I really wish there were ways to fund more investigative efforts of journalism. I support my local newspaper but would be nice to have some sort of system of campaigns to support reasoned inquiry into those that have power beyond platitudes such as "ads bad".

Ads are bad in the sense that they introduce bias (imagine your biggest advertiser pulls out because you publish a story about X, and staff needs to put bread on their families’ tables). That said, yeah, no ads does not automatically mean fair reporting.

Organizations and individuals doing journalist work are in a weird position where they have to have a degree of selflessness/idealism in order to do a good job, and subscribers need to trust that they have it.

But the government is happy to shield them from liability when it comes to vaccines.

Governments belong in the same bucket as companies, from the point of view of actual journalism.

I can't disagree with that, governments (cities, etc) are really just companies that the citizens work for once we are born.

Not for any vaccines. In case of covid ones the waiver was to get the vaccine fast. But it didn't mean anything goes, no oversight.

It makes sense in a pandemic to have a fast rollout with continuous monitoring instead of the usual wait for the courts, usually wait for enough cases to have a class action, wait for the certification of that, etc.

Not to mention the anti vax nutjobs screaming about experimential vaccines being experimential. (Which is meaningless, because even if it is it might be a lot more safe than something that's old, boring but did not get this much scrutiny.)

Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone.

> anti vax nutjobs

This phrase is often used to malign those with a different understanding or opinion. Most people who question the efficacy and safety profile of the experimental Covid vaccines are neither anti vaccine nor nutjobs.

> Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone.

The talc powder lawsuits are because it is suspected or causing cancer. Yes, they made something with long term side effects. Which is why some are concerned about the rushed implementation of Covid vaccine mandates.

Labeling people who disagree with insults in order to ridicule them is a a logical fallacy, a sign of intolerance and of poor discussion culture in my opinion.

Typically because of anger and lack of rational arguments, I assume.

> Which is why some are concerned about the rushed implementation of Covid vaccine mandates.

Totally understandable. Accountability is very important. Concern is .. meh. If people have concern ask the FDA & CDC & Pfizer/Moderna. Get informed. If the answer from the FDA et al. is not satisfying, ask again, reach for the usual tools, FOIA, etc. Get the data for the clinical trials, check them. Get the data from VAERS, and so on. (Just with Ivermectin there's plenty of things to look at, get to the bottom, maybe even form an explanation of the data: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... ... and in the end it's possible to be still not 100% convinced.)

But "oh it's rushed, I'm concerned" or "it's experimental" is about as valid as "oh my head hurts, it's because of those damn Wifi towers / windmills / transmission lines!". Countrywide health/energy/communications policy should not be made because propaganda induced mass hysteria.

See also rock music and DnD and souls of kids.

Maybe the right question to ask is "why it takes so long otherwise?".