This kind if title is rich coming from the fear mongering media. Particularly as the story right above this in the most popular stories section is "America’s Fall Booster Plan Has a Fatal Paradox"
This sentiment is... exactly the opposite. It is completely possible for there to be problems in the media, and for there also to be content it produces that is good and makes sense.
Could the media be better? Sure. Does your almost comically negative comment really serve to help anyone? No.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/10/reading-t...
"Reading Too Much Political News Is Bad for Your Well-Being"
> For example, Dutch researchers in 2017 conducted a study on how hard news that tends to provide a political perspective affects well-being. They found that on average, well-being falls 6.1 percent for every additional television hard news program watched a week. They explained this by noting the dominance of negative stories on such programs, and the powerlessness viewers might feel in the face of all that bad news. It’s difficult to imagine that stories about political news in America would have any less of a negative impact—especially given how fraught and contentious United States politics is now.
Prescribed remedy is to avoid such media:
> 2. Ration your consumption of politics and limit the time you spend discussing it.
> 3. Turn off ultra-partisan news sources, especially on your own side.
Some people become truly obsessed with flamebait political news but there is more constructive criticism to be made about our free press that, though not perfect, is better than the alternatives. It should be respectfully criticized but cherished.
The shallow drive-by bomb throwing is getting a bit much around here as of late.
This gave me a good chuckle. I can't rebut it.
Anyway, I don't think this is best considered as a free vs nonfree press issue. The press in America are motivated by profit. If people are taught and encouraged to reduce their consumption of fear mongering media, the free press will adjust to suit the new demand.
I definitely agree that people need to reduce consumption of fear mongering media but I'm not holding my breath! Is this just established news media trying and failing to compete with social media where the sky is on fire and falling 24/7?
GP's comment was impulsive.
I’d change the link title to “Miserable, childless misanthrope and establishment propagandist chides you for concerns over your childrens’ safety and affirms that to be fashionable you must pretend not to notice the ruling strata has deliberately undermined public safety and social cohesion for decades for cynical personal financial gain and service to the progressive pseudo-religion”
Now it’s comically negative in a “it’s funny because it’s true” kind of way.
Depending on which part of "the media" you look at, you'll get very different takes on various issues, some with significantly more substance behind them than others.
The best thing to teach your kid is to clearly show them how the media and politicians lie and manipulate by showing their contradtory talking vs behaviour vs what they actually do side-by-side meme style.
In my experience this also works for impressionable adults but you have to keep them close
> This kind if title is rich coming from the fear mongering media. Particularly as the story right above this in the most popular stories section is "America’s Fall Booster Plan Has a Fatal Paradox"
and
> The best thing to teach your kid is to clearly show them how the media and politicians lie and manipulate by showing their contradtory talking vs behaviour vs what they actually do side-by-side meme style.
Don't have much substance at all. One has an anecdote of the form "the same website has another article with a hyperbolic title!" (This is a classic sort of "disagreement implies deceit" argument as is always brought up when scientists disagree on things, or consensus changes.) The other has a claim of "what [the media] says and does is different" in a way that suggests this is distinctive/meaningfully different in that way than in terms of any other human's behavior without any supporting substance, you're just supposed to accept it on faith that "the media" are intentionally manipulative hypocrites. Even if this is correct, it's not actually a substantial argument as presented, it will only possibly work on the already-converted.
Where was the nuance when almost the entire media was towing the line to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop leak articles as "Russian Disinformation"? It was a complete lie. That's not just one article, it was dozens with no nuance to be found.
Calling it a coverup is quite an accusation; do you have any evidence for that?
I also remember it differently, with that being one theory expressed at the time, and it is certainly in line with what Russia has gotten up to in the past. I wondered how it turned out. From Wikipedia, on what independent analysts hired by the Washington Post found:
"One of the analysts characterized the data as a 'disaster' from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence others had written files to the drive both before and after the October 2020 New York Post reports. In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names 'Biden Burisma,' 'Salacious Pics Package' and Hunter. Burisma Documents.'"
But none of that addresses my actual question, which is asking for evidence that it's a coverup.
As for evidence that it was a coverup, Mark Zuckerberg stated publicly that FB algorithmically suppressed the story because the FBI came to them warning that it was Russian disinformation (of course they used the phrase "has all the hallmarks of" so they can deny that they lied about it later). Of course he could be lying, but I don't think he is, and you just asked for evidence, not outright proof.
Given that you and the other poster seem to be indulging in low-fact speculation, I think I'm done here.
Now how, exactly, would someone provide "evidence" that there was a coverup?
In Watergate, Leon Jaworski went to elaborate lengths to prove it with conversations, statements by collaborators, written documents, etc. Do you expect ordinary people to have that?
So we're left with extremely strict standards from "fact checkers" when Trump says anything, and "hey, what the hell, he meant well" when Biden says something blatantly wrong. For example:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-ar-15-bullet-gun/
So they rate this a "correct attribution" even though they say "the President's claim is false."
I'm glad you're done here. Otherwise, you'd have to go to even more insane contortions now.
I expect people not to make factual claims when they have no facts. If you want to say, "I have no proof but I believe in my heart it was a coverup", that's fine. If you want, feel free to build your worldview around vibes or whatever. Just don't pretend otherwise.
If someone says "all sheep are white" disproof comes from just one black sheep. So if we say "the establishment media covered up this story" you can disprove it with one, or preferably several references where it was covered fairly and prominently. But you can't, can you?
The fact that 50 "retired intelligence officers" said it had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation" when none of them had examined it -- do you want a citation for that?
How about that Zuckerberg said, and the FBI admitted, that they warned him about a "Russian document dump"?
How if you give us citations? Show us all the NYT and WaPo stories about the laptop before the election, and what page they ran on. Especially highlight the ones that talked about its content, or showed the pictures of Hunter?
As to the first point, assuming for the moment that whatever you're quoting is a good source, the easy explanation is that what was disclosed at the time did indeed have the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. That being something that is well studied by intelligence officers, and something that Russia produces quite a lot of.
You are demanding I prove a negative: that it was deliberately covered up. No, you need to show how it was NOT covered up. That only takes a reference or two.
As is your second paragraph: to only say "other disinformation looks like this, so we're just going to go with that and ignore it, instead of digging deeper into it" is what a press outlet that's in the tank does. It's not what an objective outlet does.
That is actually a positive. You're saying people did particular things. That's a positive assertion. Asking me to show that there was no conspiracy is the request to prove a negative. Which you are correct to think impossible.
In some small way, the FBI itself is admitting fault and cleaning house ([1], [2])
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-officials-told-agents-not-1249421...
[2] https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/25/hunter-biden-laptop-fbi-2...
Mark Zuckerberg says they downplayed the story at FBI direction:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532
So what's your next line of retreat?
OK, I'll give you FBI and Facebook. But you still haven't proven the other media!
Those are all questionable sites
The complaint isn’t about the vaccine, but the “deadly paradox” where vaccines become more effective the more people who take them. Further suggesting the policy to only hand it out to the fully vaccinated is a mistake.
The cycle is meant to continue forever, increasing in velocity, until all the paperclips are belong to us :)
I checked, and it looks like it’s coming from “Arthur C. Brooks”, a 58 year old Harvard professor from Spokane, Washington, who has a spouse and three kids. He’s a real person, with a real life.
I don't know about credibility, but he's not a fear monger.
Other people with the same job, who he doesn't know or control, wrote different opinions, so he's not allowed to have/express his without being called a hypocrite?
I guess now the length constraints are less, unless there's also a print edition. But in any case, it's still probably the job of someone other than the writer.