Coronavirus

Seattle Husker said:
Fox News denies contact with White House about vaccine coverage

Having adult conversations with the opposing side is bad for business. Certainly CNN would take a similar stance if challenged.

Side note and something more appropriate for the Media thread but it there anything more annoying than the FoxNews/CNN food fight? An inordinate amount of stories on both sites are about the other network and how they aren't covering something or the angle they took. It's as if their business model is based on getting their viewers fired up by pointing the finger at the opposition.
Click to expand...
Article shows exactly what is wrong with CNN...

"CNN, citing a single anonymous source, reported"

Setting aside the problem with relying upon an anonymous source, using only one is absolutely pathetic. It does not even come CLOSE to journalistic integrity. But what else should we expect from a network that saw one prime-time anchor provide cover for a mismanaged State in the early days of the 'rona...
 
mb227 said:
Article shows exactly what is wrong with CNN...

"CNN, citing a single anonymous source, reported"

Setting aside the problem with relying upon an anonymous source, using only one is absolutely pathetic. It does not even come CLOSE to journalistic integrity. But what else should we expect from a network that saw one prime-time anchor provide cover for a mismanaged State in the early days of the 'rona...
Click to expand...

Are you working for Foxnews now? If so, congrats on the new gig!
 
Seattle Husker said:
Are you working for Foxnews now? If so, congrats on the new gig!
Click to expand...
Way to completely miss the point while simultaneously demonstrating why people like you are so despised and all so often lose their way in discussions.

It boggles my mind how you could REMOTELY even believe that a single ANONYMOUS source is good reporting. Even Watergate required multiple confirmations before the WaPo would run with the stories.

There are reasons prosecutions are not had upon a single unnamed source.

Instead of recognizing the lack of journalistic integrity, you take the ad hominem path. Congratulations.
 
mb227 said:
Instead of recognizing the lack of journalistic integrity, you take the ad hominem path. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

You live in a state of ad hominem with every post directed at me. How else would you like me to say that I have zero interest in responding to your posts because they rarely attack my argument but rather me directly? I'm generally opposed to running away and hiding by "hiding" a poster so rather get used to me having fun with your posts. Life's too short to deal with a-holes.
 
Seattle Husker said:
You live in a state of ad hominem with every post directed at me. How else would you like me to say that I have zero interest in responding to your posts because they rarely attack my argument but rather me directly? I'm generally opposed to running away and hiding by "hiding" a poster so rather get used to me having fun with your posts. Life's too short to deal with a-holes.
Click to expand...
Oh DO TELL as to how pointing out a lack of journalistic integrity on your linked material having been shown is somehow an attack upon you, other than it highlights that you aren't interested in reporters or sources that actually HAVE integrity. ONE source that is ANONYMOUS is NOT the basis upon which ANY network should even THINK about airing or writing a story.
 
mb227 said:
Way to completely miss the point while simultaneously demonstrating why people like you are so despised and all so often lose their way in discussions.

It boggles my mind how you could REMOTELY even believe that a single ANONYMOUS source is good reporting. Even Watergate required multiple confirmations before the WaPo would run with the stories.

There are reasons prosecutions are not had upon a single unnamed source.

Instead of recognizing the lack of journalistic integrity, you take the ad hominem path. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Mark Felt would like to discuss Watergate from beyond the grave.

Interesting to equivocate criminal prosecutions with journalism. Treating journalists like criminals for using unnamed sources has been a fave of the far right going back to the beginning of the 20th century. Even the AP has a whole "principles" section of their guide about the value of unnamed sources. The chilling effect seems to be exactly what authoritarians want: since you can't trust anyone who won't put their name with information, just rely on us as the sole source of it.

The article itself was friggin' harmless. "There have been regular, high-level conversations between the White House and Fox News." Really? Regular could mean anything. High-level could mean anything. Conversations could mean anything. Communications staffers literally talk to representatives from any and all media outlets multiple times per day. Psaki's quote confirms it. The CNN headline was misleading and they knew it. But to rail on unnamed sources for that one is nonsense. Go ahead and call them out when they discuss the Russian Dossier or Pee Tape unnamed sources, but this one is so far down the ladder of importance in terms of journalistic integrity.
 
mb227 said:
Oh DO TELL as to how pointing out a lack of journalistic integrity on your linked material having been shown is somehow an attack upon you, other than it highlights that you aren't interested in reporters or sources that actually HAVE integrity. ONE source that is ANONYMOUS is NOT the basis upon which ANY network should even THINK about airing or writing a story.
Click to expand...

Your mistake is that you think I should defend CNN's journalistic integrity. Is that because I lean left? I've already said on this or other threads is that I despise the CNN/FoxNews food fight and that the only person I pay attention to on CNN is Fareed Zakaria. Please continue the partisan fight with...yourself.
 
