Outside perspective: They're clearly all heavily pushing agendas that are only very thinly veiled as news, in between the actual news.
The US hardly has any objective reporting because any attempt at doing so has to weather a lot of shit from every direction and because such reporting just doesn't do as well. The left-leaning and "centrist" news love to lie by omission (just look at the Rittenhouse trial: nobody who actually saw the full trial would have been surprised by the result), while the right-leaning news tend to exaggerate and outright make shit up (for examples look no further than reporting on the BLM protests). Both do a fair amount of cherry-picking what to report on.
It's like people don't actually want news, but instead want to have their views confirmed. The only places on this globe that manage to actually have some semi-objective TV news do so because it is ingrained in their very culture to value those and because of unconditional (government) funding. And even there news have issues - because it's still only people deciding what to report on and how.
Having programmes that the whole political spectrum can watch goes a long way towards having a dialogue and finding common ground.
In any event this deplatforming needs to stop. It's just about the most effective way to polarize a society by forcing everyone on separate platforms.
or lie by lying: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29774315
I also would let left-media (which I consider to be the majority) off the hook as not "exaggerate[ing] and outright mak[ing] shit up":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...
Insurrection cop was hit on head (and killed) with fire extinguisher: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-c...
There's also a lot of dodgy terminology too, like Trump "putting children in cages" which is a "right-style" (think of the children) provocation not dissimilar to anti-Semitic or witch-hunting misrepresentations.
People want news but people are the product more than the customer.
A couple of posts back you said that the media never admits their mistakes.
That's just plain false.
CNN has issued numerous retractions, some quite high profile.
For example:
https://www.wired.com/1998/07/cnn-retraction/
> CNN chief Tom Johnson said in an on-air statement that CNN alone bears responsibility for the "serious faults" in TV reports and the related article in Time magazine. He said an internal investigation concluded that the claims could not be supported. He apologized to CNN viewers, Time staffers, and American military personnel.
or
https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-cnn-resi...
> CNN removed the story and all connecting links to it late Friday, saying the story did not meet its editorial standards. CNN also issued an apology to Scaramucci, who accepted it with a tweet on Saturday. “Everyone makes mistakes,” he wrote. “Moving on.”
or
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-lawrence-odo...
> “Last night on this show I discussed information that wasn't ready for reporting,“ O‘Donnell said at the top of his show Wednesday night. “I did not go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source. Had it gone through that process I would not have been permitted to report it. I should not have said it on air or posted it on Twitter. I was wrong to do so.“
> “Tonight we are retracting the story,” he added. “We don‘t know whether the information is inaccurate. But the fact is, we do know it wasn‘t ready for broadcast, and for that I apologize.“
or
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/msnbc-apologizes...
> MSNBC apologized for using “not factually accurate” maps in a segment discussing the violence that has erupted across Israel in recent weeks.
> “MSNBC Live” host Kate Snow acknowledged Monday that her show displayed maps describing present-day Israel as a Palestinian state in 1946, when the area was under British mandate rule. The series of maps shown last Thursday gave the impression that Palestinians had control over all of modern-day Israel and have continuously lost land since.
> “[I]n an attempt to talk about the context for the current turmoil in the Middle East, we showed a series of maps of the changing geography in that region,” Snow said. “We realized after we went off the air the maps were not factually accurate and we regret using them.”
I eagerly await your retraction of that false claim.
I was not speaking to that MSNBC or CNN has never made corrections broadly-speaking, but rather that they would not back down on a story that is now broadly considered (according to the Washington Post, no right-wing sympathizer) debunked.
If you changed the all encompassing word media to press the difference is clear
I'm sure Tucker Carlson ( who Joe Rogan DWARFS in terms of audience ) would also describe himself as a "talkshow host" ( legally he has to, since his show is for "entertainment value" only. )
Plenty of scientists do great work in one topic and then also act like hacks at other times.
Yet it's been decried ever since as a mistake being based on fear rather than science, pushing stigma on segments of population in the name of compliance, and being so "overly cautious" that the damages (medical and social) far outweighed the benefits, even with its limited implementation.
Why does that sound so familiar?
History repeats itself.
Medical tyranny and cancel culture is just one form and the latest form of tyranny.
Linus Pauling was one of the founders of molecular biology and spent part of his later life advocating that people megadose vitamin c to cure heart disease, something that could have very well hurt people who chose that over a more evidence-backed treatment.
Steve Jobs tried treating his cancer through juice cleanses until it became too late-stage to treat conventionally.
