• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[COVID-19] General Discussion

The_Blindside said:
The problem is that you won't get an "independent body" in USA to regulate the media because of the first amendment of the constitution. That is for the courts to uphold and invariably you will find they allow media to say what they want in the USA because of the first amendment. You also fail to see the role of the media to hold Trump to account and ask the legitimate questions, which he has invariably failed to answer.

Unless you're willing to watch the daily white house briefings in full to get your unadulterated take on Trump, which is not "skewed" through the lens of the media, as you say, then please be my guest - they are broadcast live. Unfortunately, the media are the lens through which most of us are fed the news and we have to differentiate between the skewed and legitimate news unless we are in attendance at these briefings.

Hence why some are BS, but you also have to recognise that there are media outlets which are legitimate. That is price we have to pay in a democracy today where we have sort through the news stories which we find fair. This is the spectrum of media we have in our liberal democracies, which has been further widened with social media and commentators who are not part of the established media outlets.

Just because I put up two videos which you claim to be bias and reinforce your view that Trump supporters are right that it is biased, does not make it so. And how is it bias? What is your definition of fair and unbiased media outlets?

And you also failed to mention that Trump took office with the express intent of by-passing the media because of his strategy of using Twitter as a platform to directly communicate to his base, as well as the use of his rallies to whip up his support base. He is using these briefings in place of the rallies. How is that not disseminating biased news? Should that be regulated as well by the independent body you are calling for?

For Trump supporters it is not about the substance of what Trump is saying but identifying with him and yes what he stands for - a white nationalist leader who is the last stand before the white American majority taken over by the Hispanic, black, Asian minorities and the white caucasian become the minority. They identify with his brand, what he stands for and no matter what he says and looney sounding they will stand by him and vote for him. The election in November won't be decided by them, but the swing state voters and the Democrat voters coming out in force to vote for Biden.

I personally think the age of Trump is the culmination of the America losing it's grip on reality - the highest office in the land being occupied by a tv reality star, and a bankrupt one at that, who has sewn division in America at a time to further his wealth and power. America was polarised before Trump came along, he has just taken advantage of it.
Click to expand...
Ummm....you are very confused about what I am saying.

First, I was saying an independent body which is the media, not that regulates it.

Second, I don't fail to see that the role of the media is to ask trump legitimate questions. I don't really see how you got that tbh.

third, yes the skewed media is the only lens with which most will see the news. A big part of my point. unless you are willing to watch the full briefings. Yes, another big part of my point, that people simply aren't willing to look at all the evidence, in fact they aren't willing to look at much at all.

fourth, you say that in a liberal democracy we have to sort through the media to find which is fair. Exactly a big part of my point. And to the point you alluded to above, people aren't willing to expend such an effort. So they go to the source which they think isn't biased against trump.

Fifth, You say my view is that trump supporters are right to think that the media on this issue are biased, including the media you presented. Technically yes, but I am not saying it is right that they think trump did nothing wrong, that they can't see through the bias. I am saying i think that a lot of trump supporters, given their starting position, would dismiss this media as biased, "fake news", but not that they are right to do so, just that is the reality.

Sixth, you insinuate that I need to defend my view that the media you posted is biased. Sorry, I didn't think you actually believed it was totally unbiased. The first video zooms in on the woman to insinuate her disapproval. It's hard to explain, it's just the way it's done. The second video just takes one bit out of context and ...I can't remember nor be bothered looking at it again. Hopefully you won't bash me for it since I am not your enemy here.

what is my definition of fair and unbiased media? How about in this case the media says " president trump at today's Whitehouse media briefing, while questioning and requesting confirmation from his medical advisor about things she had said at a prior occasion with regard to what has been shown to kill the virus outside the human body and research she intends to do to test some potential mechanisms for use on an infected person, mentioned that he had seen that disinfectant kills the virus and asked whether there was any way of using disinfectant inside a human (the full transcript and video can be seen here). While trump had said it would require the expertise of medical doctors, and that he himself is not a doctor, (Some people) have claimed this was a dangerous thing to ask at a media briefing, that it could result in people attempting to use disinfectant inside their body, and that this was not advisable. (Disinfectant manufacturers) have come out and stated it is A very bad idea (see here). (Other people) have claimed opinion sites/magazines/papers are Would be more to blame for the potential of people to use disinfectant inside the body following the media briefing, as their twisting of the story has insinuated trump has advised people to cure themselves by ingesting disinfectant. (Some people) say it is irresponsible of the president, that he should have known that it could be taken this way, and that it is not his place to muse about potential cures at a media briefing. ........

