4 ms·

>https://youtu.be/oWQjWepaDv0 https://youtu.be/oWQjWepaDv0 "Very promising early results". >https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+tweet+chloroquine&prmd=insv&

>https://youtu.be/oWQjWepaDv0 https://youtu.be/oWQjWepaDv0 "Very promising early results". >https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+tweet+chloroquine&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvzOjehOvoAhVICc0KHcxyD8gQ_AUoAXoECAwQAQ&biw=412&bih=556&dpr=2.63#imgrc=sU_DAlax8JfVaM https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+tweet+chloroquine&prmd... "Have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers" Meanwhile the media response has been universally lamenting that a president would "tell people" [he didn't] to take this drug. How many outlets jumped on the single chloroquine phosphate overdose as proof of the president's responsibility? I encourage you to search "Trump" and "chloroquine" and find me a single headline that doesn't tear into Trump. Like most people, your views have been warped by headlines and op-eds being touted as "news." The fact that the president acts like a child doesn't mean our news should too. The petty editorialization of the daily briefings are an excellent example - the media's job in such a case is to be an objective first source - not to force their point of view through adversarial headlines that change every 5 seconds and "fact checking" only his alleged untruths. But this is where the majority of Americans get their news. It's shameful. Edit: hell, look at this absolutely ridiculous headline at the top of the CNN "fact check" page: "Fact check: Trump denies saying another thing he said and makes more false claims at coronavirus briefing" What kind of headline is that? Is anyone competent left at CNN? The media no longer deserves the soft power it wields. They lost that privilege when they strayed so far from any semblance of objectivity.

Goronmon 6y ago
"Have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers" and "Hopefully both will be used immediately. PEOPLE ARE DYING, MOVE FAST" Both seem pretty ridiculous when we don't even know if its effective at all, let alone "one of the biggest game changers".
- twomoretime 6y ago
  There were multiple papers out of Europe and China by then. This was already floating around before Trump latched onto it because it was indeed promising, which is exactly what Trump said. What else do you think the words "hopefully" and "real chance" are here to communicate? What do you think "move fast" means? Administer the cure to everyone, or figure out if it works? This was a clearly promising avenue and as the head of the executive this is one of the few things that the man has done right. This vitriol is pure, irrational bias.
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    It's neither vitriol nor irrational to expect a leader to yield to experts and to relay only reliable information. What he did instead lacked context or information necessary to mass communicate. There's a way to communicate it and it wasn't this.
    - twomoretime 6y ago
      >it's neither vitriol nor irrational to expect a leader to yield to experts and to relay only reliable information. And you want to tell me that from his tweet you already know he didn't get this information from so called experts? How exactly does this tweet indicate otherwise? >What he did instead lacked context or information necessary to mass communicate. There's a way to communicate it and it wasn't this Welcome to the new normal, where politicians communicate via tweet. I agree that it is inappropriate but this particular example is just being used to project the usual anger onto him with multiple plausible but ultimately inappropriate rationalizations. There was, again, nothing inappropriate about a passing mention of a safe, cheap, promising drug. He could have done the same in the middle of a speech for similar effect. Besides, what did you expect him to do, cite the relevant studies on Twitter? Sure, ideally he would, but let's not pretend that more than, say, .01 percent of the population is even capable of reading studies... This is a shitty hill to die on.
      - nkozyra 6y ago
        > And you want to tell me that from his tweet you already know he didn't get this information from so called experts? Given his experts wouldn't validate it after ... yeah, probably. > I agree that it is inappropriate but Then what's the argument here? We both agree it's inappropriate. Just as I do when any other politician misuses it. > Besides, what did you expect him to do, cite the relevant studies on Twitter? No. I'd expect him to wait until there's something worth disseminating. > This is a shitty hill to die on. Who's dying on what hill here?
nkozyra 6y ago
I think this vastly underestimates the power of someone in that position.

Goronmon 6y ago

"Have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers" and "Hopefully both will be used immediately. PEOPLE ARE DYING, MOVE FAST" Both seem pretty ridiculous when we don't even know if its effective at all, let alone "one of the biggest game changers".

twomoretime 6y ago
There were multiple papers out of Europe and China by then. This was already floating around before Trump latched onto it because it was indeed promising, which is exactly what Trump said. What else do you think the words "hopefully" and "real chance" are here to communicate? What do you think "move fast" means? Administer the cure to everyone, or figure out if it works? This was a clearly promising avenue and as the head of the executive this is one of the few things that the man has done right. This vitriol is pure, irrational bias.
- nkozyra 6y ago
  It's neither vitriol nor irrational to expect a leader to yield to experts and to relay only reliable information. What he did instead lacked context or information necessary to mass communicate. There's a way to communicate it and it wasn't this.
  - twomoretime 6y ago
    >it's neither vitriol nor irrational to expect a leader to yield to experts and to relay only reliable information. And you want to tell me that from his tweet you already know he didn't get this information from so called experts? How exactly does this tweet indicate otherwise? >What he did instead lacked context or information necessary to mass communicate. There's a way to communicate it and it wasn't this Welcome to the new normal, where politicians communicate via tweet. I agree that it is inappropriate but this particular example is just being used to project the usual anger onto him with multiple plausible but ultimately inappropriate rationalizations. There was, again, nothing inappropriate about a passing mention of a safe, cheap, promising drug. He could have done the same in the middle of a speech for similar effect. Besides, what did you expect him to do, cite the relevant studies on Twitter? Sure, ideally he would, but let's not pretend that more than, say, .01 percent of the population is even capable of reading studies... This is a shitty hill to die on.
    - nkozyra 6y ago
      > And you want to tell me that from his tweet you already know he didn't get this information from so called experts? Given his experts wouldn't validate it after ... yeah, probably. > I agree that it is inappropriate but Then what's the argument here? We both agree it's inappropriate. Just as I do when any other politician misuses it. > Besides, what did you expect him to do, cite the relevant studies on Twitter? No. I'd expect him to wait until there's something worth disseminating. > This is a shitty hill to die on. Who's dying on what hill here?

nkozyra 6y ago

I think this vastly underestimates the power of someone in that position.