understand how infrequent it is for people to read past the headline and first paragraph or two when they click on a link?
Do you understand what the actual news story was that’s being discussed?
Do you understand that the media has twisted Trumps words in other instances to distort what he actually said?
Do you understand that taking Trump’s words out of context, is a problem and violates this code of ethics you claim is so venerated?
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/03/24/axios-demonstrates-the-anatomy-of-fake-news/?fbclid=IwAR3hy1jLA1uHn_Q7isdNnnQTzfDmvTH-66700lsYsIcVfqZMkPv_5cPpF4w
Here we have an excellent example. Axios ran with the same version of the story as everyone else did, despite having access to all of the correct information when they ran the story. Their twitter post, gathered over 4000 re tweets in the 16 hours that went by before they acknowledged that their original story was fake.
1. I'm pretty sure that the code of ethics you mention, or the legal department of any news organization would agree that running a story with false or incorrect information when accurate information is available is a no-no.
2. While I appreciate the fact that Axios had the courage to acknowledge the reality, it's also a near certainty that the retraction didn't get nearly the spread as the original tweet did.
3. "We saw Trump on TV -- every channel -- & all of his buddies and that this was safe," she said.
"Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure." This doesn't accurately represent what Trump said, and the same could be said about Cuomo, yet no one is accusing him.
4. When I've heard anyone talking about the possibility that Chloroquine/Azithromycin might be effective, they've been exceedingly clear that this IS NOT a guaranteed cure and that it MUST be taken as prescribed by a Dr.
5. If you can provide any proof that Trump suggested in any way that people should self medicate with something that is NOT an actual medicine, please do so.
6. The reality is that it is possible to write a story that technically contains all or most of the facts, but does so in a way that is designed to mislead the readers.
6. Given the reality of most people getting news from social media, it is absurd to deny the fact that many people don't read anything except the headline, and if they do it's likely TL/DR.
Do you understand the fact that Trump never encouraged self medication, in any way? Nor did he advocate for doing so with fish tank cleaner?
What's fascinating, is that you have an opportunity here to come across as reasonable and somewhat balanced in how you treat people you dislike.
You could have simply admitted that the reality is that AT BEST, this story has been reported in a manner that is likely (if not intended) to mislead the consumer of the story. This would simply have been a matter of acknowledging the reality that Axios had the courage to do.
Instead, you chose to take the other road. The road of defending literally anything that reinforces your Trump hatred.
Just like the people who wrote the stories at NBC, Forbes, and Buzz Feed, you made a conscious choice to support and defend misleading news reporting.
Craig... 1. What false claim have I made that is objectively false?
You said, and I quote:
"I know that Dan likes to believe the fiction that the mainstream media operates under the unbiased..."
I have always been abundantly clear that all humans, journalists being a subcategory of that group, have biases. Yes, we are taught to try to keep them out of any reporting, BUT we are also taught that this is a human impossibility to do it completely. Because we are biased human. It is, therefore, objectively false to say that I've suggested that the media operates in an unbiased manner. I've been clear on the point over the years. BECAUSE I've been in the journalism world and was taught that.
Do you see your false claim now?
Craig... 3. One thing they teach in J school is proofreading, you should try it.
Actually, I generally do. Which is why you see so many fewer typos and errors than coming from someone like, say, yourself. But this time I failed. I also try to have the grace to understand that we're often typing or dictating on our phones in quick snatches and so, errors happen. Which is why I don't point out your many typing errors, generally.
For instance, after the three numbered responses you offered above, you go on to say "Then you're an idiot." with no context of what in the world you're speaking about. I'm assuming that you made a mistake and meant to put a number 4. before that, in response to my fourth point.
Craig... I specifically pointed out that the picture used in both your story and in others, is not representative of the product that these people invested, nor of any form of Chloroquine, that I’ve ever seen.
A. So? Media sources routinely use a generic image of medicine or whatever the topic might be to lead a story. Reasonable media consumers know that this is not THE ACTUAL IMAGE OF THE MEDICINE THAT KILLED THE MAN!!!! but just a representational image on a story about medication. Who says that's misleading?
B. Beyond that, all you did was say, "Self described journalist Tara Haelle, when reporting on this story chose to use a picture of blister pack of pills to accompany the story in Forbes."
Yes, they showed a representative picture of medication. What's the point? You're NOW suggesting (but didn't in your original post) that the image is not representational of what he actually took..? ...So? Did you THINK that the picture was supposed to represent the dead man's actual pills he took?