seventh, you say "I fail to mention ...". I don't see how mentioning that would do anything but support my point. Yeah he is trying to bypass the media, it wouldn't be so effective if the media was a trusted source of unbiased news. Yeah he is using the briefing for his own political gain. Remember I never said the independent body would be a regulator. But yeah you probably could regulate how long he had to answer each question. Don't know.

Good points from there on.
 
Umaga's Witness said:
Ummm....you are very confused about what I am saying.

First, I was saying an independent body which is the media, not that regulates it.

Second, I don't fail to see that the role of the media is to ask trump legitimate questions. I don't really see how you got that tbh.

third, yes the skewed media is the only lens with which most will see the news. A big part of my point. unless you are willing to watch the full briefings. Yes, another big part of my point, that people simply aren't willing to look at all the evidence, in fact they aren't willing to look at much at all.

fourth, you say that in a liberal democracy we have to sort through the media to find which is fair. Exactly a big part of my point. And to the point you alluded to above, people aren't willing to expend such an effort. So they go to the source which they think isn't biased against trump.

Fifth, You say my view is that trump supporters are right to think that the media on this issue are biased, including the media you presented. Technically yes, but I am not saying it is right that they think trump did nothing wrong, that they can't see through the bias. I am saying i think that a lot of trump supporters, given their starting position, would dismiss this media as biased, "fake news", but not that they are right to do so, just that is the reality.

Sixth, you insinuate that I need to defend my view that the media you posted is biased. Sorry, I didn't think you actually believed it was totally unbiased. The first video zooms in on the woman to insinuate her disapproval. It's hard to explain, it's just the way it's done. The second video just takes one bit out of context and ...I can't remember nor be bothered looking at it again. Hopefully you won't bash me for it since I am not your enemy here.

what is my definition of fair and unbiased media? How about in this case the media says " president trump at today's Whitehouse media briefing, while questioning and requesting confirmation from his medical advisor about things she had said at a prior occasion with regard to what has been shown to kill the virus outside the human body and research she intends to do to test some potential mechanisms for use on an infected person, mentioned that he had seen that disinfectant kills the virus and asked whether there was any way of using disinfectant inside a human (the full transcript and video can be seen here). While trump had said it would require the expertise of medical doctors, and that he himself is not a doctor, (Some people) have claimed this was a dangerous thing to ask at a media briefing, that it could result in people attempting to use disinfectant inside their body, and that this was not advisable. (Disinfectant manufacturers) have come out and stated it is A very bad idea (see here). (Other people) have claimed opinion sites/magazines/papers are Would be more to blame for the potential of people to use disinfectant inside the body following the media briefing, as their twisting of the story has insinuated trump has advised people to cure themselves by ingesting disinfectant. (Some people) say it is irresponsible of the president, that he should have known that it could be taken this way, and that it is not his place to muse about potential cures at a media briefing. ........

seventh, you say "I fail to mention ...". I don't see how mentioning that would do anything but support my point. Yeah he is trying to bypass the media, it wouldn't be so effective if the media was a trusted source of unbiased news. Yeah he is using the briefing for his own political gain. Remember I never said the independent body would be a regulator. But yeah you probably could regulate how long he had to answer each question. Don't know.

Good points from there on.
Click to expand...

When you say independent body in the media did you mean to say neutral? An independent body here in the UK would be regulatory body - that is how I read it to be. i get my news sources mainly from BBC, the Guardian and the Times, which i subscribe to. Now I am of the opinion the BBC is fairly neutral or independent, but others here who read it may laugh and say it is biased. BBC being a publicly funded organisation via the license fee. In USA - PBS may be the closest thing as a public broadcaster. Maybe TheMole or RugbyUSA can correct me on that.

