Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
In all seriousness, in today's world, people like to have their opinion and scream about having it, stating it is fact, but not respect others opinion who might not agree.
This is because we do an incredibly lousy job of educating people with respect to sorting fact from opinion, and truth from fiction.

Our mass media exacerbates this by passing off opinion as news reporting, and people learn from them that this is how "successful" people frame arguments and persuade others.
 
This is quite a funny fact check.

TLDR

BBC interviewed a Covid patient in hospital in July.

The social medias started accusing him of being a crisis actor.

He later changes his Insta bio to call himself “An Academy award nominated crisis actor” to take the piss.

YouTube and socials are now going mad, 6 months later, with people posting vids of the original BBC clip and his Insta bio, saying ‘see, he’s a crisis actor. Scamdemic mate’.

 
Last edited:
This is because we do an incredibly lousy job of educating people with respect to sorting fact from opinion, and truth from fiction.

Our mass media exacerbates this by passing off opinion as news reporting, and people learn from them that this is how "successful" people frame arguments and persuade others.

Couldn’t agree more with the last bit, commentators (like Young or nearly all of the people at Fox now) are responsible for trashing a lot of peoples faith in the news and ruining their understanding of events.

Its all done deliberately as well, with the vast majority of them being obviously personally compromised and actively supporting a side and / or individuals (Cuomo for example). They shouldn’t be anywhere near mass media but instead they are an increasingly large slice of it (and a correspondingly large bit of politics too).
 
Couldn’t agree more with the last bit, commentators (like Young or nearly all of the people at Fox now) are responsible for trashing a lot of peoples faith in the news and ruining their understanding of events.

Its all done deliberately as well, with the vast majority of them being obviously personally compromised and actively supporting a side and / or individuals (Cuomo for example). They shouldn’t be anywhere near mass media but instead they are an increasingly large slice of it (and a correspondingly large bit of politics too).
It's gotten bad on both sides of the fence. CNN didn't really deserve the abuse when Trump was griefing Acosta. Now, they're increasingly adopting Fox's tactics and pushing an agenda. The BBC putting Dershowitz on as an "independent" expert to talk about a case where he's among the accused is another example.

I'm not sure if this is because it results in more clicks, they're that desperate to fill a 24-hour news cycle worth of content, they're getting some sort of side payments (favorable regulatory outcomes?), or if they've just accepted that bad drowns out good in today's media environment. There's a good chance that all of those things are going into the blender, to a greater or lesser extent.
 
It's gotten bad on both sides of the fence. CNN didn't really deserve the abuse when Trump was griefing Acosta. Now, they're increasingly adopting Fox's tactics and pushing an agenda. The BBC putting Dershowitz on as an "independent" expert to talk about a case where he's among the accused is another example.

I'm not sure if this is because it results in more clicks, they're that desperate to fill a 24-hour news cycle worth of content, they're getting some sort of side payments (favorable regulatory outcomes?), or if they've just accepted that bad drowns out good in today's media environment. There's a good chance that all of those things are going into the blender, to a greater or lesser extent.

I think it’s probably a mix of all that - because commentary is much cheaper, easier to produce and legally far easier to defend than actual journalism is the firms that dominate the media will always go for it.

It really needs a firmer legal framework- not censorship, but those who consume that product should really be able to seek remedies when it causes harm.
 
That works both ways though doesnt it?

I mean people calling for unvaccinated people to be removed from participating in society etc because they dont want to take something that was knocked up within 12 months and is emergency issued is equally dangerous isnt it?

Covid has brought the worst out in society politically speaking.

No it doesn’t and no it isn’t equally as dangerous.

If I post that I think that the unvaccinated should be essentially removed from participating in society, it may irritate a few people reading, but won’t influence governments decision. If someone else posts unverified nonsense picked up from Facebook it may send another user down some rabbit hole and result in them making a decision on the vaccine based on incorrect information.

Personally I think a vaccine mandate would be a bad thing, particularly as most of the vaccine hesitate are from the margins of society anyway. I don’t think removing people from society, who already feel unheard, would be a good thing at all.

I respect anyones decision on what they want to with their own body, but what is becoming ever clearer is that vaccines and boosters are what will get us back to a normal society. The uptake is vital. Every person who makes the call not to take the vaccine affects this, so although I respect their decision, what I can’t respect is them justifying that decision by attempting to indoctrinate others into what is essentially an anti-science position.
 
View attachment 150219View attachment 150220

The Deaths from yesterday were over 5 days apparently. Someone said to me the other day what’s the point in the vaccines they don’t make a difference, you can still get it and die from it. ?
The real question is how can Wednesday and Thursday both be the 30th? Are you stuck in a Dr. Strange time loop over there?
 
I think it’s probably a mix of all that - because commentary is much cheaper, easier to produce and legally far easier to defend than actual journalism is the firms that dominate the media will always go for it.

It really needs a firmer legal framework- not censorship, but those who consume that product should really be able to seek remedies when it causes harm.
*evil grin*

Strict liability standard for the consequences of opinion journalism. That would change the media in a hurry.

It'll never wash, though, at least in America. The media's lobby is pretty good, and it'll collapse on First Amendment grounds. Even if the courts imposed it (which is where it would have to happen), it would rightly be condemned as legislating from the bench.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top