You still have nothing but vague accusations with nothing to support them. WHAT WAS WRONG with the story? Now you say "nothing was WRONG... BUT..." and then proceed to suggest it was, what, misleading? HOW? I still don't know what you're complaining about.
Like this:
"When the news story leads with an image of pills that weren't the ones taken, that gives a false impression that..." and then make your case, whatever it might be.
Or: "The headline for this story makes it SOUND like... But actually, the lede says something different, it says..." and MAKE YOUR CASE with literal direct quotes and explanations.
That's not "spoon feeding" your readers anything. It's writing a story that is self-contained and understandable with support for what you're saying from the actual news story.
It's adult level writing. That's all.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/03/24/its-not-just-cnn-media-outlets-keep-leaving-out-that-the-arizona-man-died-after-eating-fish-tank-cleaner/
Daily Beast: "An Arizona man has died and his wife is in critical condition after ingesting an anti-malaria drug in an attempt to treat the novel coronavirus"
Axios: "Man dies after self medicating with Chloroquine"
NPR: "An Arizona man is died of a heart attack and his wife was hospitalized after the couple ingested a type of chloroquine, a chemical that has been hailed recently by President Trump as a possible "game changer" in the fight against novel coronavirus."
Just a few examples of false or misleading reporting.
Daily Beast: This statement is demonstrably and literally false. They DID NOT ingest an anti-malaria drug.
Axios: The chloroquine was NOT the same ingredient in the anti-malarial drug.
NPR; Trump DID NOT "hail" the type of Chloroquine that they took as a "possible game changer". Further, if the "possible game changer" quote is accurate, then it literally contradicts what the people actually said.
Three more specific examples for you to ignore.
What's sad about this is the fact that multiple outlets NYT, HuffPost, and USA Today got the story right. The very fact that some outlets did get the story right, simply reinforces the fact that so many outlets got the story wrong.
You choose to defend those who got it wrong.
"I know that Dan likes to believe the fiction that the mainstream media operates under the unbiased, facts only code of ethics from back in the day."
Are you telling me that you don't believe that things have changed in how media reports things in the last 30 years?
Of course, that's my opinion based on your comments, but you cling to that double standard of you using the opinion dodge. But, because I'm interested in accuracy, I'll edit this.
"Because we are biased human. It is, therefore, objectively false to say that I've suggested that the media operates in an unbiased manner. I've been clear on the point over the years. BECAUSE I've been in the journalism world and was taught that."
That's strange, I was taught that the goal of journalists was to put aside one's bias ant to simply report the facts as accurately as possible.
"Do you see your false claim now?"
I can see how my comment could be mistaken for a false claim, and I'll correct it.
"A. So? Media sources routinely use a generic image of medicine or whatever the topic might be to lead a story. Reasonable media consumers know that this is not THE ACTUAL IMAGE OF THE MEDICINE THAT KILLED THE MAN!!!! but just a representational image on a story about medication. Who says that's misleading?"
That's the problem. IT"S NOT A STORY ABOUT MEDICATION. It's a story about how people decided to ingest FISH TANK CLEANER instead of MEDICINE. To be crystal clear, the substance that killed the man WAS NOT MEDICINE, it was something else entirely. The fact that you are ignorantly repeating that demonstrable falsehood that the media was pushing tells me plenty. Finally, the image is not in ANY WAY representative of the substance that killed the man. Some news outlets chose to do the responsible thing and show the actual substance that killed the man. What's interesting with your defense of this misleading photo, is that had they chosen to show the ACTUAL product that killed the man, INSTEAD of a picture of something that DIDN"T kill the man, is an example some outlets chose NOT to give people the image of the ACTUAL substance, which might actually help people.
"B. Beyond that, all you did was say, "Self described journalist Tara Haelle, when reporting on this story chose to use a picture of blister pack of pills to accompany the story in Forbes."
"You still have nothing but vague accusations with nothing to support them. WHAT WAS WRONG with the story? "
Asked and answered.
"Yes, they showed a representative picture of medication. What's the point? You're NOW suggesting (but didn't in your original post) that the image is not representational of what he actually took..? ...So? Did you THINK that the picture was supposed to represent the dead man's actual pills he took?"
HE DIDN"T TAKE PILLS YOU IDIOT. I'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding the simple fact that FISH TANK CLEANER is NOT "pills", NOR is it "medicine"? Are you simply being obtuse, or are you incapable of telling medicine from fish tank cleaner?
