The media is creating mass hysteria over the Coronavirus.

[slimbizzy]

politics mothafucka.

you're answer is happened.

 

[Xzi]

Again, there's always more than one side to any argument.

And PragerU is always on the wrong side of any argument. You might as well be citing Kanye West as a source.

If these people can do these massive gatherings just because one guy killed one guy who mugged a pregnant woman at gunpoint, why can't I go to church? Why can't my parents vote in person? Why can't millions of people attend their grandparents' funerals?

Oh wait, right, paranoia.

There are multiple factors at play here. Yes, large gatherings of any sort put you at increased risk of exposure. Being outdoors however is a mitigating factor to some degree, and anybody attending protests is deeming it worth the risk. Churches being closed is on a state-by-state basis, and in many cases churches were closed because churchgoers failed to wear masks OR social distance, causing large outbreaks. A lot of funeral services are held in churches, so the same applies there, though people who don't want to wait on that sort of thing have been doing outdoor funerals instead.

Lastly, in-person voting will also be on a state-by-state basis, but for the life of me I can't think of any good reason why anyone would want to wait hours in line to vote during a pandemic when mail-in/drop-off ballots are so much more convenient and time-saving.

I meant to say Soviet.

The irony of that when it's obvious that Putin has Trump under his thumb...

 

[ghostbit]

RT basically is the russian equivalent to what radio liberty was in eastern europe 70 years ago..

Not even close. I'm not deeply familiar enough to try to claim that RT is totally objective, but it's a little more than a state propaganda venue. Jesse Ventura has a few good stories about his time with the station and how they never tried even slightly to slant or editorialize his content.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

And PragerU is always on the wrong side of any argument. You might as well be citing Kanye West as a source.

BIAS ALERT

There are multiple factors at play here. Yes, large gatherings of any sort put you at increased risk of exposure. Being outdoors however is a mitigating factor to some degree, and anybody attending protests is deeming it worth the risk. Churches being closed is on a state-by-state basis, and in many cases churches were closed because churchgoers failed to wear masks OR social distance, causing large outbreaks. A lot of funeral services are held in churches, so the same applies there, though people who don't want to wait on that sort of thing have been doing outdoor funerals instead.

First amendment.

Lastly, in-person voting will also be on a state-by-state basis, but for the life of me I can't think of any good reason why anyone would want to wait hours in line to vote during a pandemic when mail-in/drop-off ballots are so much more convenient and time-saving.

What about "them there rushin' boots" tossing out the "bad" votes?

 

[Xzi]

BIAS ALERT

PragerU itself is extremely biased, but I'm sure you were already aware of that. I'm fine with being biased against biased sources.

First amendment.

What about it? The protestors in Michigan had no problem exercising their first (and second) amendment rights when they flooded the state capitol building while carrying guns. The first amendment does NOT give people the right to spread a disease through willful or malicious action.

What about "them there rushin' boots" tossing out the "bad" votes?

Not sure what you're talking about here. Vote manipulation is far easier with in-person electronic voting than it is with a paper trail.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

What about it? The protestors in Michigan had no problem exercising their first (and second) amendment rights when they flooded the state capitol building while carrying guns. The first amendment does NOT give people the right to spread a disease through willful or malicious action.

The first amendment grants the right to freedom of religious expression.
Neither the first nor second amendments grants the right to arson.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Vote manipulation is far easier with in-person electronic voting than it is with a paper trail.

It's easier to hack into the government than to throw a piece of paper away?

 

[Xzi]

The first amendment grants the right to freedom of religious expression.

And religious expression does not require churches to be open. Services can just as easily be held outdoors or online.

It's easier to hack into the government than to throw a piece of paper away?

Electronic voting machines don't send their data to the government lol, it's stored locally until the votes are counted by the county clerk or local election authority, just like paper ballots are counted. Hacking conferences have shown that fairly recent revisions of these machines can be hacked in roughly 10 minutes.

 

[notimp]

Not even close. I'm not deeply familiar enough to try to claim that RT is totally objective, but it's a little more than a state propaganda venue. Jesse Ventura has a few good stories about his time with the station and how they never tried even slightly to slant or editorialize his content.

I have a Chomsky video somewhere...


Should be this or part one - here he spell it out more plainly (without much of the impact it has on society - which he usually talks about, when speaking on this topic)..

Top down influence is seldomely seen in journalism directly.

I see it with Hedges currently. He just gets this tinsy bit more 'animated' as a result of the environment, but still says what he 'wants'.
-

The not so round about response would be.

1. The assessment comes from this being a russian media outlet that exclusively addresses the western markets, having exactly no importance domestically. (Thats a media strategy thats more or less unseen since the radio liberty days. (Who would even found such a media outlet.. )

2. The leadership of the paper having been seen in close 'demonstrative' societal contact with Putin on anniversal events, and having defended Russian State PR on several occasions, while speaking to ARTE in Interviews. This indicates financing ties (otherwise you dont get Putin to speak at your parties).

