3 ms·

How the f can they provide better information on the pandemic unless you have actual virologists and public health experts actually working on it there? That's

by blfr 6y ago

How the f can they provide better information on the pandemic unless you have actual virologists and public health experts actually working on it there? That's a good question. I don't really know what kind of failure causes mainstream sources to be this bad. Here's Scott with his guess which is... I wanted to say just as good as mine but probably much better! https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-of-legible https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-... I don't get the rant around MSM. There's definitely mainstream media. And while they didn't fall for Q (although I still heard Q mocked in my bubble long before it was in the media), they have their own Russiagate conspiracy theory they're pushing. Here's another article from my bubble if you care. The most dangerous and deranged conspiracy theory of the last four years is the multi-headed Russiagate fantasy: the Kremlin has infiltrated the U.S. Government and controls it through sexual blackmail, Moscow has invaded the U.S. electricity grid and is poised to shut off heat in winter -- the craziest and most moronic shit possible. A 2018 poll found that ⅔ of Democrats — ⅔!! — believe that Hillary really won the election but Russians invaded the voting systems and switched her votes to Trump. https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-kinshasa-interviews-glenn-greenwald https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-kinshasa-interviews-glenn...

sofixa 6y ago
> I don't get the rant around MSM. There's definitely mainstream media. And while they didn't fall for Q (although I still heard Q mocked in my bubble long before it was in the media), they have their own Russiagate conspiracy theory they're pushing. Here's another article from my bubble if you care. Depends on your definition. "Mainstream" as what people watch/read and commonly accept as decent publications with some sort of professionalism and oversight? Certainly, probably every country has them! However, the people using the "MSM" label usually imply that all such media is bad, too biased, wrong, in a secret plot with X, etc. So which is it for you ? If you really do believe that all even remotely popular ( which would include things as diverse as like Fox, BBC, the Guardian, the FT, Washington Post, New York Times, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Mediapart, Der Spiegel, etc.) medias are corrupt/wrong/too biased to pay attention to or anything of the sort, and random bloggers, twitterers, forumers are better than them... I honestly do not know how to proceed. It's obviously a ludicrous notion that isn't and cannot possibly be true and the only possible explanation i can imagine is that you're applying the exaggerated logic based on the shitty US media landscape to the rest of the world. As for Q mocking in your bubble... Great for you, I guess? Maybe professional journalists have more integrity than to popularize a shitty ridiculous conspiracy theory by discussing it. Maybe their usual sources don't include 4chan or w/e. > The most dangerous and deranged conspiracy theory of the last four years is the multi-headed Russiagate fantasy: the Kremlin has infiltrated the U.S. Government and controls it through sexual blackmail, Moscow has invaded the U.S. electricity grid and is poised to shut off heat in winter -- the craziest and most moronic shit possible. A 2018 poll found that ⅔ of Democrats — ⅔!! — believe that Hillary really won the election but Russians invaded the voting systems and switched her votes to Trump. I don't see how that's relevant, at all. We're talking about "mainstream" media, not irrelevant US partisan politics. The world doesn't end at the US border, you know?

by blfr 6y ago

sofixa 6y ago

> I don't get the rant around MSM. There's definitely mainstream media. And while they didn't fall for Q (although I still heard Q mocked in my bubble long before it was in the media), they have their own Russiagate conspiracy theory they're pushing. Here's another article from my bubble if you care. Depends on your definition. "Mainstream" as what people watch/read and commonly accept as decent publications with some sort of professionalism and oversight? Certainly, probably every country has them! However, the people using the "MSM" label usually imply that all such media is bad, too biased, wrong, in a secret plot with X, etc. So which is it for you ? If you really do believe that all even remotely popular ( which would include things as diverse as like Fox, BBC, the Guardian, the FT, Washington Post, New York Times, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Mediapart, Der Spiegel, etc.) medias are corrupt/wrong/too biased to pay attention to or anything of the sort, and random bloggers, twitterers, forumers are better than them... I honestly do not know how to proceed. It's obviously a ludicrous notion that isn't and cannot possibly be true and the only possible explanation i can imagine is that you're applying the exaggerated logic based on the shitty US media landscape to the rest of the world. As for Q mocking in your bubble... Great for you, I guess? Maybe professional journalists have more integrity than to popularize a shitty ridiculous conspiracy theory by discussing it. Maybe their usual sources don't include 4chan or w/e. > The most dangerous and deranged conspiracy theory of the last four years is the multi-headed Russiagate fantasy: the Kremlin has infiltrated the U.S. Government and controls it through sexual blackmail, Moscow has invaded the U.S. electricity grid and is poised to shut off heat in winter -- the craziest and most moronic shit possible. A 2018 poll found that ⅔ of Democrats — ⅔!! — believe that Hillary really won the election but Russians invaded the voting systems and switched her votes to Trump. I don't see how that's relevant, at all. We're talking about "mainstream" media, not irrelevant US partisan politics. The world doesn't end at the US border, you know?