Horns11 said:
Mark Felt would like to discuss Watergate from beyond the grave.

Interesting to equivocate criminal prosecutions with journalism. Treating journalists like criminals for using unnamed sources has been a fave of the far right going back to the beginning of the 20th century. Even the AP has a whole "principles" section of their guide about the value of unnamed sources. The chilling effect seems to be exactly what authoritarians want: since you can't trust anyone who won't put their name with information, just rely on us as the sole source of it.

The article itself was friggin' harmless. "There have been regular, high-level conversations between the White House and Fox News." Really? Regular could mean anything. High-level could mean anything. Conversations could mean anything. Communications staffers literally talk to representatives from any and all media outlets multiple times per day. Psaki's quote confirms it. The CNN headline was misleading and they knew it. But to rail on unnamed sources for that one is nonsense. Go ahead and call them out when they discuss the Russian Dossier or Pee Tape unnamed sources, but this one is so far down the ladder of importance in terms of journalistic integrity.
Click to expand...
The use of anonymous sources, while chickensh*t regardless of WHO does it, is something that RESPONSIBLE journalists would be chastised in years past if they tried to run a story with uncorroborated claims. A single source simply does not cut it, especially if they are not willing to go on record. And even if they ARE willing to go on record, there had better be corroboration of the claim.

This anonymous source crap is what the left used for the entirety of Trump's four year term and even in the months leading up to the 2016 cycle.

Or did you miss what was highlighted, specifically that it was a SINGLE anonymous source that then gave CNN what they believed was some sort of a scoop. Whoever gave the go-ahead on THAT story isn't qualified to oversee a junior high newsletter...
 
mb227 said:
The use of anonymous sources, while chickensh*t regardless of WHO does it, is something that RESPONSIBLE journalists would be chastised in years past if they tried to run a story with uncorroborated claims. A single source simply does not cut it, especially if they are not willing to go on record. And even if they ARE willing to go on record, there had better be corroboration of the claim.

This anonymous source crap is what the left used for the entirety of Trump's four year term and even in the months leading up to the 2016 cycle.

Or did you miss what was highlighted, specifically that it was a SINGLE anonymous source that then gave CNN what they believed was some sort of a scoop. Whoever gave the go-ahead on THAT story isn't qualified to oversee a junior high newsletter...
Click to expand...

So there's a couple of layers to this, especially equivocating a "nothing" article about the WH talking to a media outlet about vaccines to some kind of life-or-death loss of corroboration of evidence, but you didn't even try to hide your disdain for the chilling effect. Media have to be able to use unnamed sources from time to time and there are several reasons why. Otherwise, the media might as well just be state-run.

Go ahead and call it cowardice when a WH source divulges secrets, pee tapes, and the like on the record through anonymity. But this specific article? The PS even confirmed it. Why would anyone be upset if the question is asked and the WH responds in an official capacity?

Anyone in the field who believes this CNN article is any kind of "scoop" is ridiculous. The fact that you seem to think this article is damning of literally anyone involved in the story is as well.
 
So my understanding of the latest is you are not actually vaccinated as you can still get the virus and you can still spread it? Did Tamiflu go through the same propaganda?
 
nashhorn said:
South part of Riverside is still the worst imo, but haven’t been since football.
Click to expand...

I didn't go that far south, but I showed Deez, Jr. my old apartment in the Great Hills area and drove by Braker and 183. I'll never understand why people think this is ok.

IMG_20210720_180045488_HDR~2.jpg
 
theiioftx said:
So my understanding of the latest is you are not actually vaccinated as you can still get the virus and you can still spread it? Did Tamiflu go through the same propaganda?
Click to expand...
If vaccines were irrelevant hospitalized patients would be the same percentage as those vaccinated. Vaccination rate is 50%. Hospitalizations are way higher for non vacced.
 
OUBubba said:
Flu vaccine doesn’t keep you from getting the flu 100%. If you get it the virus doesn’t have such an impact.
Click to expand...

Kinda like young people, eh?

Or .. kinda like healthy middle aged or healthy older folks.

Why the above should get the vax is debatable. In fact it could be the least intelligent thing one could do if you're healthy. Risk vs reward>, I'm out
 
OUBubba said:
If vaccines were irrelevant hospitalized patients would be the same percentage as those vaccinated. Vaccination rate is 50%. Hospitalizations are way higher for non vacced.
Click to expand...
I hear what you are saying, but again the lack of truthful information from the government continues to make this pandemic response a joke.

