NPR Reports "good news" on coronavirus, "some data" indicates we have hit the peak. Thanks Joe Biden!
I've been listening to NPR's Up First podcast for years and over the past 9 months it has been nothing but gloom, pessimistic coverage of the coronavirus. Today, for the first time in 9 months, NPR has reported "good news" on the coronavirus. With "some data" indicating we may have hit our peak on cases.
It also happens to be Biden's first full day in office. It appears he has single-handedly solved the media hysteria. Thanks Biden!
Y'all are weird.
It took me 5 seconds of Google searching to find another NPR report which said that we might have hit a peak.
Go back to gossiping with your idiot friends about how Nancy Pelosi is a lizard person, and leave the policy discussions to the adults. We understand that Trump is your Lord and Savior, and that everyone but you has been hoodwinked in a vast conspiracy to discredit him.
That article you linked is over 9 months ago. Note that I said "for the first time in 9 months". You understand the concept of time, right?
For the record, I am a Democrat. But this pandemic has made me lose all trust in the media.
I've been thinking about this lately as well. Big problem just two weeks ago was a bunch of nutcases convinced the election had been stolen.....
....wouldn't it be a great if we had an unbiased and objective media that could tell people the truth? When journalists act unethically and introduce bias in their reporting, they lose credibility. When you lose credibility, your viewers starting looking for the facts elsewhere....often in even worse places. That played out with the elections and the coronavirus.
Oh, excuse me, I didn't realize you were going to admit that your point was dumb and illogical. Obviously everyone should know that "the media" has been planning on changing it's tune if Mr Biden won since April 10th - we shouldn't be including information from April 9th! Because the extra 12 days really makes the difference in how NPR has reported on this. And obviously they didn't post a single instance of good news or positive stories in between!
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a card carrying GOP member who believes a massive national election was "rigged". You are an idiot. There is room for a wide range of political beliefs, as long as they're held by intelligent people. You've "lost trust in the media" but only between April 10th and January 20th, right? The media was trustworthy up until April 9th, after which they've been engaged in a long running conspiracy to discredit Mr Trump and spread doom and gloom feelings across the country?
Feel the same way, voted for Biden too. That said, I don't think the COVID coverage will change. Media just has misaligned incentives. Scaring people gets them clicks/watch time and earns money. The media's incentives need to change
NPR has always been pro-Democrat, and the fact this came out on inauguration day just proves it's a puff piece for the Dems.
The number of conservative snowflake threads and posts has been spiking recently. Thanks Joe for theose butthurt losers.
Not butthurt, I voted for Biden. I just find it interesting that the media, local politicians like Cuomo, etc. are completely changing their tune. It was clear the media was doing anything they could to get Trump out of office, even if that meant spreading hysteria. I am glad to see more people noticing this. I opposed Trump but if the republicans run someone normal and less controversial they will sweep 2024.
Couple that with the fact that the WHO updated guidance yesterday implying that PCR testing thresholds may be too high. Very convenient.
“WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.”
Source: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd…
Just shut up dude. Not everything is about Trump, especially not WHO. Get back to your basement with your butthurt ass.
Typical conservative argument. Read a headline and interpret it to fit what you believe, don't bother reading what it actually says.
The guidance being referenced here, the one which states that "careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed," dates to September 2020. You know, when Mr Trump was POTUS? This is some real 4th level chess, to release that report on the assumption that Mr Biden would win the election and then the WHO could trick simpletons with bad reading comprehension into thinking that their original report was really written in January, thus propping up Mr Biden's favorability ratings!
I mean, come on. I understand that you're a moron and a conspiracy theorist with absolutely no attachment to fact or reality, but at least do the rest of us the credit of assuming we'll read the "sources" you post. Unlike apparently every conservative person on these boards, I bother to both read the sources I cite, and also read the sources everyone else cites. It's far more common for conservative leaning members of this site to post a headline and assume people will take them at their word and not actually read the source than it should be. This is why people think conservatism is anti-science and anti-rational - because you idiots reinforce that notion every goddamn day.
I'll wait for the inevitable "your posts are longer than a tweet, didn't read" response.
If you could be objective for a minute, please.... the prior guidance had language that focused on increased cycle thresholds to ensure that we are accounting for everyone, who could possibly be a case. The revised guidance has language that indicates cycle thresholds that are too high may provide false positives. It’s the nuance of language and “manual adjustment” that bothers me.
For the record, I typically don’t reply to you or the other lefties because your responses are filled with ad hominem attacks. If you want to have a dialogue, sure we can do that, but I don’t really feel it necessary to respond to someone who is going to insult me for having a differing opinion.
You need to step back and realize that insults on WSO that conservatives send to liberals is about 10x compared to the other direction and that is because there are about 10x as many conservatives as liberals on this site. There are probably like 5 people on this site who are vocal about liberal views and that is probably because liberal views are disparaged on this site. Where are all these lefties? Among the "lefties", Ozymandia is probably the only one who insults people. I am not a confrontational person at all and I general avoid anyone who has insulted me. If I could block them I would.
