Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Ghost Rider]

View attachment 146890

I think in the short term, this is what we are going to get. We have already had it for a while now, reporting any and every little variant / mutation as a big news story. Going by the references to it today it's certainly being reported as something scary , with the actual story going into the fact it's not really any different than before.

Every virus has a new strain / mutation and scientists monitor them all. In this case , media outlets just want to get the 'scoop' on covid ones any way they can.

I just don't get why they have to report them in such a fearful way when the actual information on them doesn't reflect the headline.

 

[verreauxi]

 

[Amw79]

I think in the short term, this is what we are going to get. We have already had it for a while now, reporting any and every little variant / mutation as a big news story. Going by the references to it today it's certainly being reported as something scary , with the actual story going into the fact it's not really any different than before.

Every virus has a new strain / mutation and scientists monitor them all. In this case , media outlets just want to get the 'scoop' on covid ones any way they can.

I just don't get why they have to report them in such a fearful way when the actual information on them doesn't reflect the headline.

Actually that reply was to @MikeH72 as he was saying that the BBC weren’t reporting the statement from the South African health minister, and implying some sort of cover up or agenda, when actually they were reporting it.

It seems to me now that the media is a sort of Rorschach test, where people read a headline and project their own fear on to it, irrespective of the actual content.

The media are far from perfect, nor would I expect them to be, run and staffed, as they are, by human beings.

That said, I have some sympathy for them, as it seems like throughout the pandemic they’ve been accused of creating panic (calling for lockdowns), not taking it seriously enough (freedom day), not reporting information (possible miracle drug - ivermectin) or over-reporting information (variants).

Seems to me that people expect the media to report exactly what they want, in the style they want it, with the political position they agree with, and with the appropriate level of concern/panic/relaxation, they think is correct.

I reckon some on here see the weather report and think “It says 100% chance of rain!! They’re trying to scare us, these meteorologists. It’s all just a scam to get us to comply and for ‘Big Umbrella’ to make profits”.

 

[BlueToff]

If we lockdown either way we're losing months though?

The hospitals will definitely struggle this winter I agree, not really sure a lockdown would stop that though.

Lockdown would only work for winter if we locked down right now.

And that won't happen - and rightly so.

 

[MikeH72]

Actually that reply was to @MikeH72 as he was saying that the BBC weren’t reporting the statement from the South African health minister, and implying some sort of cover up or agenda, when actually they were reporting it.

It seems to me now that the media is a sort of Rorschach test, where people read a headline and project their own fear on to it, irrespective of the actual content.

The media are far from perfect, nor would I expect them to be, run and staffed, as they are, by human beings.

That said, I have some sympathy for them, as it seems like throughout the pandemic they’ve been accused of creating panic (calling for lockdowns), not taking it seriously enough (freedom day), not reporting information (possible miracle drug - ivermectin) or over-reporting information (variants).

Seems to me that people expect the media to report exactly what they want, in the style they want it, with the political position they agree with, and with the appropriate level of concern/panic/relaxation, they think is correct.

I reckon some on here see the weather report and think “It says 100% chance of rain!! They’re trying to scare us, these meteorologists. It’s all just a scam to get us to comply and for ‘Big Umbrella’ to make profits”.

Forgive me for being reluctant to trust the corporation that covers up for prolific paedophile necrophiliacs for decades and decades.

 

[BlueToff]

Actually that reply was to @MikeH72 as he was saying that the BBC weren’t reporting the statement from the South African health minister, and implying some sort of cover up or agenda, when actually they were reporting it.

It seems to me now that the media is a sort of Rorschach test, where people read a headline and project their own fear on to it, irrespective of the actual content.

The media are far from perfect, nor would I expect them to be, run and staffed, as they are, by human beings.

That said, I have some sympathy for them, as it seems like throughout the pandemic they’ve been accused of creating panic (calling for lockdowns), not taking it seriously enough (freedom day), not reporting information (possible miracle drug - ivermectin) or over-reporting information (variants).

Seems to me that people expect the media to report exactly what they want, in the style they want it, with the political position they agree with, and with the appropriate level of concern/panic/relaxation, they think is correct.

I reckon some on here see the weather report and think “It says 100% chance of rain!! They’re trying to scare us, these meteorologists. It’s all just a scam to get us to comply and for ‘Big Umbrella’ to make profits”.

As someone who works in the media I get annoyed when people - in this country at least - say how biased it is against whatever side of any divide or argument they happen to be on, and then simply insist that it is the case when you point that actually, in the UK, the media is pretty bloody unbiased compared to a lot of other places. It's not one entity, it's made up of lots of different entities and lots of different programmes each with their own argument to put across. That varies between show to show, presenter to presenter etc etc

Now, with COVID, there has been some instance where even I feel it's gone a bit mad. For example, in the third lockdown, all the reporters did was ask 'when are we going to be out', 'give us an exact date' etc etc

As soon as the date was confirmed, or the opening up took place at each stage, it was 'are you sure this isn't too quick', 'people are still dying', 'what about variants' etc etc

Now they're all reasonable questions in their own right but it was like hang on, a week ago you were calling for this, now it's here, you're saying it should be scrapped.