"You still have nothing but vague accusations with nothing to support them. WHAT WAS WRONG with the story? Now you say "nothing was WRONG... BUT..." and then proceed to suggest it was, what, misleading? HOW? I still don't know what you're complaining about."
Asked and answered, continuing to answer.
"When the news story leads with an image of pills that weren't the ones taken, that gives a false impression that..." and then make your case, whatever it might be."
Yes, it gives that literally, demonstrably false impression that the guy took "pills" or "medicine" instead of fish tank cleaner. Further, as I explained, I've taken Chloroquine multiple times, I've never seen it in a blister pack. At a minimum, it should be disclosed that this doesn't represent what the guy ate.
"Or: "The headline for this story makes it SOUND like... But actually, the lede says something different, it says..." and MAKE YOUR CASE with literal direct quotes and explanations."
Really, I need to explain that burying the lede is misleading in a news story?
T"hat's not "spoon feeding" your readers anything. It's writing a story that is self-contained and understandable with support for what you're saying from the actual news story."
There is this wonderful thing called the Google that will allow you to put in search terms (of which you have more than enough to find the stories in question) that would allow you to find things on your own. I've discovered that you have a tendency to ignore and dismiss things when I spoon feed them to you, so I've decided that it makes more sense to give you the ability to find things on your own. In theory, this will allow you to see the original material in context. Of course, the fact that you've simply decided to bitch instead of research is telling.
There, I fixed the part that had you so confused.
Are you telling me that you don't believe that things have changed in how media reports things in the last 30 years?
Things HAVE changed. The media had a much more conservative bias back then and now, it's become more progressive. But there have always been biases and there have always been codes of behavior that were AND ARE part of reporting. There just are.
Are you disagreeing?
Thus, your comment is still false, as I believe there was bias back then and I believe there is bias now.
I know many white conservative types often express a longing for the "good ol' days" when reporters were unbiased and only told facts. That's a mythic misrepresentation of the media's actual history. Were you unaware of this? It's often part of the blindness to the problems of the "good ol' days" of the '40s and '50s and earlier that white privileged people could enjoy because they were blind to/unaware of the problems going on. But I figured you having studied journalism would know better than that.
There IS probably more blatant editorializing now than then, along with other changes. But you should not make the mistake of believing that there weren't biases then or that there aren't journalistic codes they live by now.
Read the words I write and understand, Craig... " I need to explain that burying the lede is misleading in a news story?"
No. You need to SHOW with some specific detail HOW they're burying the lede.
"Are you disagreeing?"
Yes. Historically newspapers were openly biased because of the theory that there is no limit on who could start a newspaper. With the advent of radio and television and the concept of the "public ownership of the airwaves", the "rules" changed to what we think of as unbiased reporting. This was due to the limits of the number of broadcast entities in a given locale. What has changed all of that is the advent of cable and the internet. Both of those technologies are closer to newspapers than to broadcast media. So, the reality is that the same notions of "fairness, balance, and unbiased reporting" don't necessarily translate to the new technologies. The problem is, that some of the entities overlap. So, NBC is bound by one set of regulations and expectations, while MSNBC of the various NBC online and social media outlets aren't. When you combine that with the blurring of hard news and opinion, and the decision that news departments must be profitable, it's pretty clear that things are different, and not in the simplistic manner you suggest.
Now when you say "more progressive", I can only assume that you really mean that the vast majority of news reporters are "progressive" (https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/liberal-mediaevery-poll-shows-journalists-are-more-liberal-american-public-%E2%80%94-and) and have been since the 60's. That's misleading, but I'll just give you the data and move on.
"Thus, your comment is still false, as I believe there was bias back then and I believe there is bias now."
Yet the expectation "back then" (on broadcast outlets) was that the bias wasn't supposed to be evident when reporting "hard news". That has clearly gone by the wayside in recent history. (one example from NBC). It's certainly evident when the amount of time given to certain stories is factored in.
As a test, there is an article in the WSJ that questions the narrative regarding the death rate on the Wuhan virus. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-11585088464, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-professors-claim-more-data-needed-to-know-mortality-rate) Let's see how much coverage this article gets and how it's treated.
At this point, it'll take a little more research to find the original (unedited) versions of the stories. I'll put it this way. If the fact that the guy ingested fish tank cleaner isn't in the first two paragraphs, and before the first ad for electronic versions, the lede is buried.
I think your problem is that you honestly believe that the story is something other than some guy choosing to ingest fish tank cleaner because he chose not to consult a doctor. This opinion is supported by a few things.
