You would think people would have learned back in 93:
There are plenty of other examples to be found. The "news" media is not trustworthy. Never has been.
Let'm die!
- Thread starter Henro
- Start date
- Status
There are plenty of other examples to be found. The "news" media is not trustworthy. Never has been.
When CDC publishes information that directly contradicts data presented in its own publications, that leads to a loss of trust in the institution. (CDC publicly-stated mask information vs. Emerging Infectious Disease Journal)
When government agencies change long-standing definitions in response to apparent political pressure, that leads to a loss of trust. (Definition of "case" to include positive PCR test)
I tend to put little faith in government agencies at all. They are too easy to politicize. Just look at this weekend's DHS terror watch announcement.
Similarly, when many "independent" sources make precisely identical statements, word-for-word, I begin to suspect what's being said.
When a concerted effort is made to suppress a dissenting position, I begin to suspect motive.
In all cases, I dig deeper.
How can you dig deeper, when you do not have faith in anything that is stated by others?
And if you have faith in some sources, how do you determine they are actually representing reality?
Just honest questions...That I ask myself...
How do you the same with friends and coworkers?
Most figure out who embellish a lot, and who lis caught lying a lot, or who is regularly proven wrong. That seems to be most politicians and most media outlets and most public health officials.
Not the same scale...it is not an individual thing when looking at things on a world scale.
Regularly proven wrong by who? How can we tell if those sources are accurate and truthful?
My my point is that maybe a best guess would be to see what the international consensus on a given topic is, and figure that this might actually represent the truth.
Is is there a better way? Especially if we cannot trust what any individual report says?
They don't say the same thing.....you just think they do. 
digg.com
It's No Coincidence That Various TV News Shows Sound The Same — They All Have Identical Scripts | Digg
This mashup of local TV news networks gets a bit robotic when you hear over 30 news anchors say the same thing. As they themselves will admit, "this is extremely dangerous to our democracy."
digg.com
Start with regularly proven wrong by themselves.
Fauci for instance has taken many different positions on just masks. Masks won’t do anything, wear a mask, wear two masks, don’t wear a mask if you are vaccinated. You must wear a mask if you are vaccinated.
Of course, the politicians are the same. Maybe you don’t see the contradictions in video on your “sources” but they are clearly out there. The same people taking opposite positions depending on which party is in power.
Then, there are the “news” pundits. They also have taken opposite positions for the same things. Cuomo is a god now Cuomo is awful. Avenati was a viable Presidental contender and great guy until he was caught. There was collusion with Russia for years, but of course, no evidence was ever found. They buried the Hunter stories, but then eventually covered the stories.
I could go on and on, but the truth is your sources “stink”. Mine do too most of the time. You should assume they are wrong instead of right and look for opposing views that agree. If the majority of both political parties/sources agree, then it “might” be true.
Sure, most of the people on both sides don’t bother to look deeper. Instead, they are looking for confirmation bias. If that’s what you want, you can find it. But, most of the time, it might not be true.
A Dr. practicing for over 20 years, and his opinion of lives that could have been saved.
Here's an example of how politicians dance around a question when a yes or no answer was requested. A video makes it obvious. A reporter can present the information many ways to influence the listener/reader and never relay the truth.
You are forgetting that so much fewer vaccinated persons contract the virus or its variant….so that the virus is trapped in too many dead-ends to propagate through a largely-vaccinated society.
Actually, nobody knows those stats. There are a lot of people who don’t go get tested when they have minor symptoms whether they are vaccinated or not.. Same as before.
Magicman
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
M4900 Utility Special 4WD e/w FEL & 1530 John Deere "Traveling Man"
Dr Fauci has lied and manipulated his way through two administrations, and yet there he is being relied on as a scientist and expert actually leading the responses.
Actually I believe it has been 5 administrations...
The argument is that decisions are driven by data. If the data shows a situation has changed, the reaction and recommendations will change. Makes sense really.
We tend to do the same things in our daily lives. If we get an early start on a cold morning, we dress for it. But when it warms up later in the morning we may take a layer off to stay comfortable. We do not stay dressed the same all day, just because we decided to dress a certain way at the start.
Ok if you want to apologize for Fauci. We all know better. He’s either clueless or intentionally misleading. Very few of us are allowed to be so wrong for so long. Add the funding that he gave China, and it could actually be criminal.
Wasn't Fauci's first job was as a weatherman, where he honed his skills in making gross errors in reporting the weather only to move up the ladder of success in medicine?
Frankly, it is likely only a relatively few "know" better.
Fortunately (or otherwise) people that imagine and/or come to believe things that are not based in reality are allowed to "be right" forever...LOL
I'm not sure about that.Wasn't Fauci's first job was as a weatherman, where he honed his skills in making gross errors in reporting the weather only to move up the ladder of success in medicine?
Seeing that his specialty is germs and such, I think it more likely he was a garbage man, back in the days when the garbage guys carried a large container, and went to the back of your house to transfer your can into theirs, to be carried to the truck... Great incentive to move on to something easier.
Last edited:
Please do not mischaracterize what I said.
Digging deeper is simply going beyond the public statements made by various organizations and not taking the news media at its word. I think that the news media has more than proven itself to be untrustworthy by the misreporting, "misstatements" followed by buried corrections, and outright lies that it's been putting out for decades. As a wise man once said, "It's interesting when people die; Give them dirty laundry". News isn't there to inform.
Go past the headline. Go past the article even. In history, there is a concept known as "primary sources" - you can do the same with current events. Look at the actual study. Consider its methodology. Look at the conclusions and criticisms.
As others have mentioned, it doesn't take long before you begin to see a pattern of secondary sources that are more or less reliable. In general, you can accept those that have proven more reliable in the past, but never accept unquestioningly, whether you agree or disagree with what's being said.
That's the argument, yes. But is that the case? Or is it that the politics of the situation has changed? Yet another reason to dig deeper.
- Status