Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Canadian News Dishonest About Covid Deaths.


Paranoid Android
 Share

Recommended Posts

You seem to be heavily overreacting.

The article itself states that the main cause of death was underlying health issues that played a significant role in his death.

The child did die of covid. Yes he was going to die soon in any case. That's not been hidden. 

I just googled the story and I can't find it on any mainstream media myself. I found three links. One you had already posted, another basically copying it and this one.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-when-it-comes-to-covid-19-there-is-no-such-thing-as-too-much-information/wcm/7359045c-11ca-47ca-bde5-eb5fa6431c44/amp/

As we can see at the link, it's people commenting who are getting facts wrong. Official story might have had a dramatic headline, but then owns up on the pre-existing condition. The doctors announcement didn't omit the cancer information. If one reads the actual article it's all explained.

1. Not covered by mainstream media.

2. The dramatic headline gets people reading the story where the information about the pre-existing condition is noted.

3. Individuals not the media are who is over reacting. 

The main point Hinshaw seems to be trying to make is that covid isn't age restricted. Less paranoia, more reading required. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
On 10/14/2021 at 4:10 PM, psyche101 said:

You seem to be heavily overreacting.

Am I? Consider: 

Quote

If one reads the actual article it's all explained.

That's the first thing, though, how many people actually read the article? Two unrelated articles, with very similar statistics to consider: 

Quote

Here are the key sentences from the study:

 
Fewer Americans invest additional time into following the news more in-depth. The survey asked people about going in-depth for news two different ways. It asked whether people generally tried to get news in-depth on any subject in the last week. It also asked, when they recalled a breaking news story they followed in the last week, whether they had tried to find out more about it after initially learning of it.
Overall, 41 percent of Americans report that they watched, read, or heard any in-depth news stories, beyond the headlines, in the last week. Slightly more people, 49 percent, report that they invested additional time to delve deeper and follow up on the last breaking news story they followed.
Almost 60% of people who share this story on social media will do so without ever reading past the headline. That’s according to a Columbia University study analyzing the type of content that receives the most engagement on Twitter.
 

So your claims here are only relevant IF people actually click on those links. As the studies show, 60% of people don't. That is consistent with all the stats I've heard. As such, I challenge your conclusion: 

Quote

The main point Hinshaw seems to be trying to make is that covid isn't age restricted. Less paranoia, more reading required. 

Surely using a 14 year old with brain cancer who was going to die anyway is not the best example to demonstrate that covid isn't age restricted! In fact, such a story only serves to show that if you are a healthy human child, you are virtually guaranteed to be safe. 

That story was written to promote fear of the coronavirus, and nothing else! 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's the biggest problem- people don't read past a headline or a link.

60% of people are easily led around by the nose by a mere sentence.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 1:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Am I?

Yes. This is not mainstream. It's a local rag. And the correct information is all there. Nothing is hidden. You are perceiving that it is by interpreting the headline in a specific way. 

The headline also stated "Full Article!" Does that not imply one should read it? 

On 10/16/2021 at 1:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Consider: 

That's the first thing, though, how many people actually read the article?

I have no idea. Do you know?

Considering the source, not a lot I would guess?

On 10/16/2021 at 1:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Two unrelated articles, with very similar statistics to consider: 

So your claims here are only relevant IF people actually click on those links. As the studies show, 60% of people don't. That is consistent with all the stats I've heard. As such, I challenge your conclusion: 

 

So it's the Media's fault that people are lazy now? 

That's people not the media. Why should media be blamed if people are lazy? That doesn't seem right to me. 

FPJVFQ2OZ4ZFVJZ4DRFJ3YMCXA.jpg&w=916

 

See the above? 

That's the actual problem here. 

The headline doesn't actually say it's a covid death, it says the death is amongst covid deaths and that covid was a secondary cause that accelerated the pre-existing condition. 

If people read more real research and articles and did less of this........

IMG_20211011_232638.thumb.jpg.1c59a7f16ff8c8f03a07be9d5aebcce2.jpg

 

Then nobody would be confused.

On 10/16/2021 at 1:52 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Surely using a 14 year old with brain cancer who was going to die anyway is not the best example to demonstrate that covid isn't age restricted! In fact, such a story only serves to show that if you are a healthy human child, you are virtually guaranteed to be safe. 

That story was written to promote fear of the coronavirus, and nothing else! 

It doesn't show that if your a child that you are guaranteed to be safe. I have no idea how you get that from that headline or the story itself. That seems to be your personal interpretation. It actually shows anyone can get covid anywhere. No age restrictions, even in an ICU it can sneak in and infect a child.

Hinshaw stated that covid was a secondary cause. The headline seems to be based on the fact that a family member took that to mean covid and strongly objected. In every instance and fear is only being had by those not reading the story and jumping to conclusions. The article even asks when is information too much information. Clearly any is for some people. If anything the headline is illustrating how hysterical people get when they don't take in all the information. 

And that's on the individual. They are clearly and easily demonstrably wrong.

The story isn't fearful if one actually reads it. That is all that should be required. The story has also been updated. 

Anyone reading the previous headline would also see this one would they not? It helps the lazy people that only read the headline to begin with.

You place too much blame on media and not enough on those misusing it. Educating people is much better than feeding them headlines they can easily swallow whole. Not only that, so many are looking for excuses to hate on media and look worse when examples like this are so misrepresented. 

IMHO you ask more than is required from the media and not enough from readers.

Alberta's top doctor says COVID-19 not cause of teen's death

 

Update Thursday, Oct. 14, 2021:

Chief Medical Health Officer Dr. Deena Hinshaw has removed the 14-year-old from the Tuesday’s list of COVID-related deaths. Hinshaw says the initial report included COVID-19 as a secondary cause, but “additional information” indicates the novel coronavirus was not the cause of death.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
53 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Alberta's top doctor says COVID-19 not cause of teen's death

 

Update Thursday, Oct. 14, 2021:

Chief Medical Health Officer Dr. Deena Hinshaw has removed the 14-year-old from the Tuesday’s list of COVID-related deaths. Hinshaw says the initial report included COVID-19 as a secondary cause, but “additional information” indicates the novel coronavirus was not the cause of death.

Wow! All I can say is "WOW"! I'm going to skip all the rest of what you said and focus only on this. Everything here confirms that the story was 100% fake news. The boy did not die from covid, despite the headline implying otherwise! The story exists to create fear of the pandemic, nothing more. Every single sentence in that article was written in order to make regular Joe's afraid (eg, backdating deaths to the very start of the pandemic, the author could have chosen to backdate deaths to when the vaccine became publicly available, or after 50% of the population was double vaxxed. Instead the author chose a near-2 year window to just shove every single Albertan who had died). 

As an aside, how often do people go back and read articles that are multiple days old? Unless you're actively doing research you don't keep up with news articles that are more than 1-2 days old (stats show that after the initial 24 hours, clicks to news articles drop to a fraction of their 1st 24 hours). That means that by the time this company updated the article the vast majority of people who were going to read it have already read it without the retraction. 

 

As I said, every sentence in this article exists solely to promote fear! Not news. Certainly not "facts"! 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Wow! All I can say is "WOW"! I'm going to skip all the rest of what you said and focus only on this.

Well that's a shame because I can't see how this is mainstream or why media is responsible for laziness. I really don't get that. 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Everything here confirms that the story was 100% fake news. The boy did not die from covid, despite the headline implying otherwise!

Please show in the article where it states the death was from Covid, not with Covid. 

You felt that was what it implied. I disagree. I felt it implied that covid was a factor in speeding up the outcome. 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The story exists to create fear of the pandemic, nothing more. Every single sentence in that article was written in order to make regular Joe's afraid (eg, backdating deaths to the very start of the pandemic, the author could have chosen to backdate deaths to when the vaccine became publicly available, or after 50% of the population was double vaxxed. Instead the author chose a near-2 year window to just shove every single Albertan who had died). 

Covid has been here two years. It strikes me as the only fair number to offer. People can see the effects of the vaccines that way and it brings home that covid is a serious disease. Thanks to politics people in general have lost sight of the medical issue. 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

As an aside, how often do people go back and read articles that are multiple days old?

