4 ms·

When you're incentivized to manipulate the news, assuming you have the ability, you manipulate the news. https://imgur.com/a/femHTeb https://imgur.com/a/femHTe

When you're incentivized to manipulate the news, assuming you have the ability, you manipulate the news. https://imgur.com/a/femHTeb https://imgur.com/a/femHTeb Edit: https://www.bitchute.com/video/sixF3E328RBF/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/sixF3E328RBF/

tablespoon 5y ago
> When you're incentivized to manipulate the news, assuming you have the ability, you manipulate the news. Nope, sorry. However, if you take that as an axiom it does free you to believe a lot of nutty self-affirming things without a shred of actual evidence. > https://imgur.com/a/femHTeb https://imgur.com/a/femHTeb What does this have to do with anything? That you'd even quote that screenshot like it means something indicates a significant lack of understanding of many things, including basic chronology: that tweet from "Reuters Fact Check" is from 1/7/2022, Jim Smith stepped down as Reuters CEO nearly two years prior. > Edit: https://www.bitchute.com/video/sixF3E328RBF/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/sixF3E328RBF/ So? Pfizer buys ads, big whup. Your implication is (probably) Pfizer is dictating content or the sponsored shows making stuff up or hiding things to make their sponsor happy, but you've done nothing to actually show that, and there are good reasons to believe it's not true.
- game_the0ry 5y ago
  My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical...
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things... Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? I'm quite aware pharma companies can do bad things, but that doesn't mean everything they do is bad, and in any case it's of limited relevance to the kind of conspiracy-theory implications about media coverage that are the topic here.
    - game_the0ry 5y ago
      > Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? Both. > and in any case it's of limited relevance to the kind of conspiracy-theory implications about media coverage that are the topic here. There is no "conspiracy" in the "tin foil hat" sense. When a corporation brings in a former media exec on their board, its bc they want insight on how to run an effective PR campaign, and pharma cares about that, given how much more money they spend on marketing over r&d. The same should be said for defense contractors - ~80% high ranking military officers went to work for defense companies in 2004-2008, versus 50% in the previous decade [1]. There's no smoky back room in a pizzeria basement where the illumanati get together to sacrifice babies. They join boards and network at conferences. [1] http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/26/defense_firms_lure_retired_generals/ http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/26/de...
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        >>> My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things... >> Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? > Both. On the "be bad things" front, I think you need to entertain the possibility that things aren't so black and white. > When a corporation brings in a former media exec on their board, its bc they want insight on how to run an effective PR campaign, and pharma cares about that, given how much more money they spend on marketing over r&d. That kinda sounds plausible, but it's too much of a stretch. IIRC, Thompson Reuters' bread and butter is actually accounting software, and that's the part Jim Smith had been focused on for the last 20+ years, per his Wikipedia bio. If "insight on how to run an effective PR campaign" is what they wanted, they'd probably do a lot better by bringing on an actual PR person. Also, is it even plausible for a member of the board to be involved in planning a PR campaign? You should watch some old episodes of Columbo. It's fiction, but also a fun exploration about how plausible narratives can fall apart if you actually pay attention to the details.
        game_the0ry 5y ago
        > That kinda sounds plausible, but it's a stretch. This^^
- rglover 5y ago
  > there are good reasons to believe it's not true And those would be?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > And those would be? For instance: ethical codes that reporters in many cases actually care about, the well-established organizational structures news organizations use to manage advertiser-created conflicts of interest, etc. I'm not saying any of that is foolproof, but it's definitely effective enough to render a lazy compilations of "this program is sponsored by Pfizer" moot as media criticism.
    - rglover 5y ago
      Now update your equation to include sex, money, and blackmail (e.g., a major child sex trafficker was just convicted for shuffling children for the "elite"—which, go figure, was swept under the rug rather quickly). I'd say your POV is incredibly naive and should be more considerate of a lack of morality near the top (which has precedence: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...).

tablespoon 5y ago

> When you're incentivized to manipulate the news, assuming you have the ability, you manipulate the news. Nope, sorry. However, if you take that as an axiom it does free you to believe a lot of nutty self-affirming things without a shred of actual evidence. > https://imgur.com/a/femHTeb https://imgur.com/a/femHTeb What does this have to do with anything? That you'd even quote that screenshot like it means something indicates a significant lack of understanding of many things, including basic chronology: that tweet from "Reuters Fact Check" is from 1/7/2022, Jim Smith stepped down as Reuters CEO nearly two years prior. > Edit: https://www.bitchute.com/video/sixF3E328RBF/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/sixF3E328RBF/ So? Pfizer buys ads, big whup. Your implication is (probably) Pfizer is dictating content or the sponsored shows making stuff up or hiding things to make their sponsor happy, but you've done nothing to actually show that, and there are good reasons to believe it's not true.

game_the0ry 5y ago
My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical...
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things... Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? I'm quite aware pharma companies can do bad things, but that doesn't mean everything they do is bad, and in any case it's of limited relevance to the kind of conspiracy-theory implications about media coverage that are the topic here.
  - game_the0ry 5y ago
    > Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? Both. > and in any case it's of limited relevance to the kind of conspiracy-theory implications about media coverage that are the topic here. There is no "conspiracy" in the "tin foil hat" sense. When a corporation brings in a former media exec on their board, its bc they want insight on how to run an effective PR campaign, and pharma cares about that, given how much more money they spend on marketing over r&d. The same should be said for defense contractors - ~80% high ranking military officers went to work for defense companies in 2004-2008, versus 50% in the previous decade [1]. There's no smoky back room in a pizzeria basement where the illumanati get together to sacrifice babies. They join boards and network at conferences. [1] http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/26/defense_firms_lure_retired_generals/ http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/26/de...
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >>> My friend, you need to entertain the possibility that pharma companies would do be bad things... >> Do you mean "be bad" or "do bad"? > Both. On the "be bad things" front, I think you need to entertain the possibility that things aren't so black and white. > When a corporation brings in a former media exec on their board, its bc they want insight on how to run an effective PR campaign, and pharma cares about that, given how much more money they spend on marketing over r&d. That kinda sounds plausible, but it's too much of a stretch. IIRC, Thompson Reuters' bread and butter is actually accounting software, and that's the part Jim Smith had been focused on for the last 20+ years, per his Wikipedia bio. If "insight on how to run an effective PR campaign" is what they wanted, they'd probably do a lot better by bringing on an actual PR person. Also, is it even plausible for a member of the board to be involved in planning a PR campaign? You should watch some old episodes of Columbo. It's fiction, but also a fun exploration about how plausible narratives can fall apart if you actually pay attention to the details.
      - game_the0ry 5y ago
        > That kinda sounds plausible, but it's a stretch. This^^
rglover 5y ago
> there are good reasons to believe it's not true And those would be?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > And those would be? For instance: ethical codes that reporters in many cases actually care about, the well-established organizational structures news organizations use to manage advertiser-created conflicts of interest, etc. I'm not saying any of that is foolproof, but it's definitely effective enough to render a lazy compilations of "this program is sponsored by Pfizer" moot as media criticism.
  - rglover 5y ago
    Now update your equation to include sex, money, and blackmail (e.g., a major child sex trafficker was just convicted for shuffling children for the "elite"—which, go figure, was swept under the rug rather quickly). I'd say your POV is incredibly naive and should be more considerate of a lack of morality near the top (which has precedence: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...).