Malone really should not be given a platform. We know that being unvaccinated can make covid way more severe and puts you at 14x higher risk of death from covid, and there is a huge body of evidence on covid vaccine efficacy from the literal billions of people worldwide who have been vaccinated.
People will almost certainly die because he lends credibility to anti-vaccination arguments.
The surpreme court seems to agree with Malone as well.
Should the surpreme court be deplatformed?
You think government enforceable law is less important or does "less damage" than voluntary viewing an expert with an opinion?
Your views may not be as accurate as you believe.
On the other hand, the media generally doesn't make ridiculous pie-in-the-sky takes. Every once in a while they get it wrong (sometimes dangerously so) but not with anything near the same magnitude or frequency that a comparatively uneducated influencer does. And they do apologize, for small inaccuracies with an editor's note at the bottom and for large inaccuracies with a retraction published in the next edition of the paper. Newspapers HATE printing retractions, and they try very hard never to say something that would require it.
Joe rogan has no such compunctions - in fact, he's on the same playbook as so many influencers and provocateurs before him. If you say enough crazy stuff, and only apologize for the worst of it, people are eventually going to give up trying to get you to denounce any statements you've made which are only mildly crazy. Here's a great example [0] - Joe apparently said you shouldn't worry about taking the vaccine if you're young and healthy, and when he apologized he called himself a moron and said he was talking about OTHER people. That's insane: getting vaccinated regardless of age means a brush with covid is less severe, thus saving you a trip to the hospital - and a hospital bed is saved for someone who actually needs it (covid-related or not).
I empathize with your apathy, but I would strongly urge you to think about the difference between a news corporation that hires professional fact-checkers to confirm their articles and has a two-source policy on news, and a guy who wilfully admits he's a moron before continuing to spout potentially harmful views against vaccinating yourself during a pandemic.
[0]https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/joe-rogan-retracts-cor...
Edit: whoops, you edited your comment after I started to reply to you. I'll make this brief: Robert Malone may have invented mRNA vaccines, but he's still anti-vax and believes the vaccines made from his technology (or some derivative thereof) make covid worse. On his episode of JRE he said something called "mass formation psychosis" existed, and had something to do with COVID(?!?) which is a bald-faced lie. You can be an excellent scientist on the frontier of medical research and still be an idiot who has no business spreading your personal views. If Joe had fact-checked him, his opinions would have folded, but he didn't.
Mass formation psychosis is a thing that does exist. It just means shared delusion. Psychologists steer clear of religion, but if you are atheist, beliefs in Gods would be a good example.
It basically just means erroneous groupthink. It absolutely has something to do with COVID, but people obviously argue over which side is delusional, or at least more delusional.
It's all a govt delusion to reduce power consumption at night, including blackouts in the name of "public safety".
Not picking on them, because Americans have way more delusional thinking when it comes to things like food safety, but its hard to use a delusion as an example/ proof to the deluded that... they're deluded.
It's not a lie. It's arguably unsubstantiated. The response to COVID, like shutting down schools for two years [1] to the enormous detriment of education [2], has been insane in its disproportionateness, and the claim that a type of mass hysteria is responsible is totally within the realm of the plausible, and the contra is certainly not the kind of clear cut fact that can justify calling the position a "bald-faced lie".
Classifying everything that opposes a particular agenda as the kind of indisputable lie that has no place being aired on any platform, is the path to a totalitarian society that censors views that are out of favor with the establishment.
[1] https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/schools-more-168-milli...
[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector...
It's actually not insane at all:
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca...
What's insane is calling such statements insane when the evidence isn't yet there to reach such a conclusion.
> On the other hand, the media generally doesn't make ridiculous pie-in-the-sky takes.
I have to disagree with this too. A lot of takes on Trump were pretty ridiculous. He's probably among the worst Presidents ever, but the blatant exaggerations during the Trump years were ridiculous.
Right or wrong, it was most definitely NOT insane: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/california-wildfires-g...
NY Times article: https://archive.md/I1TXF
That was a huge, huge pie-in-the-sky take. The media is absolutely not above their own lunacy. Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance."
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190
My point is that the media is absolutely capable of getting things immensely wrong on incredible magnitude.
To my knowledge it hasn't. I believe they continue to stand by their reporting. It's possible I missed a major retraction but I have no clue why they would have retracted their stories.
Here it is: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...
Most if not all the Russiagate claims have turned out to be false, but more critically, the media who reported them either willfully didn’t bother to validate the information or ran with it knowing it was false.
