There’s no shame in admitting that you’ve been duped

[kaylagrl]

o rly

LOL

What's gotten into people here lately?! Every time I turn around I'm into a fuss with another one of the old timers. Why are people so quick to jump and argue? Lockdown is making everyone touchy. Sheesh.

 

[kaylagrl]

no, i compared you --- who completely ignored the subject of my post --- to a person who won't even listen to the truth because they don't like where it comes from.

Come on post, you aren't usually this hard to get along with. Truth is subjective and even more so this day in age. That's my point.

FOX is mainstream media. they are practically the epitome of mainstream media.
so what do you think, whenever someone is trying to tell me something, and they offer more information by pointing to an article from FOX, should i be like "

FOX?? LOL no way now i know whatever you are telling me is garbage" ?
would that be a reasonable reaction or would that be foolish & ignorant?

Wherever it comes from I'm pretty sure I know "truth" when I see it and an agenda when I see it. There are certain places you simply aren't going to find truth CNN and MSNBC to name a couple. Fox is hit and miss, becoming more leftist as they go. "Truth" is becoming harder and harder to find.

 

[posthuman]

Wherever it comes from

so did you read the research paper?

 

[kaylagrl]

so did you read the research paper?

I'm looking over the article, is the paper separate?

 

[posthuman]

Come on post, you aren't usually this hard to get along with.

yay! thanks!

it's true i'm pretty tired of trying to provide factual information for discourse and getting "that's not dailymail.co.uk so i won't bother reading it" for a reply.

i think that's dumb. JMO
of course you're not going to find articles about the hypocrisy in the 700 club on CBN. why would they cover news that shames themselves?

 

[posthuman]

I'm looking over the article, is the paper separate?

this one is the pdf link for the full research paper:

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_202044.pdf

it's 90 pages & very mathy. hence the earlier links to an article that kind of boils it down.
obviously you're not going to find criticism of far-right mainstream media on far-right mainstream media outlets. so it happens to be a VOX article. i was pointed to VOX by News&Guts aggregate service and followed links from there to the actual data.

 

[kaylagrl]

this one is the pdf link for the full research paper:

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_202044.pdf

it's 90 pages & very mathy. hence the earlier links to an article that kind of boils it down.
obviously you're not going to find criticism of far-right mainstream media on far-right mainstream media outlets. so it happens to be a VOX article. i was pointed to VOX by News&Guts aggregate service and followed links from there to the actual data.

Eek that's some small print. So I see they are only comparing the two programs. I'm wondering why they didn't do a balanced approach comparing Fox vs a show on CNN etc. It took a while for news programs in general to take it seriously.

 

[posthuman]

I'm wondering why they didn't do a balanced approach comparing Fox vs a show on CNN etc

because that would be introducing a lot more statistical uncertainty. you'd have all the lurking variables of 'CNN viewers' vs 'FOX viewers' and no way to know whether any observed effect was a product of being a regular viewer of the particular news outlet or a product of the particular commentator.

you'd also pretty much just be measuring democrat vs. republican stats because FOX is so overwhelmingly an obvious mouthpiece for the GOP -- but you'd be doing a poor job of examining that because CNN is not as partisan. you'd be better off comparing FOX vs. MSN, because MSN more closely mirrors the degree of partisan bias FOX has. still if you're going to all that trouble what you'd really want to do is just survey a random sample of people and ask them if they're members of the DNC or the GOP -- take out all the inherent variability of people getting news from some particular format and cut directly to actually comparing party division.

by identifying a time period through which one network had two roughly equally popular commentators that took divergent approaches to the topic, the researchers eliminated alot of error and were able to focus on the key question of the influence of mainstream media political commentary. this is good statistical design, screening out variability.

 

[1christian1]

because that would be introducing a lot more statistical uncertainty. you'd have all the lurking variables of 'CNN viewers' vs 'FOX viewers' and no way to know whether any observed effect was a product of being a regular viewer of the particular news outlet or a product of the particular commentator.

you'd also pretty much just be measuring democrat vs. republican stats because FOX is so overwhelmingly an obvious mouthpiece for the GOP -- but you'd be doing a poor job of examining that because CNN is not as partisan. you'd be better off comparing FOX vs. MSN, because MSN more closely mirrors the degree of partisan bias FOX has. still if you're going to all that trouble what you'd really want to do is just survey a random sample of people and ask them if they're members of the DNC or the GOP -- take out all the inherent variability of people getting news from some particular format and cut directly to actually comparing party division.

by identifying a time period through which one network had two roughly equally popular commentators that took divergent approaches to the topic, the researchers eliminated alot of error and were able to focus on the key question of the influence of mainstream media political commentary. this is good statistical design, screening out variability.

