41 ms·

> not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same value Very true. I just don't appreciate being told to think about things before I have a chance to e

> not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same value Very true. I just don't appreciate being told to think about things before I have a chance to evaluate them myself. It seems impossible now to get media coverage that doesn't have a clear agenda. But maybe a clear agenda is preferable to coverage with a hidden agenda. On the surface, the claims raised by Judy Mikovits (who would be a more interesting subject of this same article) seem outrageous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits - but I note that the wiki lists her as a "former" research scientist ("discredited"). Again, an agenda is apparent here. Wikipedia's article on Flat Earth theory is more generous and less biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Why would Vice even shine a light on these people, particularly if their ideas offer nothing of value? What makes Flat Earthers "less discredited" than these so called anti-vax people? It seems like a lot of the claims raised by these people are _unverified_ not _debunked_, and there's a big difference in my mind (eg. it is neither proven nor disproven that face masks amplify the virus and reinfect people). But breathless media coverage trying to impugn people on a personal level makes me emotionally more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. I'm not sure how claims like Mikovits' are any less outlandish than New York Times raising the idea that estrogen could be a treatment for COVID-19 in males: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/health/coronavirus-estrogen-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/health/coronavirus-estrog... - another unverified (not _disproven_) claim, yet notice the lack of torches and pitchforks.

rconti 6y ago
> But breathless media coverage trying to impugn people on a personal level makes me emotionally more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. I don't disagree with you on principle; I generally hate being told what to think (I'm stubborn, so it tends to push me the other way), but, as you point out, when the bias is clear, it's at least easier to work around. I'll note that Vice is probably not the place to go for dispassionate, neutral commentary. Furthermore, my experience in the past decade or so is that the media tries to give "equal time" to both reasoned discourse that at least TRIES to air multiple sides of an issue (even if there is a bias in such reporting), and, frankly, utter and complete claptrap that doesn't even try to be factually correct. And thanks to the midpoint fallacy, people end up believing left-leaning NPR, which describes conservative views on a matter (if only as a foil) has the same news value as utter and complete trash that some idiot/troll/paid propagandist has produced. And, not surprisingly, the midpoint has shifted much closer to utter and complete trash over time. Where we all used to roll our collective eyes at "conspiracy theories" like the faked moon landing, now its what "the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear" and you have to "think for yourself" by researching random youtube videos.. even when it's being widely covered in the same media.
- henriquez 6y ago
  > Where we all used to roll our collective eyes at "conspiracy theories" like the faked moon landing, now its what "the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear" and you have to "think for yourself" by researching random youtube videos.. even when it's being widely covered in the same media. It's hard to take the mainstream media seriously anymore, after they spent years pushing their own preferred debunked conspiracy theories. And that doesn't necessarily mean random videos on the Internet are preferable either. Really it's just sad. Our basis for understanding and believing "facts" has evaporated. It's an epistemological dilemma. There are no facts anymore, just "alternative facts," narratives, and a choose-your-own-reality mindset pushed both by postmodernists and individuals commonly dismissed as the "far right."

rconti 6y ago

> But breathless media coverage trying to impugn people on a personal level makes me emotionally more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. I don't disagree with you on principle; I generally hate being told what to think (I'm stubborn, so it tends to push me the other way), but, as you point out, when the bias is clear, it's at least easier to work around. I'll note that Vice is probably not the place to go for dispassionate, neutral commentary. Furthermore, my experience in the past decade or so is that the media tries to give "equal time" to both reasoned discourse that at least TRIES to air multiple sides of an issue (even if there is a bias in such reporting), and, frankly, utter and complete claptrap that doesn't even try to be factually correct. And thanks to the midpoint fallacy, people end up believing left-leaning NPR, which describes conservative views on a matter (if only as a foil) has the same news value as utter and complete trash that some idiot/troll/paid propagandist has produced. And, not surprisingly, the midpoint has shifted much closer to utter and complete trash over time. Where we all used to roll our collective eyes at "conspiracy theories" like the faked moon landing, now its what "the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear" and you have to "think for yourself" by researching random youtube videos.. even when it's being widely covered in the same media.

henriquez 6y ago
> Where we all used to roll our collective eyes at "conspiracy theories" like the faked moon landing, now its what "the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear" and you have to "think for yourself" by researching random youtube videos.. even when it's being widely covered in the same media. It's hard to take the mainstream media seriously anymore, after they spent years pushing their own preferred debunked conspiracy theories. And that doesn't necessarily mean random videos on the Internet are preferable either. Really it's just sad. Our basis for understanding and believing "facts" has evaporated. It's an epistemological dilemma. There are no facts anymore, just "alternative facts," narratives, and a choose-your-own-reality mindset pushed both by postmodernists and individuals commonly dismissed as the "far right."