3 ms·

Surely the people pushing conspiracy theories about the pandemic are a bigger concern than the subset of media that weren't effectively dispelling those conspir

by jmull 5y ago

Surely the people pushing conspiracy theories about the pandemic are a bigger concern than the subset of media that weren't effectively dispelling those conspiracy theories? It really doesn't make sense to collectively blame "the media" because some of them say silly or incorrect things sometimes. The word itself -- a plural -- tells you there isn't a cohesive "the media" to blame anyway. Who are you actually talking about when you refer to "the media"?

jovial_cavalier 5y ago
In a public health crisis, people who are in charge of communicating with the public should be held to a higher standard than random people on YouTube. Yes, CNN saying that people are dying because of Ivermectin usage is a bigger problem than people suggesting we look at Ivermectin for COVID prevention/treatment. I've heard that sometimes in public health you have to lie to avoid the strange incentives that people acting as a massive group have. But your lies have to at least make sense. When you go around frantically pushing a narrative that is a blatant lie, you lose the public's trust. It doesn't help when half of news programs are brought to you by Pfizer - a company with a vested interest in Ivermectin not working for this purpose. The randos on YouTube will always be there, but it's the failing of the mainstream media that anyone takes them seriously.
- monetus 5y ago
  So many people invested in regeneron and the like that that wasn't exactly a one sided calculation. Plenty of vested, veiled interests in PR.
imgabe 5y ago
But it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. If you look at, for example, Scott Alexander’s analysis[1] there’s 26/30 studies showing an effect. Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect. If you’re a layperson and you see that there’s studies published in peer-reviewed journals, but the media is telling you you’re a stupid redneck who’s just a sucker for “conspiracy theories” you’re going to figure they’re just insulting and dismissing you, as they have been consistently doing for years. When those same outlets say the claims about Ivermectin are “baseless” you’re going to wonder why those 26/30 studies don’t constitute a “base” and maybe suspect that there is something else going on. So, at the end of the day, it is really irresponsible of any media outlet to marginalize and dismiss people, who are trying their best to make sense of a confusing and stressful situation. [1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted?s=r https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect. Sure, and that's why governments around the world employ such people, in significant quantities, to do exactly that, and then tell the media what they've concluded, who help distribute that information to us laypeople. Which is exactly what happened.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    That’s not what happened. The media’s responsibility was to accurately communicate that information. Instead what they did was “Lololol horsey drugs! You silly horse people” which was false, and caused the people they needed to convince to dismiss them.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      There were substantial numbers of substantive articles about ivermectin, human trials, potential and cautions, etc. For a good example, here's NPR discussing it with an even tone that doesn't match your assertions at all: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/19/1038369557/ivermectin-anti-vaccine-movement-culture-wars https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/19/1038369... Or here's the NYT using pretty clear wording like "forms of the drug meant for horses": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/health/covid-ivermectin-prescriptions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/health/covid-ivermectin-p... There were also some less serious outlets discussing the fact that people were self-prescribing by going to veterinary sources without much context to them. These ones, due to the somewhat funny nature of the concept, tended to go more viral. Doesn't mean the more substantive articles didn't exist.
- jmull 5y ago
  You have people advocating medical treatments against the advice of medical professionals. The arguments include using studies they have no basis to understand and which don't actually support their theory. Not that they care since they are just looking for points to superficially support their predetermined conclusion, which they formed listening to Joe Rogen or reading social media posts. You don't want to call that a conspiracy theory, but then what should it be called? And which media outlets have been calling people stupid rednecks? You have a grievance against "the media", but who exactly is that? I'm really a lot more concerned with the irresponsibility of pushing ineffective medical treatments to a serious health hazard than I am with how gently "the media" tells people that their conspiracy theories are wrong.
michaelgrosner2 5y ago
Anyone blaming "the media" automatically gets an eyeroll from me these days. It's really the laziest form of criticism available. People desperately want there to be some left-leaning media consensus that they can bash but in reality usually the person criticizing hasn't been personally spoon fed the information that they are arguing against. The biggest media outlets by industry include Fox News for TV, Joe Rogan for podcasting, Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino for text media according to Facebook so no there is no monolithic left leaning "media" consensus.