As it is a local news source I expect the majority. 

People from Zimbabwe don't read the gold coast bulletin. A fear monger might grasp and article and offer their interpretation of the headline but won't be a regular reader. Many people on the gold coast however read it daily. 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Unless you're actively doing research you don't keep up with news articles that are more than 1-2 days old (stats show that after the initial 24 hours, clicks to news articles drop to a fraction of their 1st 24 hours). That means that by the time this company updated the article the vast majority of people who were going to read it have already read it without the retraction. 

It was updated, honestly I might add, as new information came through. There's no good reason to guess ahead of that. 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

As I said, every sentence in this article exists solely to promote fear! Not news. Certainly not "facts"! 

Only for people who are looking for ways to crucify information to achieve a personal goal. If it wasn't about facts it would have stated that covid was the cause of death, not a secondary cause and they would not have printed the update.

It's a nobody news. The clarifications are for the handful of people that actually support and read that news. 

Huge exaggeration and over reaction on your part. Your demonizing all media based on a nobody source that you feel had a misleading headline. Not story, not the retraction, how you read the headline.

I'd say what the real issue here is that you have a personal issue with the media in general. I feel it's biasing your judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'd say what the real issue here is that you have a personal issue with the media in general. I feel it's biasing your judgement.

Oh I definitely have issues with the media. And I am certain that I am biased. But I also don't think my views are unwarranted. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Oh I definitely have issues with the media. And I am certain that I am biased.

You claim to counter for it with right wing sources but demonize left wing sources.

I don't see any balance there at all PA.

Quote

But I also don't think my views are unwarranted. 

With all due respect you don't seem to have a lot to counter the issues I brought up with your view of the headline. 

1. It's not mainstream media. It's a local newspaper.

2. Nowhere in any article was covid claimed to be the actual cause of death, nor the headline.

3. I fail to see why the media is responsible for lazy people who only read a headline and then make incorrect assumptions about it

4. I don't see how this is driving fear as opposed to awareness.

5. A very clear correction was made as the information became available. Covid had zero impact. Which doesn't fit in with a fear monger agenda.

I don't agree with your evaluation that people are astoundingly stupid and need right wing media in order to find balance. I feel people can read and understand and if one is do silly as to make an assumption from half a headline it won't be long before somebody corrects them and makes them feel quite foolish.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

1. It's not mainstream media. It's a local newspaper.

It covers the entire province of Alberta (edit: actually, I just looked into more detail, CityNews is Canada-wide, they have branches in - Halifax, Calgary, Edmonton, Kitchener, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg). That's the equivalent of calling channel 7's Sydney branch "not mainstream media. It's a local newspaper". And I say bulldust to that. When I watch channel 7 news, it is "mainstream media". When I read Alberta City News, it's mainstream. 

 

Quote

2. Nowhere in any article was covid claimed to be the actual cause of death, nor the headline.

Then you are blind. The headline read "Young Teen Among New COVID Deaths Reported Tuesday". 

 

Quote

3. I fail to see why the media is responsible for lazy people who only read a headline and then make incorrect assumptions about it

They may not be "responsible". But they are a majority of their audience, and if they are intentionally writing misleading headlines knowing that the majority of people won't dig past the headline, then that is their fault, 100% 

 

Quote

4. I don't see how this is driving fear as opposed to awareness.

I don't see how it's doing any thing BUT driving fear! 

 

Quote

5. A very clear correction was made as the information became available. Covid had zero impact. Which doesn't fit in with a fear monger agenda.

That's not how misinformation works! If they were overtly promoting fear with outright lies then they wouldn't last very long because they would be easily spotted and called out. So instead of outright lying they'll do.... well, what they did - they will claim a young teenager died from covid in the headline, then if/when they are called out on their lies, they will offer a retraction and say "well we were close enough". And because most people have read the story in the first 24 hours of publication they can safely move on knowing that they have successfully promoted fear of the virus! 

 

Quote

I don't agree with your evaluation that people are astoundingly stupid and need right wing media in order to find balance.

I wouldn't describe them as "astoundingly stupid". Nor would I say they NEED right wing media to find balance. However, if you are only using mainstream media to get your news you are automatically getting a left-wing narrative shoved down your throat, so why wouldn't you seek alternatives to question your world views? 

 

Quote

I feel people can read and understand and if one is do silly as to make an assumption from half a headline it won't be long before somebody corrects them and makes them feel quite foolish.

 Or they double down on their foolishness and continue to claim that the mainstream news outlets are telling them the truth! 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

It covers the entire province of Alberta (edit: actually, I just looked into more detail, CityNews is Canada-wide, they have branches in - Halifax, Calgary, Edmonton, Kitchener, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg). That's the equivalent of calling channel 7's Sydney branch "not mainstream media. It's a local newspaper". And I say bulldust to that. When I watch channel 7 news, it is "mainstream media". When I read Alberta City News, it's mainstream. 

I just looked into it as well. 

CBC is the biggest. Followed by CTV. 

City TV seems to be pay TV only. So it's not like seven is it. It's cable or web, and it's down the list of most popular news outlets. 

I'm calling BS now.

Quote

Then you are blind. The headline read "Young Teen Among New COVID Deaths Reported Tuesday". 

Among new covid deaths doesn't say from Covid. Many people die with Covid as opposed to from Covid.

As far as I know, most people are aware of this by now.

Quote

They may not be "responsible". But they are a majority of their audience, and if they are intentionally writing misleading headlines knowing that the majority of people won't dig past the headline, then that is their fault, 100% 

So at what point are you saying the reader becomes responsible? 

It's called shock value. It's a very old tactic. The headline is actually designed to get people buying the paper to read the story.

People are supposed to actually read the story. 

As such I'm not sure what your point is. They have every right to phrase it how they like as long as the facts aren't twisted or omitted. People just aren't as stupid as you think. Those who would just read the headline and nothing else are looking for an instance to frame. I don't really care about them because they aren't looking to understand a situation, just judge it with predetermined conclusions.

Why do you think it is OK to counter for right wing rhetoric from really poor examples of society but not shock value from the media? 

Quote

I don't see how it's doing any thing BUT driving fear! 

I think that's what you want to see and are looking for though. I honestly find your objections over the top. It's a small news outlet on the other side of the world. I've never heard of it before you posted it. Cable only web based and in Canada of all places.

Can I ask why you seem so interested in Canadian news? First Rebel News and now this. You're an Aussie. Why exactly are you going to the other side of the world to weed out examples of what you perceive to be dishonest at best? And from the smaller outlets at that. CBC & CTV are both Canadian "real" mainstream outlets which seem to be much more popular. Yet you champion the extreme right wing rebel news which is even more so a nobody outlet just because it's right wing.

Do you feel Canadian media is what drives Australia? I'd say it's pretty much unheard of for most people here. 

Quote

That's not how misinformation works! If they were overtly promoting fear with outright lies then they wouldn't last very long because they would be easily spotted and called out. So instead of outright lying they'll do.... well, what they did - they will claim a young teenager died from covid in the headline, then if/when they are called out on their lies, they will offer a retraction and say "well we were close enough". And because most people have read the story in the first 24 hours of publication they can safely move on knowing that they have successfully promoted fear of the virus! 

With Covid. Not from Covid. It was originally reported as a secondary cause of death. That was retracted to say it wasn't a factor at all, it was simply present at the time of death. I'm honestly not sure how you keep getting that mixed up.

You know saying that the source claimed covid as the cause of death is misinformation don't you? 

It doesn't matter of people only read headlines for 24 hours. Medical tests take longer than that. Impatient people will just have to look rather stupid when those who followed the entire story patiently are up to speed with the actual facts.

To my experience, most people read the same news sources daily, they don't seek out new ones all over the world every day. I can't see how the majority of readers would not have seen the clarification. That claim just makes no sense. 

Again, I don't see reason to fear. I see that covid can get into highly quarantined areas and into young people. Things anti vaxers dismiss. As such risk management will need to be adjusted to accommodate the new information. 