You don't mention the important role of the media to ask legitimate questions and i think that is very important to point out.

Thirdly, unfortunately that is people's time being short and yes we can't all watch and read every single news item or briefing in full or read each news article across the political. We all have our daily lives to get on with and read, watch the news or not, which interests us or does not. If you have cable or satellite tv few people watch every single channel , they watch the channels that interest them. Same with news i am afraid that is life.

When you say i insinuate that you needed to defend your view that the media is biased. i failed to see how words spoken by Trump about disinfectant and whether it could be looked into whether it could be injected and cleaning inside the lungs. These are words spoken by Trump. There is no bias if the source is first hand and coming from the words of the person saying them. The woman he is looking as is Dr Birx - the Doctor who is speaking to and asking the question. So the camera angle is panned to her to see who Trump is talking to. I, for one, am interested in seeing who he is directing his question to and her reaction. Maybe you read that as "biased". But this is relevant seeing as Trump has subsequently said he was asking the question sarcastically to reporters, when he wasn't even looking or directing what he said at them,

If that is your definition of unbiased/fair media then fair enough. I am afraid you have to seek out those outlets, which you perceive write or report news that way. And Avoid the sensationalists or editorials. Like here in the UK I would avoid the Daily Mail, Sun, The daily star, Express. Fox news in the USA. These are editorials giving their "biased" slant on things. What you're looking for, I think, is a neutral tone in the news you're reading or watching. I personally, find generally the UK news like BBC, ITV, Sky news are pretty neutral in tone. Of course, there is analysis afterwards from experts etc, and I personally find it interesting.

But as i said before Trump shouldn't even be going anywhere near talking about potential cures or drugs. He is opening up a can of worms, which he is just going to get lambasted for because he is not qualified to talk on the matter. Here in the UK they would have medical experts and the politicians giving their daily briefings would step aside for them to talk about specifics on the medical/scientific side. Fauci and Birx are there for this and then Trump has to give his own thinking on it when it is not needed and can be perceived to be dangerous by virtue of his position.

You fail to mention Trump's use of Twitter and the rallies because Trump is playing the same game as he accusing the mainstream media who don't support him. So it is ok for him to spread his "fake news" and disseminate incorrect information himself and call the vrius Hoaxes, but not ok for Mainstream media to not question him and ask him to justify what he is saying?
 
ncurd said:
The polls (which should be noted always pointed to Clinton winning until the very end) show Trump really struggling in battleground states. His tactics aren't working over this crisis mainly because you can't bully a virus.
Click to expand...

That's great. :D I should get a t-shirt made with that on it.
 
The_Blindside said:
When you say independent body in the media did you mean to say neutral? An independent body here in the UK would be regulatory body - that is how I read it to be. i get my news sources mainly from BBC, the Guardian and the Times, which i subscribe to. Now I am of the opinion the BBC is fairly neutral or independent, but others here who read it may laugh and say it is biased. BBC being a publicly funded organisation via the license fee. In USA - PBS may be the closest thing as a public broadcaster. Maybe TheMole or RugbyUSA can correct me on that.

You don't mention the important role of the media to ask legitimate questions and i think that is very important to point out.

Thirdly, unfortunately that is people's time being short and yes we can't all watch and read every single news item or briefing in full or read each news article across the political. We all have our daily lives to get on with and read, watch the news or not, which interests us or does not. If you have cable or satellite tv few people watch every single channel , they watch the channels that interest them. Same with news i am afraid that is life.