How about using "fact finder"? You can get to the truth very easily...

 

[Gregoryp]

WHY HASN'T FAUCI BEEN FIRED?

Here are some facts quoted from a conservative news source which confirm what I have posted earlier:

"FATALITY RATE
A recent Stanford University antibody study estimated the fatality rate from the virus is likely 0.1% to 0.2%. The World Health Organization (WHO) had estimated that the death rate was 20 to 30 times higher and called for isolation policies. On which version do you think the media focused?

In New York City, the U.S. epicenter of the pandemic, the death rate for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01%, or 10 per 100,000 in the population. People aged 75 and older, though, have a death rate 80 times that. For children under 18, the rate of death is zero per 100,000. That’s zero.

HEALTH AND AGE
More than half of the COVID-19 deaths in Europe occurred in long-term care or nursing-home facilities. At least one-fifth of the deaths recorded in the U.S. so far have occurred there.

Nearly all the patients hospitalized for the coronavirus in New York City had underlying health conditions, according to a recent study.

“Health records from 5,700 patients hospitalized within the Northwell Health system — which housed the most patients in the country throughout the pandemic — showed that 94 percent of patients had more than one disease other than COVID-19, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association,” Fox News reported. The study found 42% of the patients were overweight and 53% had hypertension, and the others suffered from a variety of ailments."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/curl-covid-19-turning-huge-hoax-perpetrated-media/

To confirm that Fauci is part of the conspiracy to shut down the economy and keep everyone at home, we now find that he is praising expensive and less effective Remdesivir (produced by Gilead) to high heaven (since he is involved with Gilead in a conflict of interest) when he put down hydroxychloroquine (which is both cheap and effective), and actually tried to *correct* Trump about the latter.

"Recent history provides too many examples of institutional failure. We have already examined how lacking Dr. Anthony Fauci is now and has been before and during the HIV/AIDS crisis. He is a fraud. Whether he is a crook or a fool is perhaps open to interpretation.

“Despite President Donald Trump’s enthusiasm for the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus, the federal funding powerhouse led by Dr. Anthony Fauci isn’t spending any money on it, and clinical trials for it are lagging behind other drug studies,” CNN reports.

Instead Fauci has been touting Remdesivir from Gilead through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Gilead’s Remdesivir costs thousands of dollars and works less well than hydroxychloroquine—a generic that has worked all over the world. Remdesivir requires intravenous administration and has stronger side effects.

Why is the good doctor pushing a bad cure?... Fauci works closely with Gilead and other drug manufacturers. Once again Gilead has helped advance Fauci’s public persona while he has advanced their drugs, sometimes even against the interests of the U.S. government or HIV/AIDS patients.

Fauci even praised a Gilead television ad for Truvada, or PreP, a $1,000-a-month drug. It’s illegal in most countries for pharmaceutical companies to advertise, but Fauci found much to like in the ad. He had reason to. After all, his organization funded the study with your money."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-less-expensive-effective-hydroxychloroquine/

 

[kaylagrl]

because that would be introducing a lot more statistical uncertainty. you'd have all the lurking variables of 'CNN viewers' vs 'FOX viewers' and no way to know whether any observed effect was a product of being a regular viewer of the particular news outlet or a product of the particular commentator.

you'd also pretty much just be measuring democrat vs. republican stats because FOX is so overwhelmingly an obvious mouthpiece for the GOP -- but you'd be doing a poor job of examining that because CNN is not as partisan. you'd be better off comparing FOX vs. MSN, because MSN more closely mirrors the degree of partisan bias FOX has. still if you're going to all that trouble what you'd really want to do is just survey a random sample of people and ask them if they're members of the DNC or the GOP -- take out all the inherent variability of people getting news from some particular format and cut directly to actually comparing party division.

by identifying a time period through which one network had two roughly equally popular commentators that took divergent approaches to the topic, the researchers eliminated alot of error and were able to focus on the key question of the influence of mainstream media political commentary. this is good statistical design, screening out variability.