1. Your unwillingness to answer the direct questions asked of you.
2. Your regurgitation of a false narrative multiple times.
3. Your inability to demonstrate that Trump ever encouraged this behavior.
Instead of doing the rational thing, and agreeing that this story has, at best been horribly poorly reported, you instead choose diversions.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2020/03/23/man-dead-from-taking-chloroquine-after-trump-touts-drug-for-coronavirus/#1ce9e7ad72e9
This is the "updated" version which still barely mentions the fact that they ingested a product intended for cleaning fish tanks.
Here's another take on the story...
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/trump-hyped-chloroquine-cure-covid-19-man-arizona-took-died/
It appears that the details are as follows (from this and other versions of the story):
1. Trump DID advocate for a potential medication treatment by using hydrochlorine.
2. This man and wife reported hearing Trump talk about it and MISTAKENLY thought that the chemical in their fish tank cleaner was the same basic thing and, according to her, because THEY THOUGHT (mistakenly) this was the same basic thing, they ingested it.
3. The man died and woman got sick.
4. This was not isolated to these two individuals, other people in other places did the same thing.
The thing is, these incidents happened at the same time that Trump was hyping this medication (YES, different than the chemical) might be a cure. IN THAT CONTEXT, these media groups have reported the stories in this manner.
Thus, it is NOT fake news, they weren't wrong. Were the people foolish for doing this on their own? Sure. Is it important to have a president who speaks clearly and not like a buffoon with magic candy? Yes. Both things are true.
This incident is WHY we need a competent person in the Whitehouse.
====
The fact remains that the news media had biases back then and they have them now. That's what I've always said and I've NEVER said anything to suggest the media doesn't have biases. Thus your claim remains false. And yet you continue.
Likewise, the media had ethical guidelines for journalism then and they do now. You appear to be operating from the place of blindness that "back in the good ol' days," the media got it right, when what actually was happening was that they were reporting with a more conservative bias, which you appear to conflate with being "unbiased." This happens when you are blinded by your privilege. I would have thought you'd have learned about that in journalism school.
An excerpt from the article.
"“The nice part is, it's been around for a long time, so we know that if it—if things don't go as planned, it's not going to kill anybody.”
This is a quote from Trump, but taken out of it's larger context. But, even if it was 100% taken in context, the next line is completely false.
"Except it just did."
No, it didn't. Trump was clearly talking about a specific medicine that has been used for years (prescribed by doctors in appropriate dosages) and does not have a significant risk of death if used according to the directions.
These people DID NOT TAKE THE MEDICATION. They didn't even bother to talk to a Dr, they guessed at a proper amount, they literally DID NOT ingest what Trump was describing. Beyond that the author chose to flat out lie.
Look, it's too bad that these folks chose to do something stupid. It's too bad that they didn't listen to the members of Trump's team who advised against jumping on this before testing was done.
Look, I'd be lying if I said that I haven't thought of asking the Dr who has written me scripts for Chloroquine before to write me on now as a prophylaxis. Having taken it multiple times with no side effects, I'd have no problem starting a course on the off chance that it'll protect me. But I didn't. I listened to more than one out of context quote from Trump before I acted.
Oh, one other thing to watch regarding media bias, let's see how often the polls that show Trump's approval get reported. Because what is reported, how it's reported, and the frequency of reporting a particular story are all fake news in their own way,
I apparently hit delete instead of publish on your last comment, my apologies.
From what I can see it was some random piece that made it sound like Trump forced the fish tank cleaner down the throats of two innocent old people. Or something.
If I’m wrong, please re post. But I hope you realize that cherry picking an article or opinion piece that denies the actual events that took place doesn’t help your defense of the media, nor does it answer the questions you’ve been avoiding.
The two other questions that your intransigence raises.
1. Cuomo has been at least as positive about the possibility that Chloroquine can work as Trump, but somehow he gets a free pass.
2. If there is even a possibility that this is a treatment, then why all the negativity?
3. If one looks back at leaders leading through crisis, one thing sticks out. That’s the fact that leaders need to, while being realistic about the crisis, point out that there is hope for the future. It seems reasonable that Trump should be pointing out things that promise hope. Shouldn’t he?
This makes me wonder, do you ever actually watch the idiot, Trump, making his comments? Do you understand the depth of stupidity that he demonstrates and carelessness with which he makes claims? It's unique in all of modern American history. Probably all of American History. Are you not aware of this?
Continuing from my last comment...