The best one was the FBI getting a search warrant based on an article by a reporter referencing an FBI source. How’s that for bullshit? Drop an anonymous tip to a reporter then use their article as proof your suspicion is valid.
Your source uses the word "warrant" in one section (in searchable text), #12, where the reporting was accurate in that warrants had been issued. Whether the warrant should have been issued is a different question.
You'll note I qualified searchable, because I have no desire to read the entire massive text of bullet points, although I did try to find relevant ones and your best example. I did try to scan it for other corrections (because this site believes in "text in screenshots), and they were all either minor [0] of they were correct reporting [1].
[0] Example: All 17 intelligence agencies didn't say X, only the agency who coordinates information between, oversees and synthesizes their information did (and the big three of CIA, FBI and NSA)
[1] Example: Report on Day X, Government investigating Y. Report on Day X + N, Government investigation into Y turns up Z. Sometimes the Z is "nothing". You know, or the warrant reporting example above.
That coverage was accurate. There was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
It is clearly described here for example: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126
> The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham.
This is false and you provide no evidence for it.
> Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance."
Greenwald is a disgraced journalist turned professional provocateur. I’m not surprised that you have to resort to quoting him to support an argument as ridiculous as “Russiagate was pie-in-the-sky”. You might as well quote Tucker Carlson.
> https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190
This references two Washington Post articles which have been corrected. The correction was specific to the identity of one source in the famous Steele dossier which made some of the more outlandish and salacious claims in the dossier. There is no other retraction. In particular none of the facts of the dossier are retracted. In any case, the FBI has since conducted their own investigation and published their findings. As far as I know the FBI has not retracted those findings and the press has not retracted any reporting on those findings. So what exactly are you talking about when you mention “dozens of retracted stories”? Where is your evidence?
Says who? He's unpopular (with the media), now he attacks the media; what gets to decide he's "disgraced"?
I guess one thing these two do have in common is that you do not like them.
The President’s son is on record saying he was interested in getting info from Russia. If Trump didn’t collaborate, it wasn’t from lack of interest or effort. It was wrong, but not a pie-in-the-sky take.
[1] which provably did happen, except it was the Hillary Campaign that knowingly did so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
Fauci is far more credible because he’s talking about what many hundreds of researchers have confirmed. When he’s talking about vaccines, he’s not just making things up but summarizing peer reviewed studies which have been extensively analyzed. Malone now avoids the scientific process because he knows that his claims aren’t rigorous enough to survive it, and he can profit by telling people that’s censorship rather than admitting inadequacy.
B. Fauci has had every position on every issue throughout the pandemic. No masks, then masks. No vaccine mandate, then vaccine mandate. Don't mask the children, then mask the children. Don't return to school, return to school, don't return to school. Lockdown for 2 weeks, keep it up for over a year. You might call it science changing. I consider it (as do many Americans at this point) an excuse for a dictator who doesn't know what he is doing to cover up his arbitrary decisions.
You’re similarly misrepresenting Fauci’s positions and the degree to which he represented a scientific consensus and how that changed over time as conditions changed (vaccines have been a clear win since the early days; the best way to return to schools safely was not as clear cut and the idea that we had a year long lockdown in the United States is just absurd). If you find batting at strawmen entertaining, have at it, but I don’t see much value.
When has Fauci said to keep lockdowns for over a year? You are making this stuff up.
That's kind of funny, because throughout history the people who were very critical of the scientific consensus (especially those who maintained this position even after lifting themselves up from a lower social status) are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right and either revolutionized that field or had an amazing insight that was a missing puzzle piece.
The mentality of 'scientific consensus says A, therefore B is bogus' does a lot more damage than people realize.Still, to be taken seriously you need to have some sort of proof or a sensible explanation of how you reached that conclusion.Here it's not as much that the guy is an incredible genius and is the only one with that position, but more of the fact that the critical voices almost entirely colluded.(This is de facto "proved" by the latest wave of western articles admitting that the narrative they adopted and pushed was done in an irresponsible fashion.See german press or even american outlets)
You are saying that on average, those going against scientific consensus are more often right than they are wrong? That sound like a load of bullshit.
And quantifying my statement is hard if you assume causality and you don't make distinction between levels of "radical thinking".Because i can give you 5-10 well-known historical figures who fit my description and make me look right, and you can say "here are 10000 conspiracy nuts from YT who make you look wrong".What I meant by 'are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right[...]' is that the more radical/higher level your thinking is, the better chances you are to be right if you made your case for them(again, I mentioned that those people do not change their stance with time,social status,environment).