And CNN isn't the mouthpiece for the Dems?! Wow, that's quite the blind spot you have there. As Trump pointed out, other news shows were downplaying the virus outside of FOX. I'm not home so I can't put my hand on the article right now. But I can link you later. To try and draw the conclusion that Hannity caused deaths of his viewers is pretty ridiculous, and hypocritical. At least this thread is where it belongs, conspiracy.

 

[posthuman]

And CNN isn't the mouthpiece for the Dems?!

Not to the level MSN is, no. It's my opinion that FOX and MSN are a closer equivalence in terms of being a biased propaganda machine than FOX & CNN are.
But this is all a completely inmaterial red herring. The point is that it was better statistical design to compare subgroups of the same Fox-viewing population than cross-broadcaster populations in order to study the effects of the treatment two different commentators had on their viewers relative to the pandemic.
It's not about partisan politics, but it would be if we compared populations from different mainstream networks. Maybe you would rather talk about worldly partisanship but the researchers were interested in the direct contributions of how talking heads portrayed the pandemic on the outcomes of the people who listened to them.

They could have just as easily sought two commentators from CNN or NBC or whatever. But FOX happens to have the largest viewing audience of all American networks, so it's better stats to choose from the very most mainstream of all the mainstream news: FOX. Always with larger numbers you get better statistical estimates.

 

[posthuman]

To try and draw the conclusion that Hannity caused deaths of his viewers is pretty ridiculous,

Point out where anyone actually said that?

I didn't. And it's not in the research paper either.

 

[tanakh]

well maybe they used to.
not at any time during the last 3 years tho.

To be brutely honest many people round the world view Trump as either a sick Joke or worst a danger to world peace and security
my feelings are somewhere in between depending on his latest tweet, sacking or Press conference

 

[Nehemiah6]

And CNN isn't the mouthpiece for the Dems?! Wow, that's quite the blind spot you have there.

What else did you expect?

If a person has not woken up to the fact that ALL the major media networks are not only corrupt, but lie through their teeth DAILY to protect, encourage, and enable the evil Democrats, then they are wilfully blind. And for any Christian to be wifully blind is extremely dangerous. These same media hate Christians and Christianity, but gladly promote every evil and perverse thing on earth. They should be shunned altogether.

What should concern people right now is that Mr. Trump has succumbed to the Swamp which he was supposed to drain. Gates, Fauci, Birx, etc. are all Swamp Dwellers, and he is working on their behalf for some strange reason. When Fauci corrected him about hydroxychloroquine publicly, he should have been fired on the spot. But we see that even after Rudy Giuliani exposed Fauci, Trump has done nothing. Now Trump is promoting Remdesivir (where Fauci has a conflict of interest with Gilead, and which is extremely expensive and not very effective) but allowing the DOJ another Witch Hunt to go after Dr. Zelenko who has actually come up a very effective combination of hydroxychloroquine with other medications.

Zero Deaths, Zero Intubation
Dr. Zelenko’s prescription for COVID-19
1- hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days
2- azithromycin 500mg once a day for five days (people with heart problems should consider a different antibiotic)
3- zinc sulfate 220mg once a day for five days

 

[Nehemiah6]

To be brutely honest many people round the world view Trump as either a sick Joke or worst a danger to world peace and security

This is called TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. This is a mental illness in which Donald Trump is always the evildoer (no matter what he does or does not do), whereas the evil Democrats are always virtuous saints to be protected at all costs.

Satan must be laughing his head off.

 

[tanakh]

This is called TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. This is a mental illness in which Donald Trump is always the evildoer (no matter what he does or does not do), whereas the evil Democrats are always virtuous saints to be protected at all costs.

Satan must be laughing his head off.

I agree that Satan must be laughing his head off. I have lived to see a fair nunber of American Presidents both Republican and Democrat some were better than others none were perfect. But Trump is the worse and its nothing to do with which party he
belongs to its about the man himself. We are marking the 75th anniversary of the end of WW2 here. If Trump had been in charge
back then I would be writing this in German.

 

[posthuman]

What should concern people right now is that Mr. Trump has succumbed to the Swamp which he was supposed to drain.

it's true that the number of billions of dollars spent on lobbying in DC have increased every year since he took office.
he actually drained the swamp into his cabinet positions.