Seriously, you have studied journalism, apparently. You must be aware of how uniquely stupid this president is, as well as how uniquely corrupt and overtly dishonest he is. Do you recognize this?
Yes, I’ve watched some live and others on tape. Unfortunately I hear a lot of stupid questions.
Just like your last.
The fact that you’ve chosen this stupidity over answering questions you’ve been asked just exemplifies your monomania.
I want to make this very clear. If I support Trump and vote for him, it’s 100% because of you. I can’t help but think that you’re probably going to drive others to support him as well.
Well done.
Given your stupid questions, it’s not a stretch to believe you studied journalism at JUCO.
I can't imagine any reasonable people seeing my reasonable questions and comments and seeing people like you dodging them and misstating mine and others' positions and thinking, "Wow, Dan is asking reasonable questions in a polite manner while these guys act like jerks and make constant unsupported charges against them... I'm going to vote for Trump."
But yes, it IS true that Trump is garnering the support of many irrational folks - how else can you explain otherwise decent people voting for the most corrupt and dishonest and perverted con man in modern history? Look, irrational people will do what irrational people will do and if reasonable questions and comments drives you to support a deeply perverse and corrupt man, well, that has more to do with you than me.
And we see that, in spite of your charges that I'm not answering questions, that you're not answering questions.
I've not been addressing your questions because they are deeply irrelevant, but to show that I'm not like you and that I DO answer questions (even irrational ones)...
it’s not a stretch to believe you studied journalism at JUCO
Community College, for what it's worth, while on my way to complete my studies at the University of Louisville. While working in journalism (and working nearly full time outside of school and raising an infant), I won three national awards for my writing (one) and for my news editing (2). Yes, at a community college. But I guess, unlike you, I don't look down on those who attended community college, nor do I suggest there's something inferior about their courses of study.
But you do.
Elitist, much?
Funny.
To your questions..
Is the image of the pill pack representative of what the people ingested?
No idea. I assumed it was a stock image.
1. IN the name of all that's holy, what difference does it make? DID YOU REALLY THINK, "Hey, those are the pills they took!"?
Is the pill pack labeled Chloroquine?
No idea. I assumed it was a stock image, like journalists do.
Is the pill pack representative of how Dr prescribed Chloroquine is dispensed?
Since I assumed it was just a stock image, I assume not. Because, why?
Did Trump “endorse” self medicating?
Not that I know of.
What difference does that make? Did someone CLAIM that Trump endorsed self-medicating?
Did Trump specifically say, take fish tank cleaner?
Nope.
Did Trump specifically say that actual medically prescribed Chloroquine was the same as fish tank cleaner?
Nope.
Do any of the referenced stories mention the fact that the problem was taking the wrong chemical in the first paragraph?
I don't know if ANY of them do, since I didn't read them all. But the ones I read: I don't think.
But then, that was not the point of the article, was it?
Isn’t Cuomo also touting the benefits of Chloroquine?
I have not read what Cuomo has and hasn't said about it. But here's one fact I can promise you without even looking at what he's said: CUOMO IS NOT A MORON, DOES NOT SPEAK LIKE A MORON and DOESN'T MAKE SWEEPING, STUPIDLY FALSE CLAIMS in a certain manner, the way Trump does.
If Trump was really saying what you claim he was saying, why has this only happened to two people?
It's happened to several people, I believe. Don't know all the details. But why only these two that we're speaking about? Because they made an amazingly stupid decision. Period.
What do you THINK I'm claiming that Trump was "really saying?"
I'd be willing to bet your answer to that - which you almost certainly won't answer - is wrong.
I've answered those questions from that comment. I'll give you a chance to catch up. Or maybe you'll see why these questions are irrelevant since I'm not making the points you THINK I'm making.
Excessively proud much, we know what God says about pride.
Thank for your responses. They make it quite clear that your primary interest is in blaming Trump, not in accurate reporting.
As to your questions I’ll elaborate. They’re absurd they’re based on premises that you haven’t proven to be true, they have nothing to do with the topic of the post.
No, I completely understand the point you think your making, and it has nothing to do with accuracy in reporting or anything related to the topic of the post. The fact that your questions deal with your opinions about Trump, not with the accuracy of the reporting says plenty.
As usual, you have like three topics that you bring every conversation back to regardless of the original topic. I’m stunned.
And no, I’m not elitist at all. Primarily because I’ve spent my post college life doing things that have nothing to do with my degree.