A calm rational approach is all that is warranted. Are you expecting the headline to send people running around streets with flailing limbs or something? 

Quote

I wouldn't describe them as "astoundingly stupid". Nor would I say they NEED right wing media to find balance. However, if you are only using mainstream media to get your news you are automatically getting a left-wing narrative shoved down your throat, so why wouldn't you seek alternatives to question your world views? 

I'm not sure why you think most people don't seek supporting information. Or why you care about those to arrogant or lazy to do so. 

Left wing is the most popular. That's not a media call. That's supply and demand. Reading what the right wing posters post here, it's easy to see why.

Quote

 Or they double down on their foolishness and continue to claim that the mainstream news outlets are telling them the truth! 

There's always more than one source. Anybody who only uses one is seeking to validate a predetermined conclusion. And I have no pity for such people, they are victims of their own doing. 

People aren't as stupid as you make them out to be. Unless they actually want to be. That's a choice they have made. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I just looked into it as well. 

CBC is the biggest. Followed by CTV. 

City TV seems to be pay TV only. So it's not like seven is it. It's cable or web, and it's down the list of most popular news outlets. 

I'm calling BS now.

You are minimising, my friend. Ok, maybe comparing it to channel 7 was incorrect on my part if it's a cable station. However, they are a national organisation that covers the entire country of Canada. They may not be the largest organisation in Canada, but they are a national organisation. I don't know why you are trying to minimise this! 

 

Quote

Among new covid deaths doesn't say from Covid. Many people die with Covid as opposed to from Covid.

To someone who never reads the article, the headline is basically the same thing! The nuance of "died with covid" and "died from covid" is lost on most people, especially when a headline is all most people read! What if I got a gun and murdered someone with covid - should we consider that a covid death because the person "died with covid"? 

If the government is literally going to include my murdering someone with covid in a set of statistics of people who "died with covid" then by the same logic I should be "not guilty" of the crime because the person "died with covid". 

 

Quote

So at what point are you saying the reader becomes responsible?

 Everyone is responsible for their own actions and choices. Therefore everyone is individually responsible. 

However, everyone bearing responsibility is not the same as saying journalists bear no fault! The fact that individuals should be responsible does not absolve the news reporters of fault or guilt! 

 

Quote

People are supposed to actually read the story. 

Yet they don't! 

 

Quote

Why do you think it is OK to counter for right wing rhetoric from really poor examples of society but not shock value from the media? 

Journalists do a job. What happens outside of their careers is not relevant to their journalism.

That said, I think your question is poorly worded, as it assumes that all my right wing sources are "from really poor examples of society". Sounds like you want to continue our discussion of just ONE of the sources I've used in the past, and that source is someone I've already told you I won't engage in discussion with you. 

 

Quote

Can I ask why you seem so interested in Canadian news? First Rebel News and now this. You're an Aussie. Why exactly are you going to the other side of the world to weed out examples of what you perceive to be dishonest at best? And from the smaller outlets at that. CBC & CTV are both Canadian "real" mainstream outlets which seem to be much more popular. Yet you champion the extreme right wing rebel news which is even more so a nobody outlet just because it's right wing.

Do you feel Canadian media is what drives Australia? I'd say it's pretty much unheard of for most people here. 

 I don't have a specific interest in Canada. I was introduced to Rebel News via Avi Yemini, however I rarely watch Rebel News except for Avi's channel. Most of the commentators and lawyers I read and watch are based either in the US or Canada. It's a simple fact that if you want to engage with US politics, the majority of commentators hail from the North American continent. So when I happen to be looking for news in the US, I tend to stumble across Canadian pieces as well. 

 

Quote

With Covid. Not from Covid. It was originally reported as a secondary cause of death. That was retracted to say it wasn't a factor at all, it was simply present at the time of death. I'm honestly not sure how you keep getting that mixed up.

I'm not getting it mixed up. But the article was fake news from the get-go, sensationalising the death of a 14 year old boy. I'm honestly not sure how you keep getting THAT mixed up!

 

Quote

You know saying that the source claimed covid as the cause of death is misinformation don't you? 

I'm saying the headline (as it originally was written) distinctly suggested the boy died from Covid: "Young Teen Among New COVID Deaths Reported" (that was the exact wording of the original article headline). I won't walk back from that, this statement is a lie. And by "lie" I am defining that as "an attempt to deceive". If you are not comfortable describing it as a "lie", can we agree on an appropriate term - Deceptive? Misleading? I'll accept either word if you think "lie" is too strong.  

 

Quote

It doesn't matter of people only read headlines for 24 hours

It matters a great deal, you are living in denial. 

 

 

Quote

I'm not sure why you think most people don't seek supporting information.

 

I have cited statistics to back it up, mate! 

 

Quote

Or why you care about those to arrogant or lazy to do so. 

Because if people are too lazy or arrogant to do so, they are giving reporters and journalists an excuse to engage in poor quality journalism. These journalists wouldn't be doing what they are doing and getting away with what they were getting away with if people cared enough. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You are minimising, my friend. Ok, maybe comparing it to channel 7 was incorrect on my part if it's a cable station. However, they are a national organisation that covers the entire country of Canada. They may not be the largest organisation in Canada, but they are a national organisation. I don't know why you are trying to minimise this! 

Because it's not mainstream media. It's not world news. It's as I said a local rag. It services parts of Canada. That's it. Mainstream would have more global coverage. This isn't a big media effort to scare monger. It's a zealous headline from the other side of the world by a small time group. They are no CNN or FOX. They aren't even the ABC-BBC.

It's going to have regular readers and viewers. It's a Canadian outfit to service Canadians. They don't exist outside of Canada. 

Even CNN and FOX have their devoted regular readers, and I would guess are by far the majority. 

I'm also inadvertently pointing out the lengths you had to go to in order to find an example. Extraordinary IMHO. 

Quote

To someone who never reads the article, the headline is basically the same thing!

To someone who only scans headlines they would have to see the clarification too. I'm afraid that's a given of they saw the original headline. 

Who scans new news sources every day and do not revisit the same one again? 

Quote

The nuance of "died with covid" and "died from covid" is lost on most people, especially when a headline is all most people read! What if I got a gun and murdered someone with covid - should we consider that a covid death because the person "died with covid"? 

If the government is literally going to include my murdering someone with covid in a set of statistics of people who "died with covid" then by the same logic I should be "not guilty" of the crime because the person "died with covid". 

They are two completely different things. That's what I don't get about your post.

With Covid means there is another cause of death and from Covid is a direct result of the disease. It honestly seems really simple to me.

If someone died with stage four cancer from complications they didn't die of cancer. They died of something else whilst fighting cancer. Cancer could have caused the complication but it still isn't the cause of death. People who die with aids often actually die of another complication like pneumonia. Freddy Mercury I believe is one such example.

If you murder someone and they die with Covid, it wasn't the cause of death. Murder was so you would be jailed. They would be recorded as having covid at the time of death. 

If the headline said 14 year old dies from Covid, that would be a lie.

Quote

 Everyone is responsible for their own actions and choices. Therefore everyone is individually responsible. 

However, everyone bearing responsibility is not the same as saying journalists bear no fault! The fact that individuals should be responsible does not absolve the news reporters of fault or guilt! 

Well why not blame people for being lazy rather than media using that for a competitive angle? Those lazy people are creating the situation.

Quote

Yet they don't! 

That's not a journalists responsibility. It stops at providing information. 

Their responsibility is to sell headlines. That doesn't happen with mundane headlines. People demand something spicy.

Quote

Journalists do a job. What happens outside of their careers is not relevant to their journalism.

Yes it most certainly is. I don't just disagree I'll call you outright wrong. People don't flick a switch at work and change. People are people. What they are is what they are. That will affect how and what they report.

You don't place enough importance on that IMHO. It has everything to do with how they act, what they will say and how they consider their community. That's very important for someone reporting on current affairs. 

Quote

That said, I think your question is poorly worded, as it assumes that all my right wing sources are "from really poor examples of society". Sounds like you want to continue our discussion of just ONE of the sources I've used in the past, and that source is someone I've already told you I won't engage in discussion with you. 