Accepting scientific consensus >because< it is the consensus and upholding it as an orthodoxy is precisely why there's stagnation in many if not all the fields.And yes, the more radical,incorporating,exploratory you are in your thinking, the higher chances you probably have in being "right", assuming you are actually creating a superset of a scientific domain(i.e innovating) and not merely "go against the wave".To take my point home: 5000 flat earthers from YouTube who are undeniable wrong make my average "wrong" because they are going against the current scientific consensus.Is their thinking radical or incorporates existing knowledge into something more profound?Do they change the thinking about world, is it shockingly different?No, they're just saying the negation of a proposition, mostly based on 'loads of bullshit' without substance or regard to the consensus.We used to think the earth was flat.This is different from, say, "Here is a conjecture which lies at the limits of current knowledge about X[say gravity, or anything].You're all wrong at thinking about X/Y/Z in terms of A, my insight (often new) is better and vastly different."
The main issue here is that from a known understanding, a newer,different idea might seem wrong.It's the duty of the "contrarian" to prove his case.If one stays true to his motives and is not a hack it will serve them well.
> They had offered it to the United States National Museum, as the Smithsonian Institution was then known, in 1910. Officials at the Smithsonian, particularly Charles Walcott, were "anxious to redeem the reputation" of former director, Samuel Langley, who had spent thousands of government dollars trying to invent an airplane which he called an "aerodrome."
https://libraries.wright.edu/special/wrightbrothers/flyer/hi...
Your lack of knowledge about media "owning up" to their mistakes is not evidence they don't. Because they do.
I'm sure most people don't see the difference between actual Journalists (and not necessarily with a degree) and some dude talking crap on a microphone but there is.
> "In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment.
Well, so f what? This is 20% of the work that lead us today
Apparently having done that work (if that was actually his actual work) doesn't prevent him from misrepresenting his work spouting crap 30 years after that.
Best definition for Robert Malone is that "he had as much influence on the vaccine as Graham Bell had on the Lady Gaga's song Telephone"
Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to deliver a biologically active peptide and to induce a cellular immune response (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, R Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. No. 7,250,404, date of issue: 7/31/07 Cited in 105 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to reduce likelihood of subject's becoming infected (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,867,195 B1. Date of issue: 3/15/05. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Generation of an immune response to a pathogen (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,710,035. Date of issue: 3/23/04. Citations: 39 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Expression of exogenous polynucleotide sequences in a vertebrate, mammal, fish, bird or human (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,673,776. Date of issue: 1/6/04. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Methods of delivering a physiologically active polypeptide to a mammal (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,413,942. Date of issue: 7/2/02. (cited in 150 articles). Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,214,804, date of issue: 4/10/01. Cited in 360 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,589,466. Date of issue: 12/31/96. Cited in 899 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,580,859. Date of issue: 12/3/96. Cited in 1244 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,703,055. Date of issue: 12/30/97. Cited in 419 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Also all of those are result of the research directed by Felgner, granted to Vical (his own company), and highly hypothetical at the time. Unsurprisingly, most of those, if not all, have expired without putting a product in the market.
mRNA vaccine development has been incredibly incremental and spanning decades. Anyone claiming they're the inventor because they put a few pieces of the puzzle together is incredibly disingenuous.
Literally nowhere in the quote says that. An important step (if he actually was the main discoverer for those) but not "the inventor". He imagined it (in the same way I can imagine a flying car - but not invent it)
And Nature goes on: "But the path to success was not direct. For many years after Malone’s experiments, which themselves had drawn on the work of other researchers, mRNA was seen as too unstable and expensive to be used as a drug or a vaccine. "
Malone is mainly sour grapes https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...
I have almost no respect for media that does attacks on character rather than attacks on ideas.
That information kills children as it may make people disregard the obvious symptoms and fatally delay treatment.
Thanks for providing your opinion on the article, it's a good gauge on how his fans see things.
5G mind control and human tracking via MRNA vaccine. Robert W Malone, Bill Gates.
Thank you for letting me know I may be holding an incorrect belief. More research required for me :)
*he also denies that he's the inventor, of course
how often do "independent" media figures apologize or admit to making mistakes?
corporate media sucks, but their lies tend to be more about what they choose to present and what they choose to omit rather than made up facts.
Also, on that note, "provocateurs and hacks"? The journal Nature, about as authoritative as you can get, has this to say about Malone:
"In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it. Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to 'treat RNA as a drug'. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA2. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
So, he did (according to Nature) help invent mRNA, but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that.