by jmull 5y ago

jovial_cavalier 5y ago

In a public health crisis, people who are in charge of communicating with the public should be held to a higher standard than random people on YouTube. Yes, CNN saying that people are dying because of Ivermectin usage is a bigger problem than people suggesting we look at Ivermectin for COVID prevention/treatment. I've heard that sometimes in public health you have to lie to avoid the strange incentives that people acting as a massive group have. But your lies have to at least make sense. When you go around frantically pushing a narrative that is a blatant lie, you lose the public's trust. It doesn't help when half of news programs are brought to you by Pfizer - a company with a vested interest in Ivermectin not working for this purpose. The randos on YouTube will always be there, but it's the failing of the mainstream media that anyone takes them seriously.

monetus 5y ago
So many people invested in regeneron and the like that that wasn't exactly a one sided calculation. Plenty of vested, veiled interests in PR.

imgabe 5y ago

But it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. If you look at, for example, Scott Alexander’s analysis[1] there’s 26/30 studies showing an effect. Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect. If you’re a layperson and you see that there’s studies published in peer-reviewed journals, but the media is telling you you’re a stupid redneck who’s just a sucker for “conspiracy theories” you’re going to figure they’re just insulting and dismissing you, as they have been consistently doing for years. When those same outlets say the claims about Ivermectin are “baseless” you’re going to wonder why those 26/30 studies don’t constitute a “base” and maybe suspect that there is something else going on. So, at the end of the day, it is really irresponsible of any media outlet to marginalize and dismiss people, who are trying their best to make sense of a confusing and stressful situation. [1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted?s=r https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect. Sure, and that's why governments around the world employ such people, in significant quantities, to do exactly that, and then tell the media what they've concluded, who help distribute that information to us laypeople. Which is exactly what happened.
- imgabe 5y ago
  That’s not what happened. The media’s responsibility was to accurately communicate that information. Instead what they did was “Lololol horsey drugs! You silly horse people” which was false, and caused the people they needed to convince to dismiss them.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    There were substantial numbers of substantive articles about ivermectin, human trials, potential and cautions, etc. For a good example, here's NPR discussing it with an even tone that doesn't match your assertions at all: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/19/1038369557/ivermectin-anti-vaccine-movement-culture-wars https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/19/1038369... Or here's the NYT using pretty clear wording like "forms of the drug meant for horses": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/health/covid-ivermectin-prescriptions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/health/covid-ivermectin-p... There were also some less serious outlets discussing the fact that people were self-prescribing by going to veterinary sources without much context to them. These ones, due to the somewhat funny nature of the concept, tended to go more viral. Doesn't mean the more substantive articles didn't exist.
jmull 5y ago
You have people advocating medical treatments against the advice of medical professionals. The arguments include using studies they have no basis to understand and which don't actually support their theory. Not that they care since they are just looking for points to superficially support their predetermined conclusion, which they formed listening to Joe Rogen or reading social media posts. You don't want to call that a conspiracy theory, but then what should it be called? And which media outlets have been calling people stupid rednecks? You have a grievance against "the media", but who exactly is that? I'm really a lot more concerned with the irresponsibility of pushing ineffective medical treatments to a serious health hazard than I am with how gently "the media" tells people that their conspiracy theories are wrong.

michaelgrosner2 5y ago

Anyone blaming "the media" automatically gets an eyeroll from me these days. It's really the laziest form of criticism available. People desperately want there to be some left-leaning media consensus that they can bash but in reality usually the person criticizing hasn't been personally spoon fed the information that they are arguing against. The biggest media outlets by industry include Fox News for TV, Joe Rogan for podcasting, Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino for text media according to Facebook so no there is no monolithic left leaning "media" consensus.