Not just the wife basher. Then you said a racist violent person might be a nice person, because media bad, and then pointed at a cage fighter with a record as long as his arm.

The latest offering isn't any better. 

I'm watching Stan Grant on the ABC right now. China tonight. Good reporting. 

Accountability. Independents have none.

Quote

 I don't have a specific interest in Canada. I was introduced to Rebel News via Avi Yemini, however I rarely watch Rebel News except for Avi's channel. Most of the commentators and lawyers I read and watch are based either in the US or Canada. It's a simple fact that if you want to engage with US politics, the majority of commentators hail from the North American continent. So when I happen to be looking for news in the US, I tend to stumble across Canadian pieces as well. 

Court case must be close yeah? How's the funding going? 

Canada is an outsider like us. They are looking at it all from an angle just like we do. They don't get to vote. 

This isn't political though. The medical Officer made the call. It's not like the source is pepperd with such stories either, which one would expect if they are trying to create fear.

You know the attention span of someone skimming headlines? It's about eleven seconds. A few seconds above a goldfish. And that's going to be retained and create fear? How? I think the evidence shows its about selling headlines, not corrupting people. They do fine all by themselves.

Quote

I'm not getting it mixed up. But the article was fake news from the get-go, sensationalising the death of a 14 year old boy. I'm honestly not sure how you keep getting THAT mixed up!

Yes you are, right there.

Fake news, no.

Sensationalist, yes. 

Quote

I'm saying the headline (as it originally was written) distinctly suggested the boy died from Covid: "Young Teen Among New COVID Deaths Reported" (that was the exact wording of the original article headline). I won't walk back from that, this statement is a lie. And by "lie" I am defining that as "an attempt to deceive". If you are not comfortable describing it as a "lie", can we agree on an appropriate term - Deceptive? Misleading? I'll accept either word if you think "lie" is too strong.  

I'd go with deceptive. That's part of shock value. I can't agree on lie. It's too ambiguous to make that call. 

The intent is to get people to read the article, not dupe lazy people. The information is there for the non lazy people to correct the lazy people. 

Quote

It matters a great deal, you are living in denial. 

Why? 

Medical results take longer than that. It's unrealistic to expect information faster than it becomes available. Anything in the meantime would be pure speculation. 

Quote

I have cited statistics to back it up, mate! 

Yes you have. That's social media. That's about 20% of adults in America. The other 80%?

Quote

Because if people are too lazy or arrogant to do so, they are giving reporters and journalists an excuse to engage in poor quality journalism. These journalists wouldn't be doing what they are doing and getting away with what they were getting away with if people cared enough. 

https://theconsciousvibe.com/blogs/the-conscious-vibe/why-do-people-only-read-headlines

People are asking for those headlines otherwise they would be out of business. 

How is that not the public at fault here? If you make an order you expect to get what you ordered don't you? I was mentioning this with right wing news sources. They exist. I personally don't know a single person that watches Sky news though. If everyone wanted that, they would be tuning into it and all TV stations would change to capture the audience. That's why they exist remember. But they don't. The demand simply isn't there. The media is supplying a demand. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Because it's not mainstream media. It's not world news. It's as I said a local rag. It services parts of Canada. That's it. Mainstream would have more global coverage. This isn't a big media effort to scare monger. It's a zealous headline from the other side of the world by a small time group. They are no CNN or FOX. They aren't even the ABC-BBC.

It's going to have regular readers and viewers. It's a Canadian outfit to service Canadians. They don't exist outside of Canada. 

Even CNN and FOX have their devoted regular readers, and I would guess are by far the majority. 

I didn't begin this thread to argue what we define as "mainstream media". I think it's pretty obvious it is, you are trying to minimise to say it is not! I'm happy to let this drop and agree to disagree :tu: 

 

Quote

I'm also inadvertently pointing out the lengths you had to go to in order to find an example. Extraordinary IMHO. 

I'v shared multiple examples of fake news since I've been here, do you need me to cite any of the dozen or so examples of fake news right from CNN or MSNBC or New York Times? 

 

Quote

Well why not blame people for being lazy rather than media using that for a competitive angle?

Why not blame both? And in a world where we KNOW that most people don't look past headlines, if journalists write misleading headlines that is 100% their fault! Even if it is also 100% the reader's fault for not doing the research. 

 

Quote

Then you said a racist violent person might be a nice person, because media bad, and then pointed at a cage fighter with a record as long as his arm.

I've already explained why I brought up Tommy Robinson, and it wasn't to support his cause! As for the "cage fighter", he was a witness to events which he recorded, he isn't a journalist - he's a witness! Are witnesses with records not allowed to witness events anymore? 

Can you tell me a right wing personality you wouldn't try to ad hominem your way into an argument? I've already seen how you like to rag on Tucker Carlson. I don't watch Tucker like I've said many times, but if I did he isn't a wife basher or a criminal, but you'd still be ragging on him. If I brought up Dave Rubin, or Stephen Crowder, or Ben Shapiro, or Thomas Sowell, or literally any conservative commentator you'd find something to hate on them about! 

So forgive me if I don't see your smears as anything more than your dislike for right wingers shining through. 

 

Quote

Court case must be close yeah? How's the funding going? 

What funding? It sounds like you are going for a discredited smear campaign with this line, but I'd rather not react before understanding what you meant by this line! 

 

Quote

I'd go with deceptive. That's part of shock value. I can't agree on lie. It's too ambiguous to make that call. 

Fake news is by its nature deceptive! 

 

Quote

Yes you have. That's social media. That's about 20% of adults in America. The other 80%?

https://theconsciousvibe.com/blogs/the-conscious-vibe/why-do-people-only-read-headlines

You are only citing one study. There are other studies which aren't about online sharing, but are simply about engagement with news. The study linked below, for example, demonstrates that it's not just social media users but all consumption of news. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/americans-read-headlines-and-not-much-else/

 The more complex an issue, the less likely it is to break through with a public that really consumes news via headlines and not much else. It's also a reminder that simple messaging is almost always the most effective. "Hope and Change." "Compassionate Conservative."  Easy to remember. Fits on a bumper sticker. Or a headline.

That's the final paragraph of the article - covid is a pretty complex issue, is it breaking through to people? And if "simple messaging is best", and headlines are the "bumper stickers of the internet", then what messaging does "YOUNG BOY AMONG LATEST COVID DEATHS" send to people? 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I didn't begin this thread to argue what we define as "mainstream media". I think it's pretty obvious it is, you are trying to minimise to say it is not! I'm happy to let this drop and agree to disagree :tu: 

You can drop it. I've made my point. I feel that you have over reacted about an ambiguous headline on the other side of the world that reaches some Canadians as if it's media fear mongering the general public. 

Got it :tu:

Quote

I'v shared multiple examples of fake news since I've been here, do you need me to cite any of the dozen or so examples of fake news right from CNN or MSNBC or New York Times? 

How many have you posted that you claim are fake news covid sacre mongering as per the thread title? 

I don't think you have posted much of those. Let's not shift goal posts. 

Quote

Why not blame both? And in a world where we KNOW that most people don't look past headlines, if journalists write misleading headlines that is 100% their fault! Even if it is also 100% the reader's fault for not doing the research. 

Then the pont is moot isn't it. People ask for something, they get it. Both parties are complicit. That doesn't make the media nefarious. It makes it accommodating. 

Quote

I've already explained why I brought up Tommy Robinson, and it wasn't to support his cause! As for the "cage fighter", he was a witness to events which he recorded, he isn't a journalist - he's a witness! Are witnesses with records not allowed to witness events anymore? 

Right wing sources doesn't have to be a journalist does it? They what I described. I've challenged that definition for one you consider a journalist. I feel you offer individuals more credibility than they have demonstrated that they deserve. 

People with a violent past, who are agrressive aren't what I'd call a good source of information.

There is better. Nobody had to stoop that low for information. 

Quote

Can you tell me a right wing personality you wouldn't try to ad hominem your way into an argument?

One who isn't a violent person

One who reports responsibly 

One who doesn't promote conspiracy theories

One who isn't clearly anti authority

Who can you suggest? 

