Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelgrosner2 | Hacker News Reader

Can you cite an example? A quick google search for 'NPR "the livestock medication Ivermectin"' leads to https://www.npr.org/2021/08/23/1030208101/mississippi-livest... which explicitly states it's a version -formulated- for livestock.

View on HN

Sorry. I may not have the exact words correct, despite having used quote marks. My point was that it was NPR, which is very mainstream, and that they were taking the idea that Ivermectin is for animals (and implicitly not for humans) as a given. I do recall that I heard it on their Alexa flash briefing bit.

You realize you're being as misleading and unfair as 'the media' you wanted to criticize, right?

You realize that the word "media" appears nowhere in my comment, right?

My intention was to point out a general trend across all discourse, be that traditional media, or even between individuals.

downvote for assertion without evidence. please provide a useful link or preferably delete your claim.

So, just to be clear NPR is essentially a federation of local public radio stations and not a single editorial board. That being said, WNYC's On The Media did a great breakdown of reporting miscues and the political word-twisting about Ivermectin. They've also done breakdowns on lab leak theory and a lot of other hot topics. Some misleading stories have been weasel-worded reports of reports, but also Tucker Carlson and his ilk are the ones willfully sponsoring disinformation.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-iverme...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com