This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@WalterF I've no objection to genuine concerns raised to any medical, or really any technical, development.
Indeed it is right that unforeseen or even unforeseeable problems should be investigated thoroughly, but I do also question how and where they are reported.
That Belgian blog looks just too bad to be true - let down by its own writer in his own words, never mind what others tell us about him!
What's not helping is the lack of publication dates, for we don't know when your original quote was produced. After all, Ulfkotte died five years ago, but the SWC site I found would be most up-to-date yet is un-dated. It is excitably anti Covid-vaccination as its main story, so is no more than two years old - starting three years after Ulfkotter's fatal heart-attack.
In any case the German author was waffling about the Press being liars, but there is nothing to link that with his death beyond simple co-incidence, and no-one seems to be trying to do so.
Indeed it is right that unforeseen or even unforeseeable problems should be investigated thoroughly, but I do also question how and where they are reported.
That Belgian blog looks just too bad to be true - let down by its own writer in his own words, never mind what others tell us about him!
What's not helping is the lack of publication dates, for we don't know when your original quote was produced. After all, Ulfkotte died five years ago, but the SWC site I found would be most up-to-date yet is un-dated. It is excitably anti Covid-vaccination as its main story, so is no more than two years old - starting three years after Ulfkotter's fatal heart-attack.
In any case the German author was waffling about the Press being liars, but there is nothing to link that with his death beyond simple co-incidence, and no-one seems to be trying to do so.
WalterF · 70-79, M
@ArishMell The point of this post, really, is to put forward the idea that the press always has the power to give to "news" the twist that it desires. Journalists are expert wordsmiths, after all, and therefore able to "manipulate," should they so wish. The journalist cited, be he alive, dead, recently active, or active 20 years ago, declared that this manipulation was strongly encouraged. (The qualities or shortcomings of the person or website reporting this remark make no difference to the remark - providing of course that the journalist did actually say it.)
As an example of manipulative language: a headline in today's online Daily Mail announced "Covid spring booster now available..." I posted this on Facebook, and a discussion ensued. My point was that the writer was using marketing language such as one might use to advertise a pleasant spring outing, maybe with picnic hamper and bottle of rosė, not forgetting to get one's "Covid spring booster" on the way. Light-hearted fun.
Whereas this is in reality the fourth in what will probably be an unending series of injections of substances whose safety and efficacy have already been brought into question, and whose long-term effects simply cannot be known. A medically intrusive procedure, imposed worldwide. All for a disease which is now compared by many to the common cold.
Hardly a picnic! But our merry Mail headline writer spun it in that direction.
As an example of manipulative language: a headline in today's online Daily Mail announced "Covid spring booster now available..." I posted this on Facebook, and a discussion ensued. My point was that the writer was using marketing language such as one might use to advertise a pleasant spring outing, maybe with picnic hamper and bottle of rosė, not forgetting to get one's "Covid spring booster" on the way. Light-hearted fun.
Whereas this is in reality the fourth in what will probably be an unending series of injections of substances whose safety and efficacy have already been brought into question, and whose long-term effects simply cannot be known. A medically intrusive procedure, imposed worldwide. All for a disease which is now compared by many to the common cold.
Hardly a picnic! But our merry Mail headline writer spun it in that direction.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@WalterF Oh, the daily papers have always done that, but generally their style and biases are recognised.
They don't lie as such, in so far as what they write is usually true, but they are experts at giving misleading stories by highlighting or diminishing selected facts or omitting caveats such as "We think..." and "on the other hand..." from interviewees and statements.
They are also notoriously poor at communicating statistics, probability, hazards and risks; but are not alone. I doubt many of their readers could either - how many, I wonder, even know that 'hazard' and 'risk' are not synonyms.
As for probability... the paucity of understanding that concept was highlighted by the absurd,, wholly meretricious UK National Lottery draw-show on TV, whose over-excited commentator would say things like "Number Seventeen! That's the third week in a row for Number Seventeen!!" (The draw was of 6 from 49 for the jack-pot - now 6 from 50, making the odds against winning even more astronomical!)
The [i]Daily Mail[/i] is often the butt of ridicule, including a rather peculiar form of "class" distinction based on a wildly general assumption that your choice of paper reflects your character. It is rather excitable and does sometimes let its heart rule its head, but I suspect what really annoys its harshest critics is not what it says or exaggerates, but a) that it is not afraid to say things those critics don't like being said, and b) that many people buy it!
They don't lie as such, in so far as what they write is usually true, but they are experts at giving misleading stories by highlighting or diminishing selected facts or omitting caveats such as "We think..." and "on the other hand..." from interviewees and statements.
They are also notoriously poor at communicating statistics, probability, hazards and risks; but are not alone. I doubt many of their readers could either - how many, I wonder, even know that 'hazard' and 'risk' are not synonyms.
As for probability... the paucity of understanding that concept was highlighted by the absurd,, wholly meretricious UK National Lottery draw-show on TV, whose over-excited commentator would say things like "Number Seventeen! That's the third week in a row for Number Seventeen!!" (The draw was of 6 from 49 for the jack-pot - now 6 from 50, making the odds against winning even more astronomical!)
The [i]Daily Mail[/i] is often the butt of ridicule, including a rather peculiar form of "class" distinction based on a wildly general assumption that your choice of paper reflects your character. It is rather excitable and does sometimes let its heart rule its head, but I suspect what really annoys its harshest critics is not what it says or exaggerates, but a) that it is not afraid to say things those critics don't like being said, and b) that many people buy it!