Yes its like they are shaping reality and attempting to cause social unrest. What the ultimate aim of such a narrative is I am unsure?
Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"?
Dystopic
Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"?
Dystopic
It is insanely hard to present only facts and be truthful and impartial. It is quite easy to pick a narrative and stick to it, damn the facts.
MSM is funded by advertisers and big corporations. They’ll do what their money masters want them to - vilifying unions is a good example.
Look, I don’t know if Ivermectin is effective for Covid or not. From what I have heard it seems like looking into it with an unbiased lens may be worth it. I don’t care if it is effective or not so much as I don’t think news and corporate interest should drive the national opinion.
I’m not even that scared about the anti viral that Pfizer is pushing. HIV drugs have been around long enough to establish a safety profile and weigh the risk vs reward. I do think, that despite reports ivermectin has a pretty solid safety record. However safe HIV drugs are, the commercials for them list significant side effects. Again I hesitate to post this as someone thinks I’m pushing ivermectin as a legitimate therapy. I truly do not know…
To me the sequence of the story commercial and the counter story made me feel a bit queasy.
This has been going on for decades, this is nothing new. What is new is the medium and the cost. TV is still expensive even today, while internet is cheap, its reach is much larger and it has permanent memory.
This is why we should support smaller independent outlets like TYT. We may or may not like their style, but they don't rely on corporate sponsors and that deserves respect. I am also happy about independent newsletter publishers (on substack, for example) - these are a drop in the ocean, but still a start.
I can't name a single large publication (left, right, center, liberal, conservative... whatever) that I trust or respect :(
An independent news source should be primarily funded by either non-patisans for good will or by viewers. I'll take Stephen Crowder over TYT any day.
But either way, Stephen Crowder has much of an agenda to gain viewers as TYT - if your viewers support you, then more viewers is more support.
If your viewers don't support you money-wise, then those interests are more indirect, such as a desire for implicit campaigning by donars, like TYT, or for corporate funding, like NBC/Fox.
If your goal is news then getting as close to the primary source is as important as possible, and unfortunately YouTube is making this even more difficult today. If your goal is interpretation you need to listen to a wide variety of experts to form an informed opinion that you can actually defend.
Ultimately, every news outlet is beholden to someone and most have made editorial choices to more palatable to the demographic they have acquired over the years.
>I don’t care if it is effective or not so much as I don’t think news and corporate interest should drive the national opinion.
Even more frightening is that a lot of people who think that don't have the same opinion on things like these that are way worse than anything NBC News does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o
They always focus and nitpick on media that's mostly following the science, and ignore the other side pushing drugs with unsound studies as some kind of magic drugs.
>From what I have heard it seems like looking into it with an unbiased lens may be worth it
And do you really think every country where covid isn't as politicized, like India, Brazil (both of who have extensive experience using ivermectin and HCQ for other users), China, UK, European countries, Canada etc. haven't looked at it with an unbiased lens?
Maybe listen to actual scientists with decades of drug development research experience instead of 'both siding' the conversation?
E.g https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ivermectin-covid-1...
Canada usually waits for fda approval and data before it approves most things.
UK, Brazil and India have right wing govts, do you really think they would suppress real cures and destroy their economy and popularity of their leaders and parties due to lockdowns, hospitalizations, and the dead filling up burial grounds. If HCQ or IVR actually worked, a leader would have mandated it and would have become hugely popular for saving their country from a pandemic that other countries are getting roiled by. Imagine how much more popular Boris or Modi would become, it would literally seal their next election win.
Or maybe IVR or HCQ aren't good drugs against covid and are hyped up for political reasons by some and then pushed by others who aren't capable of properly reading or understanding scientific studies.
This conspiracy only makes sense to people who cannot think broadly, skeptically and logically.
Ivermectin has failed to be seriously studied, while the patentable drug got a good study out of the gate. I wonder why.
People did look into this with an unbiased lens (did dozens of medical studies, many still ongoing) and so far there is no good evidence that it has any beneficial effect whatsoever. On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption (there have been thousands of calls to poison control centers about Ivermectin in the past few months, and some have died).
From what I have seen everyone pushing Ivermectin is a grossly misinformed and non-credible amateur. Some of these snake-oil salespeople may have direct financial interest, while others just want to promote their own questionable agendas, e.g. trying to undermine/disparage some extremely effective vaccines.
