May 27, 2020
CYA on Coronavirus Reporting
Timothy Birdnow
This is classic media; report only one side of a story, raise it to fever pitch, then as quietly as possible admit there was another side to it (so as to maintain plausible deniability). Scientists have disagreed with this from the beginning. But the media acted as if all were onboard with the radical steps taken. Now they are covering their tails. I doubt it will make a difference at this point in terms of public perception or quieting the anger in the general public - which is why they are doing this now.
Most people will believe what they first heard. The damnable media know that.
Why Scientists are Changing Their Minds and Disagreeing During the Coronavirus Pandemic
This is classic media; report only one side of a story, raise it to fever pitch, then as quietly as possible admit there was another side to it (so as to maintain plausible deniability). Scientists have disagreed with this from the beginning. But the media acted as if all were onboard with the radical steps taken. Now they are covering their tails. I doubt it will make a difference at this point in terms of public perception or quieting the anger in the general public - which is why they are doing this now.
Most people will believe what they first heard. The damnable media know that.
Why Scientists are Changing Their Minds and Disagreeing During the Coronavirus Pandemic
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:18 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
1
No, actually the problem is the rush to publish, otherwise known as publicity seeking, otherwise known as talking when you don't know what you're talking about because you love seeing your name in print.
These "scientists" go shooting their mouths off before they actually study the subject because they want to be the first ones to be quoted on the subject, because they want to be the first and smartest in the public eye. Then when facts come out, instead of admitting that they were full of shit, that they didn't know what they were talking about, they tell us that "new facts have emerged."
They are liars. The "new facts" that emerged were not "new facts," they were just "facts." Liars and idiots.
These "scientists" go shooting their mouths off before they actually study the subject because they want to be the first ones to be quoted on the subject, because they want to be the first and smartest in the public eye. Then when facts come out, instead of admitting that they were full of shit, that they didn't know what they were talking about, they tell us that "new facts have emerged."
They are liars. The "new facts" that emerged were not "new facts," they were just "facts." Liars and idiots.
Posted by: Bill H at May 27, 2020 07:06 PM (vMiSr)
2
Don't trust 'em much, do you, Bill? Wonder why? For the same reasons I don't, probably. In today's 24-hour news cycle, plus the scientific community's "publish or perish" dictum, ya gotta get something in front of the public or they'll forget who you are. So you say something, anything, BS or not. And man, it's easy to manufacture BS these days!
The second of the three key points was interesting: "But changing your mind based on new evidence is a badge of honor in the scientific community." I'm not certain that means what the MSM thinks it does, but they'll push the hell out of it. Given the percentage of dolts who believe the MSM, when "scientists" reverse themselves, it's "Wow, look, they've got a new slant, it must be true." Yes, if a true scientist finds new evidence that proves he was wrong, he's happy and is glad to publicize it. Is that really what's happening here, considering most of these "scientists" are political hacks? And it usually takes years for this kind of thing to happen, not four or five weeks. I'm suspicious.
Kinda makes it hard to know who to believe these days, but as far as I'm concerned, pay attention to what makes sense and ignore the rest. Especially the conspiracy freaks, like the old friend of mine who insisted that G.H.W. Bush was a Nazi.
The second of the three key points was interesting: "But changing your mind based on new evidence is a badge of honor in the scientific community." I'm not certain that means what the MSM thinks it does, but they'll push the hell out of it. Given the percentage of dolts who believe the MSM, when "scientists" reverse themselves, it's "Wow, look, they've got a new slant, it must be true." Yes, if a true scientist finds new evidence that proves he was wrong, he's happy and is glad to publicize it. Is that really what's happening here, considering most of these "scientists" are political hacks? And it usually takes years for this kind of thing to happen, not four or five weeks. I'm suspicious.
Kinda makes it hard to know who to believe these days, but as far as I'm concerned, pay attention to what makes sense and ignore the rest. Especially the conspiracy freaks, like the old friend of mine who insisted that G.H.W. Bush was a Nazi.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at May 27, 2020 10:30 PM (mrRJc)
3
Agreed guys!
Dana, you say:
"Kinda makes it hard to know who to believe these days, but as far as I'm concerned, pay attention to what makes sense and ignore the rest. Especially the conspiracy freaks, like the old friend of mine who insisted that G.H.W. Bush was a Nazi."
That is a great point. What happens so often these days is that conspiracy theories flourish and they hide the activities being done in plain sight by the Left. I'm pretty sure the Progressives fund people to crank these crazy theories out just to muddy the waters. How much Soros money goes to doing that? Soros doesn't conspire; he acts pretty much in plain sight. The key is to hide it behind a blanket of conspiracy theories so when you say "George Soros funded the Ferguson riots" for instance, a sizable group will call you a conspiracy nut, like the guys who think old man Bush was a Nazi. And the majority of a-politcal types will then think you are a nut - even though Soros himself may admit he spent money on such things.
Dana, you say:
"Kinda makes it hard to know who to believe these days, but as far as I'm concerned, pay attention to what makes sense and ignore the rest. Especially the conspiracy freaks, like the old friend of mine who insisted that G.H.W. Bush was a Nazi."
That is a great point. What happens so often these days is that conspiracy theories flourish and they hide the activities being done in plain sight by the Left. I'm pretty sure the Progressives fund people to crank these crazy theories out just to muddy the waters. How much Soros money goes to doing that? Soros doesn't conspire; he acts pretty much in plain sight. The key is to hide it behind a blanket of conspiracy theories so when you say "George Soros funded the Ferguson riots" for instance, a sizable group will call you a conspiracy nut, like the guys who think old man Bush was a Nazi. And the majority of a-politcal types will then think you are a nut - even though Soros himself may admit he spent money on such things.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at May 28, 2020 06:09 AM (6WhJk)
23kb generated in CPU 0.0689, elapsed 1.0574 seconds.
37 queries taking 1.051 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 1.051 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