Conservative journalists are united in thinking mainstream media is unfair to them, but divided over how to address misinformation

Quote

I've already seen how you like to rag on Tucker Carlson.

Lol, just me? 

I suggest you read some threads here. A lot of people laugh at him as a bit of a joke. 

Quote

I don't watch Tucker like I've said many times, but if I did he isn't a wife basher or a criminal, but you'd still be ragging on him. If I brought up Dave Rubin, or Stephen Crowder, or Ben Shapiro, or Thomas Sowell, or literally any conservative commentator you'd find something to hate on them about! 

If you pay little attention to him, why would you object to my not taking him seriously? What makes you sure my evaluation is inaccurate? 

And you're saying I have bias? 

Show me someone with ethics, formal qualifications, training. Someone who shows accountability. Non violent would be great. The people you have named so far are every bit deserving of the criticisms. They possess none of those qualities. You are refusing to accept that they are very questionable characters because they are all you can find to support your views. 

Quote

So forgive me if I don't see your smears as anything more than your dislike for right wingers shining through. 

Likewise. 

Change my mind. 

Quote

What funding? It sounds like you are going for a discredited smear campaign with this line, but I'd rather not react before understanding what you meant by this line! 

The court case that Rebel News is saying they are taking on for Avi the wife basher. I said I'm very suspicious that it will actually go ahead. You seemed to find my prediction biased. I'd like to know if it actually was. 

Quote

Fake news is by its nature deceptive! 

Twisting words? Thought you offered options?

Fake is a lie. Deceptive is misleading. Not the same thing.

Quote

You are only citing one study. There are other studies which aren't about online sharing, but are simply about engagement with news. The study linked below, for example, demonstrates that it's not just social media users but all consumption of news. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/americans-read-headlines-and-not-much-else/

 The more complex an issue, the less likely it is to break through with a public that really consumes news via headlines and not much else. It's also a reminder that simple messaging is almost always the most effective. "Hope and Change." "Compassionate Conservative."  Easy to remember. Fits on a bumper sticker. Or a headline.

Happy to go into more depth here.

Straight away the figure for people reading past the headlines jumps up to 49%. when paper becomes involved. 

Them there's believability. 43 percent of people are saying they trust the information either very much or completely, 44 percent saying they trust it moderately, and 13 percent saying they only trust it slightly or not at all.

So less than half take these headlines seriously.

Then there's retention. People who skim headlines have an attention span of about 11 seconds so they aren't retaining the headline minute's after reading it. 

Quote

That's the final paragraph of the article - covid is a pretty complex issue, is it breaking through to people? And if "simple messaging is best", and headlines are the "bumper stickers of the internet", then what messaging does "YOUNG BOY AMONG LATEST COVID DEATHS" send to people? 

It sends the message that anyone can get it anywhere.

People who are particularly looking for headlines to support a certain cause aren't going to think about the headline unless it's in the worst possible light. Quite frankly I don't care about people who let themselves down. They can only help themselves. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

How many have you posted that you claim are fake news covid sacre mongering as per the thread title? 

The difference is that when I shared that article it was a NEW story, it was relevant to "news and current events" specific to "The United States And Americas" section of the forum. The other examples I've shared are all in the past. They are not "newsworthy" anymore, so while I have shared them in the course of discussion about other news topics, there is no point starting new threads about them. 

 

Quote

That doesn't make the media nefarious. It makes it accommodating. 

If your toddler kept screaming for ice cream and only ice cream and as a parent you kept giving your toddler ice cream and only ice cream, it certainly makes you "accommodating". But you are still a bad parent!

Likewise, making excuses for bad journalism doesn't change the fact that it's bad journalism! 

 

Quote

Right wing sources doesn't have to be a journalist does it? They what I described. I've challenged that definition for one you consider a journalist. I feel you offer individuals more credibility than they have demonstrated that they deserve. 

People with a violent past, who are agrressive aren't what I'd call a good source of information.

There is better. Nobody had to stoop that low for information. 

One who isn't a violent person

One who reports responsibly 

One who doesn't promote conspiracy theories

One who isn't clearly anti authority

Who can you suggest? 

Conservative journalists are united in thinking mainstream media is unfair to them, but divided over how to address misinformation

Instead of using this space to argue hypothetically about which sources are good and which are not, I'll share my sources in the future, and I'll observe your reactions to conservative sources and gauge how you relate to them. 

 

Quote

The court case that Rebel News is saying they are taking on for Avi the wife basher. I said I'm very suspicious that it will actually go ahead. You seemed to find my prediction biased. I'd like to know if it actually was. 

I had a feeling you were talking about that. Why do you care about the case or how his funds are going? Oh wait, you are using this as an ad hominen to attack him, as if him having a donate button on his page is reason to not trust him. It's the exact same tactic as ABC is using (at least twice in the past month ABC has included Avi's Donate button in their stories attacking Avi) - as if somehow having a Donate button on their page is a reason to not trust them. Of course, if ABC wasn't funded by our tax dollars and didn't have a shop in virtually every Westfield in Australia selling DVD's and T-shirts their comments would be less hollow. 

 

Quote

Twisting words? Thought you offered options?

Fake is a lie. Deceptive is misleading. Not the same thing.

What is your definition of "fake news"? I suspect we are not using the same definition here.

 

Quote

Happy to go into more depth here.

Straight away the figure for people reading past the headlines jumps up to 49%. when paper becomes involved. 

Them there's believability. 43 percent of people are saying they trust the information either very much or completely, 44 percent saying they trust it moderately, and 13 percent saying they only trust it slightly or not at all.

So less than half take these headlines seriously.

Then there's retention. People who skim headlines have an attention span of about 11 seconds so they aren't retaining the headline minute's after reading it.

My point was that the numbers demonstrate far too many people do not read beyond headlines. I'm not going to quibble over exact percentages, that's irrelevant. 

 

Quote

It sends the message that anyone can get it anywhere.

People who are particularly looking for headlines to support a certain cause aren't going to think about the headline unless it's in the worst possible light. Quite frankly I don't care about people who let themselves down. They can only help themselves. 

To me it sends the message that healthy children regularly die from COVID-19, and your child COULD BE NEXT!!!!
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The difference is that when I shared that article it was a NEW story, it was relevant to "news and current events" specific to "The United States And Americas" section of the forum. The other examples I've shared are all in the past. They are not "newsworthy" anymore, so while I have shared them in the course of discussion about other news topics, there is no point starting new threads about them. 

If it's a big media plot, shouldn't there be plenty? It should have been easy to back this up with other examples from that source to show they are driving a specific agenda. Four days later when medical results were released, a clarification was issued. Which doesn't indicate an agenda. 

Quote

If your toddler kept screaming for ice cream and only ice cream and as a parent you kept giving your toddler ice cream and only ice cream, it certainly makes you "accommodating". But you are still a bad parent!

Likewise, making excuses for bad journalism doesn't change the fact that it's bad journalism! 

You see the media in a parenting role? 

Too far. That's not the medias responsibility by any stretch of the imagination.

What about all the garbage columnists? The anti vaxers, the fundamental religious, anti science, the UFOlogists and paranormal so called investigators?

All deliberate liars purposefully spreading misinformation for an agenda. Not fighting other journalists over headlines but outright lying to impressionable people? 

Your ok with all that manure but lose your mind over an ambiguous headline? 

Quote

Instead of using this space to argue hypothetically about which sources are good and which are not, I'll share my sources in the future, and I'll observe your reactions to conservative sources and gauge how you relate to them. 

So you can't recommend a single genuine right wing reporter without a shady past and isn't violent by nature? 

I'm assuming that you are dredging the bottom of the barrel because that's all there is on offer to support right wing views. 

Quote

I had a feeling you were talking about that. Why do you care about the case or how his funds are going? Oh wait, you are using this as an ad hominen to attack him, as if him having a donate button on his page is reason to not trust him. It's the exact same tactic as ABC is using (at least twice in the past month ABC has included Avi's Donate button in their stories attacking Avi) - as if somehow having a Donate button on their page is a reason to not trust them. Of course, if ABC wasn't funded by our tax dollars and didn't have a shop in virtually every Westfield in Australia selling DVD's and T-shirts their comments would be less hollow. 