This is a horrible example of something “worth looking into”.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
Maybe the solution to this is to allow OTC sales of human grade Ivermectin. The drug is one of the safest in the world. No reasonable reason to deny the drug if someone wants it.
This is not true at all. Ivermectin has some nasty neurological effects (vertigo, seizures, blindness) at high doses.
It certainly could turn out to be nothing. But on the other hand, why not get a doctors prescription until a couple of high quality studies have decided the issue? As you point out, the only real problem seems to be people taking it in unsafe dosages or through unreliable channels like a vet.
[0] Which is broadly consistent with the studies I've seen over at https://ivmmeta.com/ - not sure by how much, but it does seem to assist.
There isn't strong evidence, and you can't just eyeball studies and assume you understand them with no training.
I have cystic fibrosis, and I have tried to do things like this before by looking at studies on unverified treatments. It doesn't work. You just end up with snake oil. I have a masters in biomedical engineering, and I couldn't do it.
Interpreting studies is hard. Interpreting meta analysis accurately is super hard. Tons of studies are fake, or have bias, or have poor methodology. That website is total bullshit and is just throwing all the studies in to their statistical soup and mixing them together to come up with nonsensical results.
"There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion."
Lol, wtf?
I'm no medical anything but I do have extensive academic and statistical training. There is enough in these studies for someone to take Ivermectin as an "eh, why not?" gambit. There is evidence it is helpful, although the evidence isn't conclusive (or even especially strong). Some doctors are already prescribing it, quite reasonably.
Treating covid with ivermectin does seem like a bad idea, but it also doesn't really seem that dangerous overall. I'm sure there are deaths out there from people overdosing on it but they seem like a really rare event.
[0] - https://forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/10/20/calls-about-ive...
[1] - https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/15400.pdf
[2] - https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
Not really.
> On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption (there have been thousands of calls to poison control centers about Ivermectin in the past few months, and some have died).
You're falling for sensationalized propaganda. If you read the CDC advisory, there was only a five fold increase over the pre-pandemic baseline [1]. The pre-pandemic baseline for ivermectin poisoning is absurdly low.
> Some of these snake-oil salespeople may have direct financial interest
You mean like the financial interests of pharma companies who would prefer a treatment that wasn't off patent? If we're going to use financial incentives to infer credibility, pharma loses on this question hands down every time.
The truth is that the pharmacokinetics of ivermectin closely match Pfizer's new anti-COVID drug [2] (3CL protease inhibition).
[1] https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp
[2] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp0296...
But you are here to disparage a company that has developed a novel antiviral treatment and has applied for the authorization.
CNN has a liberal audience. If they ran multiple headlines on this (whether automated or just articles written by different editors) I'm sure the one that paints Rittenhouse as without any justification will get more clicks. And therefore its more likely those writers will be promoted internally based on performance + those who are covering the story will continue to cover the story instead of moving to something else.
Look at a site like Reddit. It takes user submitted headlines for news stories. And depending on the subreddit the headliens will always skew one way politically without the need for money dictating things.
If your viewers demand malice and being malicious is the only way to keep your viewers, that doesn't mean you're not being malicious; it means you're being malicious for money.
Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal justice system.
While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc.
Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.
We're finding out that this is a case of eating your seed corn.
If you give people two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true, they're going to prefer the one that flatters their ego. So the ego flattering is short-term profitable.
But eventually there is a story people are interested in enough to actually watch the trial, or read the source documents. Or someone else does that and points them right to the place where the media narrative disintegrates.
Then it's not two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true. The one the media outlet is giving them is demonstrably false. Which makes them more skeptical next time, and when they look, it's false again. And again.
The result is a loss of trust.
What happens then? Have a look at their ratings.
Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon?
The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.
Not everyone needs to take a side in cases like this. My opinion - uninformed or super informed - has no impact on the case (neither does yours), and I am not a stakeholder in this case. I have some trust in the justice system (and mostly, I'm pretty busy at the moment).
But like I said, guy driving in from out of town with a gun to defend the property of strangers is asking for trouble. And just to ward off more weird replies like this one, I'm aware that he's not the only active party in this incident.
Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively presenting an argument while giving themselves license to mislead - because you "don't know" about any contrary evidence.
You say that Rittenhouse traveled "waaay out of his way" and "in from out of town". In fact, Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, his father lived there, and Kyle lived nearby, twenty minutes away, with his mother. This isn't "out of town" or out of his way, it's his local community.
You wrote that Rittenhouse has a "history of wanting to shoot shoplifters". Actually, there was a single video where only a voice was heard saying this (Rittenhouse was not on screen) and the prosecution said the voice belonged to Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was not able to explain where the video came from. The anonymous video without the defendant on it and no reason to believe the prosecutor's hunch that the voice was Rittenhouse's wasn't allowed at trial. You can understand, perhaps, why "I'm not following the case" comes across to me more as a rhetorical trick than the truth when one of the random factoids you do know is a denied prosecutor's motion to add evidence at trial. Oh, but because you "aren't following the case" you didn't know it wasn't sourced, no evidence it's Rittenhouse on the tape, and it wasn't admissable at trial.
My entire opinion on this event (not the court case), is essentially, "fuck this guy, and I'm not at all surprised that bad shit went down." I am from Los Angeles, and when I was a kid the Rodney King riots featured massive amounts of violence and destruction, and shopowners were defending their livelihoods with guns. If a white dude from Lancaster - who had a job "in the county" - decided to visit South Central and walk down the street prominently carrying a rifle, then I would have had the same opinion I just shared. That's it! That's all I was trying to share. He escalated an already bad situation.
But yeah, if that "shooting shoplifters" video is that sketchy, I accept that. All I had heard was a headline with the judge saying it was irrelevant. And then immediately after that I saw another headline where the judge agreed with the defense that zooming in on a picture can create digital demons (did I get that right? :D).
Even more important than an individual's life is the public's faith in the systems that make up our country. The Justice system and the media largely work because people believe in them. If you think the Justice system is unjust, you don't trust police or prosecutors or judges - that results in places where people settle things for themselves or for their tribe rather than relying on the courts. It results, in other words, in internecine violence.
The media too is important to have faith in. When it's working well the media calls attention to parts of society that aren't working well so we can repair or replace them. But if people don't trust the media then we won't come to know or believe problematic things are problems.
I see, with this trial, which I have been following, an instance where the media is incorrectly attacking a court that seems to be functioning reasonably. I see commentators on social media turning that flywheel too - feeding the unjustified attacks on the court.
I think the consequences of this are going to be damage to faith in the media and in the courts. That's bad. One way to reduce the badness is to stop making unsupported hyperbolic claims. If you don't know what you're talking about, find out, or don't talk.
Regarding the judge and zooming in, I'm not certain which moment you are referring to. There was a moment at the trial where the prosecutor wanted to use an iPad to "pinch to zoom" on some video and the defense objected saying that Apple algorithms might "enhance" the video by adding information that wasn't there. The judge determined that the prosecutor needed to get an expert to testify that Apple's "pinch to zoom" does not add data. I believe the ultimate resolution was that they used a PC instead and zoomed in on that.
It sounds a little silly to argue over pinch to zoom, but AI assisted super resolution algorithms do exist. To my knowledge they aren't used in Apple devices - but I don't know why it's a problem to have an expert clarify this or to use a different device that everyone is more comfortable with.
I know that my opinion of the actual case does not matter, but for the sake of clarification I'll say that I have a decent amount of trust in the system and I hope/expect a fair outcome based on the evidence. And I also trust you, as someone who has followed the case and taken the time to respond to me in a clear manner.
I agree with everything you said about the media.
There's another discussion to be had about wether the provocation element was introduced in good faith, or as an attempt to allow the jury to introduce their own opinions on wether his presence or his open carry were inherently "provocation", as well, which is thought to be the reason the defense has fought so strongly against the video being permitted (As the video is the only way the prosecution was allowed to introduce the concept of provocation into the jury instructions at all).
You obviously, by your posts, don't know the facts of this case, so why are you weighing in the first place?
> Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment?
The situation was already dangerous - people were looting and setting shit on fire. Rittenhouse had already put out one of those fires. And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? In fact, if the third guy had not brought a gun, he'd still have most of his bicep.