When you say i insinuate that you needed to defend your view that the media is biased. i failed to see how words spoken by Trump about disinfectant and whether it could be looked into whether it could be injected and cleaning inside the lungs. These are words spoken by Trump. There is no bias if the source is first hand and coming from the words of the person saying them. The woman he is looking as is Dr Birx - the Doctor who is speaking to and asking the question. So the camera angle is panned to her to see who Trump is talking to. I, for one, am interested in seeing who he is directing his question to and her reaction. Maybe you read that as "biased". But this is relevant seeing as Trump has subsequently said he was asking the question sarcastically to reporters, when he wasn't even looking or directing what he said at them,

If that is your definition of unbiased/fair media then fair enough. I am afraid you have to seek out those outlets, which you perceive write or report news that way. And Avoid the sensationalists or editorials. Like here in the UK I would avoid the Daily Mail, Sun, The daily star, Express. Fox news in the USA. These are editorials giving their "biased" slant on things. What you're looking for, I think, is a neutral tone in the news you're reading or watching. I personally, find generally the UK news like BBC, ITV, Sky news are pretty neutral in tone. Of course, there is analysis afterwards from experts etc, and I personally find it interesting.

But as i said before Trump shouldn't even be going anywhere near talking about potential cures or drugs. He is opening up a can of worms, which he is just going to get lambasted for because he is not qualified to talk on the matter. Here in the UK they would have medical experts and the politicians giving their daily briefings would step aside for them to talk about specifics on the medical/scientific side. Fauci and Birx are there for this and then Trump has to give his own thinking on it when it is not needed and can be perceived to be dangerous by virtue of his position.

You fail to mention Trump's use of Twitter and the rallies because Trump is playing the same game as he accusing the mainstream media who don't support him. So it is ok for him to spread his "fake news" and disseminate incorrect information himself and call the vrius Hoaxes, but not ok for Mainstream media to not question him and ask him to justify what he is saying?
Click to expand...

yes I am talking about neutral media, and trusted media. but not for my sake, for the sake of people who are otherwise viewing media biased toward their interest as it is the only media they can trust to not go against their interests. My original point really had little to do with this particular example, it was simply an avenue to rant that media isn't doing the world any favours and that an independent body providing neutral media instead is the best way to fix it. It would be very similar to an independent regulator in the sense that it has a role defined by act of parliament and is by definition independent from government, just it would be the media instead of regulating the media. That was my idea.

In the current environment,
absolutey the media has a role To question him. My point is trump supporters aren't seeing the media that said he did something wrong here, because they are turned away from media that mocks him, and toward media that is biased in his favour. They're not even seeing the neutral media, because they have their doubts about its trustworthiness. I think the media you showed are good examples because they are close to neutral but still seem a little biased. Untrusting trump supporters are wary of "fake news", and will quickly put their blinders on at even a hint of bias. That's why I think an independent body is needed, as the only media that would have any chance of being widely trusted by both sides.

I might not have picked the best example here. It does show my point, but perhaps not as strongly as It could have, given the points from rancher and yourself amongst others, that it should be obvious enough to anyone I swing states with any chance of switching allegiance That he shouldn't have done what he did. Hopefully.
 
Did anyone in the UK watch the BBC1 Panorama show on the government and PPE last night? Was pretty shocking
 
Gavin said:
Did anyone in the UK watch the BBC1 Panorama show on the government and PPE last night? Was pretty shocking
Click to expand...

Nope.

Would be surprised if the British ministry for propaganda was overly damning though!!

Sure if its bad, Kuenssberg can kiss Boris better.
 
Jabby said:
whats a synopsis for those of us overseas?
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52440641
Includes this little section...

Panorama also investigated changes to the government guidance on what PPE NHS staff should wear.
In January this year, Covid-19 was officially designated a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID). The decision was made in consultation with a group of British experts.
A Health and Safety Executive evaluation of PPE published in 2019 had already recommended that all healthcare workers should wear a gown, FFP3 respirator mask and visor when dealing with HCIDs.
Those recommendations were in line with existing UK guidance.
But on 13 March this year, the government downgraded its guidance on PPE and told NHS staff they were safe to wear less protective aprons and basic surgical masks in all but the most high risk circumstances.
Panorama understands that on the same day, the government took steps to remove Covid-19 from the list of HCIDs.
But the experts who had recommended the coronavirus be put on the list in the first place were not consulted. Instead, the government asked its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).
Panorama has discovered that the ACDP was only asked to consider the matter on the morning of its 13 March meeting. It was added to the committee's agenda under "any other business".
The committee backed the decision to remove Covid-19 from the HCID list, but sources on that committee have told Panorama that it had to be, in part, a pragmatic decision based on the availability of PPE.
 