More so Rebel News. I want to know if the court case goes ahead and if it doesn't, will they repay the people who donated. I'd also like to know what our justice system thinks of that shameful incident as well. 

Have you any idea of how slim the ABC budget is? It's the butt of many a joke. 

Quote

What is your definition of "fake news"? I suspect we are not using the same definition here.

A lie. 

I think I made that clear. 

Quote

My point was that the numbers demonstrate far too many people do not read beyond headlines. I'm not going to quibble over exact percentages, that's irrelevant. 

The numbers are not irrelevant. Your applying social media statistics to all media. That changed the outcome. 

What about the point that studies say people who skim headlines tend to have an eleven second attention span during that time. That's not irrelevant either. 

What about the statistic that says 27% of that bunch don't even believe headlines? That's relevant too. 

These factors change your accusations. 

Quote

To me it sends the message that healthy children regularly die from COVID-19, and your child COULD BE NEXT!!!!
 

If that's what you want to read it's not altogether untrue. Covid is like Russian roulette. You must have heard of some surprising cases claiming the lives of fit younger people. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/04/fit-and-healthy-man-42-from-southport-who-rejected-vaccine-dies-of-covid

 

Notice how the headline says died of Covid, not died with Covid? 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late to this party of two, but... The Province stated this was a Covid related death, and it was the headline story on TV, web and radio. When the error was corrected by the Province (Chief Medical Officer Dr. Hinshaw) during the opening remarks of her next news conference quite soon after, the correction was the opening story on TV, web and radio. 

I'm not sure where the dishonesty lies. It was a mistake generated by the Provincial Govt. It was corrected and the media gave as much attention to the correction as they did the initial error.

Incidentally, the provincial gov. here is the most conservative in Canada, and has had a very difficult time balancing the safety of the population with large rural voter base that has a difficult time grasping the realities of Covid. We've had to fly Covid cases to other provincial jurisdictions. An argument can be made that the government itself tried to indicate this as a Covid death in order to raise vaccination levels without explicitly attempting to do so. 

City News may be national but it is very far down the chain of Canadian news sources. 

I also have no doubt that the Media writes its own narratives - they always have, they always will - but I don't think this is a good example.

Edited by Alpha_Q
Anal retentiveness
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You see the media in a parenting role? 

No. My point was that just because something is "accommodating" doesn't make it right! 

 

Quote

More so Rebel News. I want to know if the court case goes ahead and if it doesn't, will they repay the people who donated. 

Wait and find out! 

 

Quote

A lie. 

I think I made that clear. 

I don't think fake news needs to be a lie in order to be "fake news". Deceptive and misleading news is just as much fake news. 

 

Quote

If that's what you want to read it's not altogether untrue. Covid is like Russian roulette. You must have heard of some surprising cases claiming the lives of fit younger people. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/04/fit-and-healthy-man-42-from-southport-who-rejected-vaccine-dies-of-covid

Should a normal mum and dad worry that little Jimmy who has no underlying health concerns is going to die from covid? The chance of that happening is lower than even little Jimmy dying from the flu (covid is significantly less dangerous to children than the common flu - Source), and yet we don't ask mum and dad to worry about the common cold when it comes to their child's safety!  Having unique examples where one person in a population of millions develops an extreme reaction to covid doesn't mean parents should be worried about covid with their children! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

No. My point was that just because something is "accommodating" doesn't make it right! 

It doesn't make it wrong either. It is what it is. 

The responsibilities that you are placing on the media should be on the people feeding that demand. 

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Wait and find out! 

Well your no help are you!?

I know I know..... you just want me to visit the rebel website........... :ph34r:

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't think fake news needs to be a lie in order to be "fake news". Deceptive and misleading news is just as much fake news. 

Well that was how I was defining it. You did ask. 

I would call it ambiguous. 

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Should a normal mum and dad worry that little Jimmy who has no underlying health concerns is going to die from covid? The chance of that happening is lower than even little Jimmy dying from the flu (covid is significantly less dangerous to children than the common flu - Source), and yet we don't ask mum and dad to worry about the common cold when it comes to their child's safety!  Having unique examples where one person in a population of millions develops an extreme reaction to covid doesn't mean parents should be worried about covid with their children! 

Yes they should because covid is like Russian roulette. Very unlikely but would you want to play? I wouldn't.

However, this has nothing to do with personal covid. I've corrected you on this before. 

It's about the spread. Children commonly see grandparents who are not as resilient. Covid can easily infect five people from one source, the spread is the concern. Nobody wants anyone to lose an elderly relative. How would you like to grow up knowing an infection you carried killed a grandparent? Covid is much more infectious than the flu. That's the big concern. Transmission. It's a powerful circulator. 

This is what the media and government have been saying all along. Individuals with underlying conditions are indeed at high risk if they get covid. It can randomly attack anyone and it can result in long covid even in healthy and young people although very unlikely. The morbidity rate has never been claimed higher than two percent at worst estimate. Children have always been a lower priority because it is less dangerous to them. 

It's never been about the individual. It's about the community. Why else do you think I'm so deeply ashamed of our anti vaxers anti maskers and lockdown rioters? We look out for each other. Australia has a mateship unrivalled in the world. Except for that small percentage of people ruining it for everyone here. I don't blame the government for upsetting these pricks, I blame them for being unaustralian. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It doesn't make it wrong either. It is what it is. 

Your argument works in general, but not to the specific. Value judgements on right and wrong are context specific. In the context of giving a child ice cream constantly, that is "accommodating" but bad parenting. Giving your child unfettered access to educational resources is "accommodating" and good parenting. 

I would strongly argue that constantly crafting headlines that mislead the public and promote fear of the coronavirus is actively "bad reporting", regardless of how "accommodating" they are in giving people what they want. 

 

Quote

Well your no help are you!?

And I likely won't be helpful. I have no interest in helping you craft your own narrative about this! 

 

Quote

Well that was how I was defining it. You did ask. 

I would call it ambiguous. 

I know, my point is we are using completely different definitions of "fake news". If it helps, by your definition of "fake news" I would agree that it is not. But as I don't use that definition to define "fake news" I still disagree with your overall conclusions. 

 

Quote

Yes they should because covid is like Russian roulette. Very unlikely but would you want to play? I wouldn't.

By that logic of risk minimisation, we should stop all people from driving cars because that would avoid all car accidents (driving a car is like Russian Roulette, right, very unlikely to die but would you want to play)? 

Life involves risk! But when the risk is so minor that it is literally a million-to-one odds I'm not going to fundamentally change the way I live in order to avoid that millions-to-one chance.

To argue that covid for children is "like Russian Roulette" is a fear tactic. Getting the common cold is "like Russian Roulette" for children too. Except with the common flu, a child actually has a higher chance of dying! Which brings us right back to my original question - why aren't we promoting fear of the common cold in children the way we are promoting fear of the coronavirus in children? 

For the record, I don't agree with your answer: 

Quote

It's about the spread. Children commonly see grandparents who are not as resilient. Covid can easily infect five people from one source, the spread is the concern. Nobody wants anyone to lose an elderly relative. How would you like to grow up knowing an infection you carried killed a grandparent? Covid is much more infectious than the flu. That's the big concern. Transmission. It's a powerful circulator. 

This is what the media and government have been saying all along. Individuals with underlying conditions are indeed at high risk if they get covid. It can randomly attack anyone and it can result in long covid even in healthy and young people although very unlikely. The morbidity rate has never been claimed higher than two percent at worst estimate. Children have always been a lower priority because it is less dangerous to them. 

It's never been about the individual. It's about the community. Why else do you think I'm so deeply ashamed of our anti vaxers anti maskers and lockdown rioters? We look out for each other. Australia has a mateship unrivalled in the world. Except for that small percentage of people ruining it for everyone here. I don't blame the government for upsetting these pricks, I blame them for being unaustralian. 