> one with a huge weapon
Stop calling it a "huge weapon". You sound ridiculous. It's a fucking AR-15. It's not a Howitzer.
> I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses.
I don't disagree with a level of neutrality (though it depends on the context - for example, the media has a tendency to go overly-neutral when describing "cars colliding with pedestrians"), but I was saying that further detail is valuable and attainable on-site. In this case, whether the shooter is, say, a business owner defending their business (such as the Korean shopowners perched on the roofs during the Rodney King riots), or a guy from out of town walking through the streets carrying - yes - a super visible weapon (aka a huge gun). Some commenters in this thread are also throwing things at me about the criminal past of the other people involved, which sounds to me like they're also having trouble following the thread (which again, is about the neutrality of initial reporting).
> And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one?
I don't understand your logic. Are you pretending that I'm defending this third guy or something?
It is going to sound like a very radical position, but burning a city to the ground does not sound like mere shoplifting to me.
That a kid may have said something stupid is a possibility, but you can throw a rock in this crowd and find examples of speech that is not exactly bolstering their cause. In fact, if you do end up going through court records, you will find defense quoting one of the 'victims' saying some of those stupid things. There are no good guys here.
BUT.
There is a clear case of self-defense. And that is all that matters. If I can't defend myself from a mob going at me, something is wrong with current society.
I have a friend here in LA whose business was smashed in during the riots last year (I learned about it when I saw a picture of him standing in front of his business in the LA Times). I felt so bad, and I was outraged! When I checked in with him, he just shrugged and was like, "eh, I have insurance." It took me a minute to understand. But, I mean, it's super complicated, because protests can easily be co-opted by kids who want to opportunistically rage/profit. And, as an All Gas No Brakes episode taught me, it's cathartic and feels like the only thing that some of them can do that has any impact.
My understanding of the law is that self-defense is determined by the actions of the people involved and what they were thinking - not what they may have said on other occasions or the distance from the event they live. The fact that Kyle lives twenty minutes away from Kenosha or has previously said he wanted to shoot shop lifters seems irrelevant to me and would have twenty years ago too.
I understand having limited bandwidth in your life. It's good to recognize when you don't aren't informed on a subject. However, when you aren't informed on a subject the thing to do is not share your strong opinions on that subject.
I see pictures of Kyle posing with a gun that appears to be about half the length of his body; when he is out on the streets during the riots, you can tell he is holding a gun from very far away. The messaging I get from this is not "response worker there to provide medical aid and put out fires." Do you truly not have any clue why his presence negatively contributed to the situation?
Obviously my point about him defending strangers' property was to note that he did not have a direct interest in defending his own property. The length of his drive is far from the point. But that's super true: he worked in the same county, and it was only like a 30 minute drive. I just looked it up! Amazing. Really makes me think.
Correcting details that are beside the point != winning an argument.
I do - more neutral, emotionally cooler headlines like this will get fewer clicks and therefore generate less ad revenue
I think that's an oversimplification. Rittenhouse's decision to show up there armed was due to the partisan division and demonization.
Rittenhouse showing up armed and killing two people is a product of the stoked polarization.
I think being armed was probably responsible and it's fairly clear given the evidence from the trial that it was used in a responsible way that exemplifies the use of lethal force in self defense.
The media stoked narratives that caused the riots are to blame. Sensationalism of topics like police on black violence manipulates people into believing things that aren't true, and they react in ways that might very well be reasonable if the narratives were true. I think Rittenhouse is going to sue the ever loving shit out of a lot of legacy media corporations, and maybe that will make them a little more cautious when hyping the tabloid bullshit.
This seems the likely result, but I’m not quite convinced it’s their motivation.
It seems just as likely to me that they’re reporting based on analysis from people who are ideologically motivated, consciously or not.
For a lot of news programs, the credits are publicly visible and verifiably citizens. The people talking are citizens of your own country. They could care about their country instead of money. They just don’t.
The truth is corporate interests have over taken and reshaped the news and media properties they vertically own.
Does it worry you that your news promotes a culture filtered through corporate interests? Do you remember the last news story on corporate interests altering the news? You won't get that news story.. because no one wants you to think that is an issue.
They want you to be scared of foreign entities but ignore the killer sitting beside you.