Otherwise, we released our "deaths per week" figure yesterday
Covid 19.jpg

For the sake of comparison (or those who prefer the stats as a bar graph of whol numbers, going down to 0) for week 16 (ending 17 Apr) the average death rate is 10,497 - so that's 213% of the average for the week.
 
The French have said there will be no sporting events until September. I wish we had that kind of firm and sensible leadership.

By definition, sport is a big thing for all us posters. Of course we all miss it and want to see it back, but for me that has to only be when it's safe and appropriate to do so. I find a lot of the current resumption talk ill judged and frankly distasteful when we're having to wrestle with so many properly serious issues, especially as the conversations are driven by money and not sporting integrity. I've even struggled to watch a lot of the past stuff they've been showing on Sky and Eurosport. Just doesn't seem important at the moment.

Playing matches behind closed doors isn't going to lift the national mood although it might reinvigorate the betting markets. And if you think football fans aren't going to gather outside a stadium where their heroes are playing then I think you're in cloud cuckoo land. That's just one of many considerations.
 


Remember how Trumpers said the world was laughing at the USA under Obama and it would be respected again under Trump...? Well here is a snippet of what the world thinks.
 
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/...ps-boris-johnson-analysis-gbr-intl/index.html

No point going to the BBC anymore for information - they are too busy on propaganda morale exersizes like someone doing laps of their garden - to actually report whats happening.

<<I had a quote here, but there is too much good stuff in the story to pick bits and pieces, I advise going to read it>>


Note - that headline-grabbing aim of 100,000 tests a day is still woefully short compared to elsewhere.

Right now, the Republic of Ireland are testing over 150% more per head than the UK. After envisaged ramp ups, the ROI will be testing at nearly double the rate per head as the UK.
 
Last edited:


Seriously the right wing have made American politics so sick and toxic the last few years. The lies, the deception, the cheating, the complete lack of morality or empathy. I don't know how any Republicans can hand on heart say that their "leadership" is doing any good. There is no benefit to anyone for how the Republicans are acting now, it's literally is nothing more than an attempt to inflict pain and the nerve of McConnell to say he won't bail out blue states. Not he won't bail out states, won't bail out BLUE states. Well just watch the video and see what a ******* hypocrite that neckless arsehole is.
 
Amiga500 said:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/...ps-boris-johnson-analysis-gbr-intl/index.html

No point going to the BBC anymore for information - they are too busy on propaganda morale exersizes like someone doing laps of their garden - to actually report whats happening.

<<I had a quote here, but there is too much good stuff in the story to pick bits and pieces, I advise going to read it>>


Note - that headline-grabbing aim of 100,000 tests a day is still woefully short compared to elsewhere.

Right now, the Republic of Ireland are testing over 150% more per head than the UK. After envisaged ramp ups, the ROI will be testing at nearly double the rate per head as the UK.
Click to expand...
"
This has prompted fears that at some time in the future, the government might try hiding behind the science for decisions they've taken -- or worse, throw members of SAGE under a convenient bus. "It certainly does seem to be an anxiety of some of my colleagues, but I am less worried. Many politicians are not exceptional thinkers. Should a public inquiry come, I would be surprised if it's the scientists who do a bad job of making their case," said a member of SAGE."

I liked this bit.
 

Similar threads

A
[COVID-19] - Things to do when under lockdown
9 10 11
Replies
205
Views
18K
Kiwiwomble
Kiwiwomble
TRF_Olyy
Westworld Discussion [SPOILERS]
Replies
15
Views
2K
ncurd
N
TRF_Olyy
Game of Thrones Discussion [SPOILERS]
37 38 39
Replies
762
Views
54K
ncurd
N
Toko_11
There are currently 274 users online. 19 members and 255 guests
Replies
5
Views
2K
Stumpy
Stumpy
C
  • Locked
Moderators: Good or Bad?
Replies
5
Views
1K
LittleGuy
LittleGuy

Latest posts

Top