"A Phoenix-area man is dead and his wife is under critical care after the two took chloroquine phosphate in an apparent attempt to self-medicate for the novel coronavirus, according to hospital system Banner Health.
Chloroquine has been touted by President Donald Trump as a possible treatment for Covid-19, but it’s also “an additive commonly used at aquariums to clean fish tanks,” Banner Health said in a statement. Chloroquine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. But the FDA has not approved it to treat the coronavirus.
Banner Health experts emphasized that the medication — as well as other “inappropriate medications and household products” — “should not be ingested to treat or prevent this virus.”"
This opens Dan's original link to the story. I would think that somewhere a responsible journalist would distinguish between the chloroquine phosphate the couple ingested and the chloroquine referenced by Trump. He NEVER suggested the former.
This journalist also might have wanted to caution the Banner Health "experts" against conflating the two substances, as well as "inappropriate medications AND household products". Just because the FDA hasn't approve hyroxychoroquine or choroquine for use against COVID-19, doesn't mean they are inappropriate for the purpose.
It's also pretty clear that Trump never encouraged that anyone should run out and pick up the substance in ANY form and self-medicate, though this article suggests there was some sort of recommendation made by Trump to do so. A responsible journalist, in at least an attempt at objectivity in reporting, might want to make mention of such.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's quite clear that Dan's notion of "fake news" is narrower than it is for most people. Here, it must be stated by a news source that Trump did indeed hold the people down and force it down their throats before Dan will acknowledge that the story is misleading. Most of us can see what the news source is hoping to achieve and it doesn't take such obvious lying for lying to be present. But it doesn't matter to Dan. I provided multiple examples of more blatant distortions of reality, but since they were aimed at Trump, Dan, being a liar himself as well as a hater of Trump, excuses them as "mistakes" or rarities rather than the rule.
It's unfortunate that Trump is not the most articulate speaker. He's no Joe Biden, right? But Joe Biden wouldn't get the trashing from Dan that Trump gets routinely, making Dan a purveyor of fake news of his own. As far as public speaking goes, Trump's just a regular guy and honest people who can bear to listen to him have no trouble knowing what he's saying or trying to get across. Nothing he said about choroquine could be taken as encouragement to do what this couple stupidly did. To lay that at Trump's feet as Dan does is nonsense and more Trabue lying about Trump. Trump is totally innocent and without blame for their stupidity...and Dan's, too, for that matter.
It seems likely that what Dan wants before he considers something fake news is a signed affidavit from the author acknowledging that the news is fake. Yet it's clearly deeper than that. I pointed out Biden's idiotic "I was a professor" claim, which isn't fake news and he's getting called on, but that sort of thing won't get Dan's attention.
I think that somehow it goes back to Dan's hunch that all humans are created good, so he's able to rationalize the things that he agrees with (or people he agrees with) as "mistakes". The author was well intentioned, but just goofed. Yet, this willingness to excuse doesn't seem to extend much across the ideological aisle. I can't help but not that he doesn't refer to things we say as "mistakes", he uses much more loaded language for hose he disagrees with.
If you look at this thread, it seems reasonable to conclude that he's prepared to make excuses for any news that makes Trump look bad.
So, certain news organizations want to stop carrying Trump’s press briefings and instead want to present a summary after the fact.
Now, if I hadn’t actually watched Trump the other day, I might believe the “open by Easter” narrative I posted about. I could be wrong, but it seems like a primary source is 100% of the time better than a secondary or tertiary source. Essentially what these media outlets are saying is that they don’t think people are capable of hearing things from the primary source.
It seems like they pretty much want a license to make up their own version of the news, instead of allowing people to see things for themselves.
This couldn’t have anything to do with a recent poll that shows people with a higher approval rate for Trump, than the approval rate for the media. Could it?
““The state acquired 70,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine, 10,000 doses of zithromax and 750,000 doses of chloroquine in the last few days, ...”ABC News reported.
“We hope for optimistic results, the FDA accelerated that drug coming so the hospitals will start using that drug today.”
I saw these quotes today and wondered if this is the kind of rhetoric that Dan thinks would lead someone to self medicate.
Regarding the briefings, I heard also...maybe the same jerks you heard...they wanted to cut off Trump "when he lies", meaning they'll determine such things or that they'll simply not show the briefings when he's talking and pick it up when one of the "experts" speak. They shouldn't say they're covering the briefings, then, if they're going to omit the leader of the free world. They could simply present whomever they like in their standard news reports on the nightly news. Don't pretend you're doing your job if you're not willing to do the whole job.
Post a Comment