71–80 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? CNN is complete propaganda without any actual news. I really dont understand how intelligent people can watch it.
Can you explain why? (I'm not from the USA) I thought it is one of the best source for news about the US/World (Together with the NYTimes)
CNN is no good. Journalists describing Joe Rogan taking horse dewormer when he had a prescription for Ivermectin is indefensible.
CNN reported that it is a horse dewormer (which it is) and that the treatment is outright opposed by the FDA (which it is). [0] Joe Rogan is spreading misinformation and potentially VERY dangerously at that. [0] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
You can give aspirin to horses as well as humans, but that doesn't make it a "horse anti-inflammatory".
The only reason to say something like that, is if you want to discredit someone.
Now, I don't know who called the shots at CNN, wether it was some leftist middle manager, or someone higher up, but someone decided they needed to make Joe Rogan appear like a crazy lunatic taking horse medicines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with bias toward a specific side, unless you make the flawed assumption that the truth must be in the center.
How about no bias towards any side? I know, it's never happened, but what if?
There is presumably one true model that matches reality best. You could call that "unbiased", but since nobody can reliably identify it, we're stuck with bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire corporate media blatantly ignoring that we've been safely giving Ivermectin to humans for decades is a total disgrace.
Maybe the powers that be decided that the ends (vaxxing) justified the means?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CNN reported that it is a horse dewormer (which it is) and that the treatment is outright opposed by the FDA (which it is). [0] Joe Rogan is spreading misinformation and potentially VERY dangerously at that. [0] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
Ivermectin is prescribed to humans as well. You can give aspirin to horses as well as humans, but that doesn't make it a "horse anti-inflammatory". The only reason to say something like that, is if you want to discredit someone. Now, I don't know who called the shots at CNN, wether it was some leftist middle manager, or someone higher up, but someone decided they needed to make Joe Rogan appear like a crazy lunatic t…
Again, the FDA itself recommends against usage of Ivermectin:
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...:
"Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19"
You and Mr. Rogan (and ilk) seem to be confounding the usage of Ivermectin in researched and approved treatment regimens with the opposite and claiming discrimination when pointed out. Self-treatment carries unforeseen dangers. Whether or o not Mr. Rogan is right is irrelevant - he's not a subject matter expert.
It simply does not work both ways. You and I have limited reach in forums like these, but Rogan has listenership in the millions, which makes his unscrupulous statements very risky.
What is the "londondaily" website? Never heard of them.
To explain my "journey" earlier today, I followed a link from an article [1] in The Atlantic (which I read almost daily and which I rate highly) to a piece [2] in this "London Daily" site. It was irreverent commentary in a largely humorous vein. I decided to poke around the LD site, which has, apparently, been around since 1999 - although I had never come across it, and I read a lot.
I saw the CNN viewing figures article and was surprised not to have seen it anywhere else. It surprised me to find what should be a news article carrying an intro that read like commentary/opinion. I posted the link to HN and then returned to LD to try to figure out what it was.
It claims to be: a non-profit, private and self-funded, commonly-created News and info-sharing platform that enables everybody to share valuable content such as local and global news updates. The news is written by different contributors, all of them volunteers.
I then went to its full "about" section [3], which includes these statements:
> London Daily is not supported by anybody, and it is not supporting any specific agenda. The mission is simply to share with all readers the big picture about every topic with as much balance as possible, without any vested political or commercial interest, for the common benefit of all, regardless of their economic status, political points of view, beliefs, and personal preferences.
> Users who wants to share their own content on London Daily are welcome to include with it advertising for their own benefit – for free and without any profit sharing with London Daily .
> ... we are also not Wikileaks, The Intercept, Telegram, etc... This platform and infrastructure is not designed to deal with super-sensitive or unlawful classified information nor to protect the privacy of the users that submit content.
I've worked in news media for many years and had never come across anything like this "about" section before. I noticed that no items published have a proper dateline - so nothing in the archive (which seems to be reachable only via hash-style text links) carries a publication date, only the current date. This more than anything raised huge red flags, so I then picked a dozen or so articles at random to get a feel for the style/tone and political leanings of LD. It seems to be all over the place in all respects. Some nicely written work, some articles seemingly rewritten from news outlets such as Reuters, AP and other agencies etc. I moved from a stridently pro-vaccination article to another that seemingly took a polar opposite view (this second one was specifically dealing with COVID vaccination, not vaccines in general, which the first one had been).
I pondered posting an "Ask HN" query to solicit HN views/opinions about this London Daily site, which has me baffled. (Again, I'd posted the CNN article mainly on the strength of having found London Daily via a direct link from The Atlantic - which, to me, lends credibility.) However, I had to go out for a few hours and didn't get around to an "Ask HN" post. Hindsight tells me that I should probably have deleted the original post to the CNN article.
All that being said, I really would love to find out what this London Daily News thing is all about.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/how-read-t...
[2] https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-descrip...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ivermectin is prescribed to humans as well. You can give aspirin to horses as well as humans, but that doesn't make it a "horse anti-inflammatory". The only reason to say something like that, is if you want to discredit someone. Now, I don't know who called the shots at CNN, wether it was some leftist middle manager, or someone higher up, but someone decided they needed to make Joe Rogan appear like a crazy lunatic t…
They didn't make him out to be a "crazy lunatic", merely dangerous in his backing of unapproved treatments. Again, the FDA itself recommends against usage of Ivermectin: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... : "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19" You and Mr. Rogan (and ilk) seem to be confounding the usage of Ivermectin in researched and approved treatment regimen…
Just because the FDA doesn't recommend it, it doesn't mean it's not beneficial, it merely means they don't know yet, given clinical trials are still ongoing.
It's interesting how they didn't mention the antiviral effects. Study here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/
I understand it's still early days and we don't know a lot, but this smear campaign against ivermectin and postponing molnupiravir makes me think someone higher up is more interested in selling vaccines than in finding other solutions to covid.
AstraZeneca is now the largest company in the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ivermectin is prescribed to humans as well. You can give aspirin to horses as well as humans, but that doesn't make it a "horse anti-inflammatory". The only reason to say something like that, is if you want to discredit someone. Now, I don't know who called the shots at CNN, wether it was some leftist middle manager, or someone higher up, but someone decided they needed to make Joe Rogan appear like a crazy lunatic t…
They didn't make him out to be a "crazy lunatic", merely dangerous in his backing of unapproved treatments. Again, the FDA itself recommends against usage of Ivermectin: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... : "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19" You and Mr. Rogan (and ilk) seem to be confounding the usage of Ivermectin in researched and approved treatment regimen…
That is exactly what they did by saying he was taking "horse dewormer"
> Self-treatment carries unforeseen dangers
He was prescribed this off-label by a doctor.
I have not been able to understand the hostility towards this treatment or unwillingness to even consider that it might help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Implying CNN is as disreputable as the other sites mentioned is ridiculous and you know it.
I agree with you there, that wasn't my intention. I was saying CNN is especially "eggregious" when it comes to Left media. Comparing with all other news sources from the left, I trust CNN the least. If you say far-right media is completely bananas, you would be correct. That should not preclude you from making statements about others.
I try to get my news from online and print sources ranging from slightly left of center to slightly right of center. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find slightly right of center sources of information because that's just not profitable anymore.
What is egregious to me is that all the curated news is now hiding behind paywalls but the sensationalist crap spanning the entire political spectrum is as free as the polluted air and the tainted water. Which is the way we all want it, well we get it etc.