Ten months ago, Biden and Kamala said don’t take the vaccine. Now they are begging people to take it. Meanwhile their party is celebrating democrat state law makers who flew on a plane without masks because they were vaccinated. Now at least 6 have Covid and have spread it on the administration’s team. But now, take the vaccine!
 
Biden should address the nation. Say only the following:

1) I was wrong when I questioned the vaccine President Trump heroically developed.
2) It has not completed FDA approval so we do not really know the long term side effects. However, scientists who are not political think it is safe. Ask your health professional what they think and act as you see fit for yourself.
3) The vaccine does not guarantee you will not get it. However, so far vaccinated people who have caught Covid recover quickly.
4) Tonight I am firing Fauci.
5) If you want to wear a mask, knock yourself out. If you don’t want to wear a mask, that’s okay too.
 
theiioftx said:
1) I was wrong when I questioned the vaccine President Trump heroically developed.
Click to expand...

That will never happen. A big reason Trump lost is that it was assumed by Biden and by the media that he basically did nothing right on Covid. Remember, he was responsible for every Covid death. Obviously that was ridiculous, but that argument was taken seriously by the media. (So much for "fact" checkers.)

Had Biden not crapped on the vaccine and certainly if he would have given Trump meaningful credit for it, he almost surely would have lost, because it would have ruined the "Trump did everything wrong" narrative. The election was close enough that only a minor change in the dynamics likely would have changed the outcome.

If Biden now gives Trump credit and admits he was wrong not to at the beginning, he's basically admitting that he won through fraud - not voter fraud but political fraud.
 
OUBubba said:
Flu vaccine doesn’t keep you from getting the flu 100%. If you get it the virus doesn’t have such an impact.
Click to expand...
Flu shot is a crap shoot every year...people take on feeling like crap for a few days after the shot in the hopes that the shot was consistent with what will be the prevalent strain in a given year.

Personally, never had a flu shot and never will. Am also several years overdue for a bout of knock me on my *** flu...they usually hit about every seven years, which meant I should have had it circa 2013-2014.

Must be that thing that identifies as an internal mask, err immune system.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I wonder if this is an apples-to-apples comparison that accounts for the fact that Americans and Brits aren't necessarily taking the same vaccine. Lots of Brits are getting the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Click to expand...

Which we know is much less effective than Pfizer or Moderna based on publicly available reports.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Which we know is much less effective than Pfizer or Moderna based on publicly available reports.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I wonder if there's some kind of shady, corporate welfare happening in the NHS. They have Pfizer and Moderna, and they expect to get the J&J vaccine (which they call "Janssen" later this year. However, they are still relying heavily on AstraZeneca (which is British), and if you contact NHS to get vaccinated, you don't get a choice. You get whatever they give you. It just makes me wonder if AstraZeneca hustled a way to get preferential treatment sorta like how Boeing got the military to buy their in-flight refueling aircraft even though Airbus won the contract.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Honestly, I wonder if there's some kind of shady, corporate welfare happening in the NHS. They have Pfizer and Moderna, and they expect to get the J&J vaccine (which they call "Janssen" later this year. However, they are still relying heavily on AstraZeneca (which is British), and if you contact NHS to get vaccinated, you don't get a choice. You get whatever they give you. It just makes me wonder if AstraZeneca hustled a way to get preferential treatment sorta like how Boeing got the military to buy their in-flight refueling aircraft even though Airbus won the contract.
Click to expand...

That's one of those "probable" conspiracy theories. Is AstraZenaca the primary vaccine for the EU? If so, did those countries also help fund the development?
 
Mr. Deez said:
Honestly, I wonder if there's some kind of shady, corporate welfare happening in the NHS. They have Pfizer and Moderna, and they expect to get the J&J vaccine (which they call "Janssen" later this year. However, they are still relying heavily on AstraZeneca (which is British), and if you contact NHS to get vaccinated, you don't get a choice. You get whatever they give you. It just makes me wonder if AstraZeneca hustled a way to get preferential treatment sorta like how Boeing got the military to buy their in-flight refueling aircraft even though Airbus won the contract.
Click to expand...
I think that's the company that England signed a contract with. The US contracted with Pfizer, Moderna and J&J. India decided to do their own vaccine. Now we have the delta variant. The US would be smart to ship vaccine to places like India.
 
Seattle Husker said:
That's one of those "probable" conspiracy theories. Is AstraZenaca the primary vaccine for the EU? If so, did those countries also help fund the development?
Click to expand...

EU is most heavily using the Pfizer vaccine, though I think they're calling it something else. However, the others are fairly common as well.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I didn't go that far south, but I showed Deez, Jr. my old apartment in the Great Hills area and drove by Braker and 183. I'll never understand why people think this is ok.
Click to expand...

It looks like they left you a little room Mr. Deez. I agree I don’t know how people think that’s ok.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top