That is not what the article headline was about, and that is not what the content of the article was about. The headline was about children DYING. The content of the article (before the retraction) was about children DYING. Even now, with the retraction at the top of the page, the article is about children DYING, not the threat that children pose to elderly relatives!

Additionally, most elderly are already vaccinated. In Australia it is well over 90% double dose. I would argue that the ones who aren't vaccinated, are the ones that CHOSE not to get vaccinated! There is a very small percentage who cannot get vaccinated for their own reasons, and those individuals may have to take more precautions. Those individuals should be in contact with their medical professionals and getting medical advice from them rather than advice from a news reporter. But the vast majority of elderly who are not vaccinated are that way by choice. And those who are vaccinated have a better survival chance than if they got the flu!

So I don't see how children's risk to grandparents is a reasonable interpretation of the contents of that article! Nor do I see this as any kind of reason to live in fear. I would never drive my car again if I used the level of fear that you are using to be scared of covid (heck, maybe I'd never leave my house, if I lived my life with that level of fear - wouldn't want to be hit by a car crossing a road, or mugged, or struck by a random bolt of lightning - yes yes, much safer to just stay at home and avoid all contact with the outside world  :geek: )! 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Your argument works in general, but not to the specific. Value judgements on right and wrong are context specific. In the context of giving a child ice cream constantly, that is "accommodating" but bad parenting. Giving your child unfettered access to educational resources is "accommodating" and good parenting. 

Media is not a parent. That's a ridiculous analogy. It's more like selling luxury cars. We don't need them but the demand is there. 

Quote

I would strongly argue that constantly crafting headlines that mislead the public and promote fear of the coronavirus is actively "bad reporting", regardless of how "accommodating" they are in giving people what they want. 

I think this post explicitly illustrates the danger of giving up a reputable news source bound by ethics for independent Youtubers calling themselves journalists.

You're fighting a fight that doesn't exist. Had you spent more time on mainstream rather than individuals with an agenda you would know Covid has always been a 1 to 2% chance of serious complications. All information has always been to protect the community. 

You bought misinformation and are fighting a fight that never existed. 

Quote

And I likely won't be helpful. I have no interest in helping you craft your own narrative about this! 

I suspect it has more to do with your own narrative of defending misinformation. 

Quote

I know, my point is we are using completely different definitions of "fake news". If it helps, by your definition of "fake news" I would agree that it is not. But as I don't use that definition to define "fake news" I still disagree with your overall conclusions. 

Them point out where it says the minor died of covid not with Covid like the example I offered. 

Quote

By that logic of risk minimisation, we should stop all people from driving cars because that would avoid all car accidents (driving a car is like Russian Roulette, right, very unlikely to die but would you want to play)? 

Life involves risk! But when the risk is so minor that it is literally a million-to-one odds I'm not going to fundamentally change the way I live in order to avoid that millions-to-one chance.

Cars have managed risks that nobody complains about. In Australia anyway, in America one poster said he would argue with police about constitutional rights rather than take a breathalyser. That's why there are seatbelts, all different classes of licensed vehicles, road rules, drink driving laws and phone usage laws. Like masks, washing hands, social distancing and lockdown measures.

Quote

To argue that covid for children is "like Russian Roulette" is a fear tactic. Getting the common cold is "like Russian Roulette" for children too. Except with the common flu, a child actually has a higher chance of dying! Which brings us right back to my original question - why aren't we promoting fear of the common cold in children the way we are promoting fear of the coronavirus in children? 

No it's not. It's genuinely true. It's no secret that it's highly unlikely which doesn't change what I said. Any one can be that one in a million which is a real chance, however as I pointed out that's not the reason for vaccinating children. Transmission is. They spend almost their entire day with an adult. 

Quote

For the record, I don't agree with your answer: 

I actually am genuinely surprised. You have been misled greatly. 

It's never been about the individual. That's a a secondary concern. I guess that's what you get for replacing qualified journalists for amateurs.

It's always been about transmission in the community. 

Quote

That is not what the article headline was about, and that is not what the content of the article was about. The headline was about children DYING. The content of the article (before the retraction) was about children DYING. Even now, with the retraction at the top of the page, the article is about children DYING, not the threat that children pose to elderly relatives!

No it was not. That's a hatchet job.

It was about a young person who died with Covid amongst covid deaths.

Like your YouTube influences, you are fabricating a headline to suit an agenda. 

The article is about one fourteen year old who died with Covid. It doest suggest you people are in great danger. That's your anti media hysteria showing. 

Quote

Additionally, most elderly are already vaccinated. In Australia it is well over 90% double dose. I would argue that the ones who aren't vaccinated, are the ones that CHOSE not to get vaccinated! There is a very small percentage who cannot get vaccinated for their own reasons, and those individuals may have to take more precautions. Those individuals should be in contact with their medical professionals and getting medical advice from them rather than advice from a news reporter. But the vast majority of elderly who are not vaccinated are that way by choice. And those who are vaccinated have a better survival chance than if they got the flu!

The chief medical officer Paul Kelly sets that bar. Again, if you didn't restrict yourself to YouTubers you would know this. 

Every responsible source had stated all along that community transmission to those at risk is the danger. Those at risk are at high risk and covid is highly transmissible. 1 to 2 percent of the population will die if people are irresponsible. Sweden nearly caught the anger of the entire world when an email went around inadvertently suggesting let the old die to achieve herd immunity. They softened and backed up. 

No source states that your risk of a serious case is above 1 - 2%. 

Quote

So I don't see how children's risk to grandparents is a reasonable interpretation of the contents of that article!

Everyone should know this.

It's as common as covid itself. Not only that, there are examples right here at UM. A few anti vaxers and anti pandemic people have made the same mistake and have been corrected. 

Next thing you know you'll be telling me that vaccines are all 100% effective!!! 

Quote

Nor do I see this as any kind of reason to live in fear. I would never drive my car again if I used the level of fear that you are using to be scared of covid (heck, maybe I'd never leave my house, if I lived my life with that level of fear - wouldn't want to be hit by a car crossing a road, or mugged, or struck by a random bolt of lightning - yes yes, much safer to just stay at home and avoid all contact with the outside world  :geek: )! 

I wouldn't either if you took no precautions and speed, drink drive and ignore road rules. Are they government oppression too? 

That's how reckless covid ignorance is.

Edited by psyche101
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I think this post explicitly illustrates the danger of giving up a reputable news source bound by ethics for independent Youtubers calling themselves journalists.

And how is that exactly? You'll have to explain yourself, I really don't understand the point. I haven't posted any links in this thread besides mainstream media links. Therefore I don't see how that would affect anything!

 

Quote

Cars have managed risks that nobody complains about. In Australia anyway, in America one poster said he would argue with police about constitutional rights rather than take a breathalyser. That's why there are seatbelts, all different classes of licensed vehicles, road rules, drink driving laws and phone usage laws. Like masks, washing hands, social distancing and lockdown measures.

The flu virus should also have a set of managed risks, right? Masks, hand-washing, social distancing... As the flu is more dangerous to children than covid (see link in previous post) if your arguments are valid, then people should have been using masks for the last thousand years, and kids should have been forced to be vaccinated ever since a flu vaccine became available! Otherwise it is "playing Russian Roulette" with your child's life! 

 

Quote

No it's not. It's genuinely true. It's no secret that it's highly unlikely which doesn't change what I said. Any one can be that one in a million which is a real chance, however as I pointed out that's not the reason for vaccinating children. Transmission is. They spend almost their entire day with an adult. 

Why didn't you have the same fear of the flu? Any child could be the "one in a million", "which is a real chance". Moreso, as we have already established the flu virus is actually more deadly to this demographic. 

 

Quote

The chief medical officer Paul Kelly sets that bar.

I didn't bring up covid policy! Why is this important? 

 

Quote

No source states that your risk of a serious case is above 1 - 2%. 

Then why do people have such a flawed understanding of the virus? For example: 

For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to COVID-19.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx

There is a whole bunch of stats on that page, I'm sharing one statistic in particular that I think highlights just how wrong you are! Literally more than a third of democrats (what news channels do they watch?) are so scared of the virus they think there's a 50/50 chance that if you are unvaccinated you're going to hospital! Meanwhile, the article also demonstrates that Republicans underestimate the danger of covid in the same way that democrats overestimate the danger. 