That said, not even Radio Liberty did always tell falsehoods, its mostly about the construction of a common narrative - that is slightly off (not that of any western news outlet).
edit: In the video above Chomsky talks about it as "the framework media operates in". So it is the correct video (part2 ).

I personally see, that much of RTs commentary has a slight of the beat angle. So if you can take the jab against something "wrong with the political system in the west" - you take it. Its as if you are constantly listening to an agent provocateur. Their reporting is mostly boulevard (there are exceptions), so I'm not coming in contact with that much either.

Also - if you look at Rising (Youtube News format of The Hill), they do exactly the same (always playing the agent provocateur angle) - just with less of a 'motivating people to go into even conspiratorial interpretations' (not saying that all of them are bad, but many of them are just an easy version to make sense of a more complex situation) slant. So its not an RT exclusive. Its just something you dont usually see in established news outlets. (And currently, most of them are dying - so mostly the bigger ones remain).

Also if Jesse Ventura (hosts a show on RT) should be somone you trust in as your pundit is out of my judgement. In my book it always pays to hear different angles on a story. So dont just pick one. Pick someone that comes at it from a different direction also.


edit: Alleged RT/Kremlin Ties:
https://www.voanews.com/europe/lithuania-bans-russian-broadcaster-rt-over-kremlin-ties
(src: Reuters)

 

[ghostbit]

I personally see, that much of RTs commentary has a slight of the beat angle. So if you can take the jab against something "wrong with the political system in the west" - you take it. Its as if you are constantly listening to an agent provocateur.

This only logically applies if you give western media a free unbias pass to determine the tone when discussing political systems in the west.

 

[notimp]

This only logically applies if you give western media a free unbias pass to determine the tone when discussing political systems in the west.

Imho no. But it reveals a bias on my part. Lets say I see/hear an argument where I think to myself - ok you could voice criticism (of lets say the government) here, but maybe hint at it, or indicate it between the lines, because it is not essential to the main argument at hand.

And I see RT 'punching through always', and building this narrative of 'everything is broken' - I recognize that. Almost no nuance. Almost no weighing of arguments, whenever they see a chance to get to the punchline of 'some system is rotten or broken'.

So the argument I'm making is actually one about methods/style. Thats also why I mentioned The rising, because it has a similar approach.
--

Apart from that two other aspects that I find important:

First:

RT for a long time had a practice of using beautiful women anchors or reporters mixed with 'conspiracy positive' (not addressing any conspiracy in particular, but having sign off phrases like 'keep vigilant', or 'these are the facts you will only see here') attitudes, which was something really not seen as much in the west before, they had a strange kind of appeal, that they constructed several formats on, if I remember correctly. The worst example of that I remember was a report on the european migrant crisis (at its peak) where they sent in an actual model to then do a report on how 'most of those migrants weren't what they'd appear to be', and that the convetional narrative was lying, ..

The woman felt so obviously out of place, not that bright and reading a script, that I actually shuddered.

And this was an actual practice they stuck to for quite some time (see: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26585033 )

Second:

For most people on most topics (maybe not shortly before your country goes into war, or foreign policy topics, or on complicated domestic topics), it actually is more beneficial to hear a 'tone of a western media outlet discussing western politics' in their own country - compared to 'always' getting a provocative angle.

Still keep watching those provocative outlets as well, by all means (thats what I do - just in another political field.. ), but also at least read or watch a proper mainstream outlet in your country as well. On most topics they actually are trying to report in the interest of the population (thats the thing of 'I'd see no reason to turn to RT on stuff like figures reporting on the Covid crisis') and as a result you arent only getting interpretations where you need someone thats deep into policy discussion to see what angle you might be coming from. So in short - more socially acceptable. Knowing only the edge stuff and nothing about how most people in society will see it for most people will bring more problems, than positives.

(In germany just yesterday 10.000 of them were on the street (protesting against masks) shouting, 'go home media' and 'lying media', more than giving actual arguments.

No one media outlet will give you 'the actual truth'. (NYT at least a few years ago was best at spanning a very broad amount of topics, rather in depth, The Economist, and Financial Times always had in depth reporting on topics, the Nation, the Atlantic and Vanity Fair, had maybe the best 'Commentating' in the US, for a while (thats over as of now.. ) -- but none of them or any other outlet is free of any bias. Never was.)

Also - it helps to differenciate between reporting and 'punditry' (someone 'commentating' on 'the news'). If you need somone to tell you 'how to interpret most of what you are reading in reporting' thats still not ideal.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

This happened a few days ago.

 

[notimp]

This happened a few days ago.

Three words/aspects.
1. Masks
2. 5 feet distance
3. Perspective distortion (lense used by the photographer)
see: https://www.buzzfeed.com/joeydurso/coronavirus-social-distancing-lockdown-photos

For the next two years the first two may be a prerequisite to you being allowed to hold a funeral. Thats the new world.

Not one where "the black elite can have it, and you dont".

See its so easy if you arent populist..