Yes, well I sort of exist in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" kind of purgatory. On the one hand, I can count on my fingers and maybe my toes the number of posters on this entire site who do more to cite evidence for a position. And most of those folks seem to be left-leaning in any case. And you don't have to look too far to see others say "hey, his post is longer than a tweet, don't bother." So what would you like me to do? I can either engage in the ad hominem which people seemingly prefer to read, and try and sprinkle my point in there, or engage with people as if they're adults. You'd be surprised at how few of those there are.
Moreover, I strenuously object to the idea that the mere fact that you have an opinion should shield you from criticism relating to it. And I don't mean you specifically in this case, but if someone tells me Nancy Pelosi is a lizard person, or Donald Trump is the legitimately elected POTUS, then I am 100% justified in calling them an idiot. When it becomes an accurate reflection of fact, you (again, generically) don't get to gripe about being attacked personally.
And finally, if source evidence for your argument without reading it or understanding it and assume that I won't either, you're calling me an idiot too. I am aware that in this particular instance, there is some cover because I don't have the technical knowledge to understand the term "manual adjustment" in context, but aside from that nothing in the "source" you cited actually supported the point you were trying to make. You should be called out for that, and it is not at all ad hominem. I'm not even sure if you fully understand what that term means, either. If my response was "you're a smelly dummie, so you're wrong," that is ad hominem. If you make a bad point without understanding the evidence you're employing, calling you an idiot or a moron as a result isn't ad hominem.
We can agree to disagree here... I honestly don't think that calling someone an idiot is ever an effective form of debate. But that's ok, you can have that opinion.
I don't know where you get "lizard" people commentary from.. you have mentioned it a few times, but I have never said that on this site. Or anywhere, ever, because it is ridiculous.
I sourced the WHO, I explained in another response to you why I think am upset by the announcement. I will reiterate, however, that it is because the news is coming out so late in the game. We are 10/11 months into this pandemic and while trying to capture every "positive" case was important at the start, as we learned more about viral loads and transmission, the guidance should have been updated a long time ago.
Also, I think a lot of people don't respond to the long winded responses because they are browsing from their phone. For me, personally, I hate posting a large block of text, and seeing as the mobile app doesn't seem to pick up line breaks, I find it frustrating to respond. Can't speak for everyone, but that is partly why I avoid it.
I am happy to talk through any of my points or arguments with you, without calling you an idiot or other names for disagreeing. I understand that you feel that those types of attacks are ok, but that's not my style.
Tucker Shitface Carlson and Sean Dumbfuck Hannity were up last night blaming Biden for not taking actions on COVID already, on his first day. Wonder why no conservative snowflakes are talking about this media bias here?
Why does Tucker Carlson frequently look like he is constipated?
Because he's full of shit!
I'll see myself out
I 100% agree that Fox news is biased....about 10 years ago, I used to knock them for being so biased. Now that every other major news channel is biased to the Left, I actually see Fox news as a necessary evil as it still offers a counterweight to the one-sidedness of every other channel.
media bias is equally despicable on both sides, my conservative brethren feel more attacked because of volume. out of major media outlets, they have 1, the left has the rest (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.).
I have noticed a lot of hypocrisy from some of my friends who spent the last 4 years "dunking on libs" for their hypocrisy
the mirror it seems, is harder to stare at than the sun
here's the truth - they're all biased, bias exists everywhere, get over it
This isn't exactly correct, though. Because you aren't equating apples with apples. Like, the New York Times certainly has a liberal slant, but at the end of the day they are journalists, and are trying to maintain a semblance of integrity. All one has to do is look at the headlines on the Fox front page and the Times to understand that one of these is in the entertainment business, and one is in the journalism business. A stance which Fox has repeatedly made explicit - they're not a source of journalistic integrity, they're an entertainment company. Which would be fine... except the average person is viewing them as the same, when they are not playing by the same rules at all. This is why I find liberal outlets to be more reliable in general (which isn't to say unbiased).
And when one says "well, the liberal media has drifted to the left"... well, I'm not sure that's true. The gap between what is considered mainstream right wing media and mainstream left wing media has broadened, but it's intellectually dishonest to automatically equate that with both sides drifting.
Bias is ok if you admit it. The issue is exists when a person claims to be an objective journalist and clearly is not.
Because for conservatives (at least until recently) the whole point of "conservatism" is that whatever they believe, that is normal and should be considered an unchangeable status quo. It's self-reinforcing. If I justify my own political positions as protecting or preserving that which is good in society, then it's a very short jump to convincing myself that anything I do believe is inherently worth protecting.
Thus, favorable news coverage for right-wing positions isn't "bias", it's a norm to be maintained.
.
And Michael Thomas is right again
Was just checking out r/coronavirus. Keep in mind this sub is doom and gloom 24/7. These are the articles now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
————————————————————————————— https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/21/958870301/the-curr…
—————————————————————————————- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/21/958870301/the-curr…
Soluta sunt recusandae tempore et eos sed. Quisquam voluptas ut excepturi in. Voluptatem velit aut officia aspernatur. Dolores eos ullam perspiciatis est omnis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Architecto voluptatem excepturi in. Sed quidem harum dolorum. Tempora fugit repellendus sint odit reprehenderit. Pariatur pariatur rerum sunt qui voluptatem.
Nemo maxime ea dicta cumque totam possimus quod. Et maxime reiciendis non officiis hic illum.