That disparity in statistics doesn't happen for no reason - people are being lied to by the media establishment. You keep saying that this is what people want, therefore the media companies give it to them. This gallup poll demonstrates the results of what happens if you let the media control your narrative!

 

Quote

I wouldn't either if you took no precautions and speed, drink drive and ignore road rules. Are they government oppression too? 

That's how reckless covid ignorance is.

My point was - as it relates to children, why don't you consider the flu virus as seriously as you consider covid? If your answer involves some appeal to the transmissibility of covid, then what was the point in using your "Russian Roulette" example? You used that to suggest that kids can die, so "would you risk playing Russian Roulette with a child's life"? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 6:19 PM, Paranoid Android said:

And how is that exactly? You'll have to explain yourself, I really don't understand the point. I haven't posted any links in this thread besides mainstream media links. Therefore I don't see how that would affect anything!

Very simple. As I said these clowns have you fighting a fight that doesn't exist. They have clearly misled you to suit their agenda. The lockdowns and masks are to stop community transmission. Individual protection is secondary. And you have taken the bait hook line and sinker. 

The ambiguous mainstream links you call misleading pale next to the irresponsible garbage these vloggers are spewing out. 

Quote

The flu virus should also have a set of managed risks, right? Masks, hand-washing, social distancing... As the flu is more dangerous to children than covid (see link in previous post) if your arguments are valid, then people should have been using masks for the last thousand years, and kids should have been forced to be vaccinated ever since a flu vaccine became available! Otherwise it is "playing Russian Roulette" with your child's life! 

 

Why didn't you have the same fear of the flu? Any child could be the "one in a million", "which is a real chance". Moreso, as we have already established the flu virus is actually more deadly to this demographic. 

The flu does have managed risks. 

Great, how do children do without carers? Not so well in general. The flu isn't anywhere near as high a fatality risk to their carers. Your studies spell that out too. Covid is dangerous to, incapacitates, and kills carers. Around 200 Aussie kids alone found themselves without a carer due to covid. Not all lost parents but parents did become incapacitated and unable to care for their offspring. 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/10/study-confirms-kids-as-spreaders-of-covid-19-and-emerging-variants/

Reassuringly, they also found that viral load had no correlation to severity of disease in the kids themselves, but concerns remain for them and those around them: “Children can carry the virus and infect other people,” says Yonker.

It's not fear, don't use fear monger words the bloggers use. It's risk management. Children are in the care of an adult for most of their 24 hours. That's the risk. 

And the flu vaccination is heavily impressed upon parents every year. I take it you are not a parent and don't get the messages through school where they do the vaccination. My kids were both vaccinated at the school during their years. I received emails and texts from the school when they were available. 

Medical sources expect a low vaccination rate of covid because parents in general tend to avoid the flu vaccination. Despite dangers being illustrated every year to parents most refuse to vaccinate against the flu. This is expected to roll on with with Covid. 

With those YouTubers pretending to be journalists people are getting the wrong idea altogether. 

Quote

I didn't bring up covid policy! Why is this important? 

Because the news has Paul Kelly on there advising. Even the current affairs programs morning and evening. The advice is coming from the chief medical officer via the news. How often do YouTubers have the chief medical officer advising others? I take it they believe that they know medicine better than someone who has devoted a lifetime of study to it. 

If people aren't listening to the chief medical officer on the news shows and listening to opinions instead, then they are very stupid.

Quote

Then why do people have such a flawed understanding of the virus? For example: 

For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to COVID-19.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx

There is a whole bunch of stats on that page, I'm sharing one statistic in particular that I think highlights just how wrong you are! Literally more than a third of democrats (what news channels do they watch?) are so scared of the virus they think there's a 50/50 chance that if you are unvaccinated you're going to hospital! Meanwhile, the article also demonstrates that Republicans underestimate the danger of covid in the same way that democrats overestimate the danger. 

That disparity in statistics doesn't happen for no reason - people are being lied to by the media establishment. You keep saying that this is what people want, therefore the media companies give it to them. This gallup poll demonstrates the results of what happens if you let the media control your narrative!

That's got nothing to do with media. Your link specifically illustrates political affiliation. I'm not sure how many posts from the right wing American posters here but that's as plain as day from their posting alone. 

You are trying to link that to media by saying what do they watch? They watch their leaders.

A great many Americans have decided to make a medical issue political. That's something very silly we should not attempt to copy. As a fellow countryman, I implore you to please do not encourage this foolishness down under. An extreme right wing poster already made that point for me. The crazies likening vaccine passports to Nazi Germany have actually drawn disgust from actual holocaust survivors I was reading on the weekend. And I agree. Those cretins making this political are enemies of reason. Comparing this to a war tragedy is selfish and stupid.

You my friend are living in denial. You are making a medical situation political like so many right wing posters here. You want to blame media yet this is clearly a red and blue issue. Let's not bring that rubbish down under. 

On planet America I saw Chas interview Americans on the street who said you could tell a Democrat from a Republican by masks. Democrats wore them Republicans not only didn't, but vocally abused those who did. That's a came from people in the street. Not a statistic or third hand. Actual Americans.

You should watch ABC for a more diverse view rather than feed your right wing bias with right wing vloggers.

I see one of the low lifes you have been supporting is now harrassing people celebrating end of lockdown. After the coward approached people trying to enjoy a night out he hid behind his security guard who shoved a couple of diners. The guard also raised a hand at a woman. Like hires like I suppose. That is going to court.

Media my butt. Trump on covid:

Friday, February 7, and Wednesday, February 19

when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus

February 27

"It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear,"

May as numbers were on the rise:

Coronavirus numbers are looking MUCH better, going down almost everywhere,” and cases are “coming way down.”

June 17:
The pandemic is “fading away. It’s going to fade away.”

July 2:

The pandemic is “getting under control.”

July 6:

We now have the lowest Fatality Rate in the World.”

Then some ass suggested it was a tool to get rid of him and didn't that gain traction until it became obvious that it couldn't be true. Some still believe it though, the damage as been done. 

There's the menace and there's the misinformation source. People could get most of this misinformation direct at Twitter until they responsibly cut of that source. And that feels the story at your link. 

Quote

My point was - as it relates to children, why don't you consider the flu virus as seriously as you consider covid? If your answer involves some appeal to the trajnsmissibility of covid, then what was the point in using your "Russian Roulette" example? You used that to suggest that kids can die, so "would you risk playing Russian Roulette with a child's life"? 

Above points illustrate that it's taken just as seriously.

At no time have I or any source in this thread indicated that the risk to children is more than minimal. You decided an ambiguous headline insisted otherwise. That was an overreaction and incorrect. 

Russian roulette is a very valid example. Long covid comes with dramatic outcomes should one be very unlucky.

The effects of long covid are also just beginning to be understood. Saying most aren't as likely to die so forget them is a very wrong approach. 

Children seem to be fairly well-protected from the most severe symptoms of covid-19. According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the majority of children don't develop symptoms when infected with the coronavirus, or their symptoms are very mild.

However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a large number of children with symptomatic and asymptomatic covid-19 are experiencing long-term effects, many months after the initial infection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927578/

 

Now thrombosis in combination with thrombocytopenia gets plenty of press associated with Astra Zenica despite the fact that it's detected (note detected; not all are serious complications) at about a rate of one in a million. It's incredibly unlikely that you will get the complication and if one does, its a recognised symptom that we can successfully treat. 

So if a small risk is identified with regard to the vaccine, even as disproportionately as it has been advertised regarding Astra Zenica, and is blasted at the public surely the entire picture deserves full recognition too doesn't it? Seems disproportionate to identify one minimal risk yet hide another that is equal. Unless you see some valid reason to hide that information from the public? 

That would be hiding information from the public to feed an agenda wouldn't it? 

Community transmission has always been the main focus. No mainstream source that I am aware of states that your chances of getting a serious case are more then about 1.5%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.