(Well filled churches with people engaging in community (singing, embracing, shaking hands, ... are one of the primary vectors of corona spread (if you dont introduce those rules) -- similar story with eating together with friends and relatives after funerals (when you eat, you cant wear masks). In our country (small), where we still are able tro track virus propagation clusters, we had one such cluster recently (the "eating congregation" after a funeral).

Churches in the US afair only were closed when people actively were ignoring the distancing and mask rules. Or were likely to.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Another Facebook meme for the collection.

 

[Lacius]

Another Facebook meme for the collection.

What an embarrassingly stupid tweet.

1. Increased testing, contact tracing, and appropriate physical distancing and mask-wearing are what have always been needed. Increased testing alone isn't sufficient.
2. The increase in positive tests isn't proportional to increased testing. The positivity rate has increased. To say "we have more positives tests because of increased testing" is a myth.
3. Nobody wants a a lockdown, social distancing, etc. We want to do what the science says it takes to save lives and get through this pandemic.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

What an embarrassingly stupid tweet.

1. Increased testing, contact tracing, and appropriate physical distancing and mask-wearing are what have always been needed. Increased testing alone isn't sufficient..
2. [irrelevant to reply]
3. Nobody wants a a lockdown, social distancing, etc. We want to do what the science says it takes to save lives and get through this pandemic.

You believe that safety is more important than freedom?

 

[Lacius]

You believe that safety is more important than freedom?

A person's freedoms end where another's begin.

If you want a more specific response from me, you're going to have to be more specific with your question.

 

[Subtle Demise]

How about that Sputnik vaccine? First read about it in a Forbes online article yesterday. Most of the article performed some mental gymnastics to describe why it's a bad thing even if it worked. Also some "Russia bad" thrown in for good measure. I think the public enjoys being locked down and getting paid to not work. What a shocker.

I just sit back and don't know whether to laugh or cry at the response to this virus. Over 99% survival rate. There have been many deadlier diseases since the Spanish Flu over the past 100 years. Maybe I should finally just put on the stupid clown mask because "we live in a society" and all this bullshit about "tHe NeW NOrmAl" is all part of some made-up social contract I never fucking signed. Screw your masks, screw your social distancing, screw your purposeful decimation of entire industries. I don't consent to any of it.

 

[notimp]

@FAST6191 apparently was correct.

According to Didier Sornette ('complex systems expert'), difference between countries adhering to public measures (mask wearing) 'very responsibly' and countries which are adhering to them 'somewhat' is about 100 deaths per million (almost nothing).

Also complete shutdowns statistically seem to only make sense if you catch the virus in its first week of propagation. After that (i.e. the US in all scenarios ) not so much..

At current (switzerland) rates of progression we are looking at 30 years until heard immunity - and 'vaccination' might not be the technological 'one shot' solution its made out to be, looking at it from a long term perspective (first person who contracted the virus a second time after afair 5 months was reported a few days ago) and the virus is mutating..

src: Some of his future books, probably. (An interview that isnt linkable after the fact.)

 

[UltraSUPRA]

@FAST6191 apparently was correct.

According to Didier Sornette ('complex systems expert'), difference between countries adhering to public measures (mask wearing) 'very responsibly' and countries which are adhering to them 'somewhat' is about 100 deaths per million (almost nothing).

Also complete shutdowns statistically seem to only make sense if you catch the virus in its first week of propagation. After that (i.e. the US in all scenarios ) not so much..

At current (switzerland) rates of progression we are looking at 30 years until heard immunity - and 'vaccination' might not be the technological 'one shot' solution its made out to be, looking at it from a long term perspective (first person who contracted the virus a second time after afair 5 months was reported a few days ago) and the virus is mutating..

src: Some of his future books, probably. (An interview that isnt linkable after the fact.)

So when are we going to go back to normal?

 

[notimp]

According to that professor any time we want because the thing will stick around for a while and his view was influenced by deaths as a result of food production having been reduced and other factors like that that arent in any national leaders playbook, because they might not happen in country.

He basicaklly favored a pathway to reach heard immunity eventually, and sooner rather than later (30 years in switzerland at the current infection numbers). Asked about swedens path (was it 'better' or 'worse' than what the rest of the EU did, he stated that it would be too early to tell statistically. That should give you an idea of where he was coming from.

He also stated, that this got him into heated discussions with national health experts who brought up having to prevent hospitals running over capacity.

So in reality probably some time after the vaccines hit. EU is managing allocation (and financing production by overbooking) and has written conditional orders for afair more than 100 mio doses. Assessment of the EU coordinator (who also was in Alpbach) was, that ultimately they dont know if they need 200 mio doses or 1 billion doses. (MIght be hinting at mutations being part of the risk assessment).

The complex systems expert explicitly stated, that the virus is mutating and media isnt picking that up for headline storys. (Dont blame media, think about their responsibility.)

Thats all of the 'new stuff' I picked up so far. And a bunch about recovery funds allocation within the EU.

edit: Oh and vaccines should hit in western countries at the end of the year, maybe. But then allocation and getting much of your population the vaccine also isnt instant and produces challenges.