 

[BlueToff]

According to that thread I just posted, this new variant seems to so far be causing mostly mild cases

And thing is Billy, there's going to be variants of this forever and ever because it's here forever and ever.

We'll be seeing COVID variants this time next year I'm sure.

 

[Amw79]

Forgive me for being reluctant to trust the corporation that covers up for prolific paedophile necrophiliacs for decades and decades.

That’s a pivot away from the topic in question.

But it’s interesting that you had a position that they wouldn’t report this, for some unspoken, nefarious reason, but that’s been now shown to be incorrect, but you haven’t addressed it or corrected yourself.

 

[MikeH72]

That’s a pivot away from the topic in question.

But it’s interesting that you had a position that they wouldn’t report this, for some unspoken, nefarious reason, but that’s been now shown to be incorrect, but you haven’t addressed it or corrected yourself.

Well the paragraph you quoted was sort of buried in the middle of the article wasn’t it, and I’m doubtful that information was included in any headlines or tweets they may have posted. Why are you so defensive over the media anyway?

 

[Amw79]

As someone who works in the media I get annoyed when people - in this country at least - say how biased it is against whatever side of any divide or argument they happen to be on, and then simply insist that it is the case when you point that actually, in the UK, the media is pretty bloody unbiased compared to a lot of other places. It's not one entity, it's made up of lots of different entities and lots of different programmes each with their own argument to put across. That varies between show to show, presenter to presenter etc etc

Now, with COVID, there has been some instance where even I feel it's gone a bit mad. For example, in the third lockdown, all the reporters did was ask 'when are we going to be out', 'give us an exact date' etc etc

As soon as the date was confirmed, or the opening up took place at each stage, it was 'are you sure this isn't too quick', 'people are still dying', 'what about variants' etc etc

Now they're all reasonable questions in their own right but it was like hang on, a week ago you were calling for this, now it's here, you're saying it should be scrapped.

I generally agree with this. Specifically, I thought the clamour to ‘save Christmas’ was particularly irresponsible last year.

As I said, I’m not gonna argue that the media are perfect. I suppose the argument would be, that they’re there to play devils advocate, and question the governments actions one way or the other. But yeah, generally agree that there’s been a lot of back and forth which has been unhelpful.

 

[Amw79]

Well the paragraph you quoted was sort of buried in the middle of the article wasn’t it, and I’m doubtful that information was included in any headlines or tweets they may have posted. Why are you so defensive over the media anyway?

This plays into my point that even when the media actually did the thing that people say they didn’t do, the argument changes to, ‘they didn’t do it in the way I wanted’.

I mean, if what you want is for headlines to perfectly represent the content of an article, you’re setting an unobtainable expectation.

 

[MikeH72]

This plays into my point that even when the media actually did the thing that people say they didn’t do, the argument changes to, ‘they didn’t do it in the way I wanted’.

I mean, if what you want is for headlines to perfectly represent the content of an article, you’re setting an unobtainable expectation.

I want headlines to not be deliberately scaremongering and alarmist.

 

[Amw79]

I want headlines to not be deliberately scaremongering and alarmist.

I want people to read past the headlines and read the article, and understand the facts. Which is what I (EDIT: try to) do. Hence I don’t get scared or alarmed easily by media.

If all you’re gonna do is read headlines, and then make unsubstantiated insinuations of a coverup, when actually a quick check would show that position to be incorrect; then you’re going to live in a world of ‘alternate facts’.

 

[MikeH72]

I want people to read past the headlines and read the article, and understand the facts. Which is what I (EDIT: try to) do. Hence I don’t get scared or alarmed easily by media.

If all you’re gonna do is read headlines, and then make unsubstantiated insinuations of a coverup, when actually a quick check would show that position to be incorrect; then you’re going to live in a world of ‘alternate facts’.

I want people to do that too. But for the most part they won’t and never will. This is exactly what the media take advantage of, they know people will read the headline and scroll past.

 

[Wizard]

I want people to read past the headlines and read the article, and understand the facts. Which is what I (EDIT: try to) do. Hence I don’t get scared or alarmed easily by media.

If all you’re gonna do is read headlines, and then make unsubstantiated insinuations of a coverup, when actually a quick check would show that position to be incorrect; then you’re going to live in a world of ‘alternate facts’.

There is a crazy obsession with headlines. Read the actual articles and they do more often than not report the actual story. Obviously opinion pieces are different but general news articles do tend to represent the facts. Some people just want to get wound up by stuff