5 ms·

I am fascinated with learning about the process of deciding what topics are on the approved list for the discussion. Short 6 months ago, this is not something t

I am fascinated with learning about the process of deciding what topics are on the approved list for the discussion. Short 6 months ago, this is not something that people would be encouraged to discuss publicly. I am getting the sense that everybody is going by the main stream media rules. But how does the main stream media itself decide what is allowed at any given time? Does somebody actually calls around all the editors or is there some sort of social norm propagation because everybody knows everybody? Does anybody have insights into the actual process?

origin_path 4y ago
Here at HN? Who knows. It depends how aggressively things get flagged. There isn't some approved list of topics. For the media, it seems they will generally not report on anything that makes academia or public health look bad. Why is that, probably a mix of pragmatism and ideology. Journalists have become heavily dependent on academics to give more or less any story a patina of "expert" authority, often on short notice. They cannot /will not bite the hand that feeds them. As for why they won't criticize public health - progressivists have built into their own identity that the state is basically good, basically competent and public health organizations are a great source of abstract progress. To admit that things they did have gone badly wrong would undermine their whole worldview. If you work for the NYT you don't become a libertarian overnight, especially because journalists who did work there and reported on the public health negatively got fired (e.g. Berenson, Wade...).
TurkishPoptart 4y ago
Have you heard of the Trusted News Initiative? [1] >Who is involved? >Core partners in the TNI are: AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post. So that sounds nice from a project management perspective, but it's to ensure that only the same message is being disseminated, and "incorrect" messaging to be limited or stopped. And then you see one of Pfizer's directors [2] sits on the same board as Reuters, which is part of this program. So there is a clear financial incentive there to either suppress or to limit/police information contrary to "vaccinate or die/you're a bad person". That's why so much research about ivermectin or vitamin D has been either suppressed or outright smeared. Like that week when every NBC or CNN or MSNBC channel ran the "Joe Rogan ate horse paste!" story. Well, no, actually a doctor in Texas prescribed him a WHO essential medicine that might have helped, but was safe to try. And the decision should be between him and his doctor. And then the CDC ran all these articles about "don't take horse medicine!" as a way to smear alternative medicine-interested as idiots with a deathwish. For shame that our government-funded agencies would do this. Never before in the US have I seen such gaslighting, smearing, lies, corruption, mind control, and deprivation of rights (via vaccine passports in my county). All the Russians I know says this all reminds them deeply of the Soviet period. But Americans are so keen to trust authority, and not to know to be suspicious of it. We knew from January 2021 that the "vaccine" doesn't prevent infection, but it's still being treated as such. It is not a traditional vaccine; it is a prophylactic medication to limit risk of death for 6 or 7 months. Even calling this a "vaccine" is a linguistic trojan horse, because it's _not_; the CDC's very definition of "vaccine" was changed [3], just so they could shoehorn this product into that category and bring record profits to Moderna and Pfizer. The next two or three years' of lawsuits are going to be _very_ interesting. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/about-us/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative... [2]: https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/... [3]: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...
- muzika 4y ago
  I can confirm that in the Russian-American community there is a lot of talk about how western governments now using same tactics that were used by the USSR government.
  - TurkishPoptart 4y ago
    I'd like to hear more about this or get their take. Maybe if I could gather some interviews it'd be easier to get the word out about what's been going on. But most people don't care, and will keep getting jabbed without thinking twice.
- nonameking2026 4y ago
  Either you are one of those anti vaccers or I have to start thinking for myself.

origin_path 4y ago

Here at HN? Who knows. It depends how aggressively things get flagged. There isn't some approved list of topics. For the media, it seems they will generally not report on anything that makes academia or public health look bad. Why is that, probably a mix of pragmatism and ideology. Journalists have become heavily dependent on academics to give more or less any story a patina of "expert" authority, often on short notice. They cannot /will not bite the hand that feeds them. As for why they won't criticize public health - progressivists have built into their own identity that the state is basically good, basically competent and public health organizations are a great source of abstract progress. To admit that things they did have gone badly wrong would undermine their whole worldview. If you work for the NYT you don't become a libertarian overnight, especially because journalists who did work there and reported on the public health negatively got fired (e.g. Berenson, Wade...).

TurkishPoptart 4y ago

Have you heard of the Trusted News Initiative? [1] >Who is involved? >Core partners in the TNI are: AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post. So that sounds nice from a project management perspective, but it's to ensure that only the same message is being disseminated, and "incorrect" messaging to be limited or stopped. And then you see one of Pfizer's directors [2] sits on the same board as Reuters, which is part of this program. So there is a clear financial incentive there to either suppress or to limit/police information contrary to "vaccinate or die/you're a bad person". That's why so much research about ivermectin or vitamin D has been either suppressed or outright smeared. Like that week when every NBC or CNN or MSNBC channel ran the "Joe Rogan ate horse paste!" story. Well, no, actually a doctor in Texas prescribed him a WHO essential medicine that might have helped, but was safe to try. And the decision should be between him and his doctor. And then the CDC ran all these articles about "don't take horse medicine!" as a way to smear alternative medicine-interested as idiots with a deathwish. For shame that our government-funded agencies would do this. Never before in the US have I seen such gaslighting, smearing, lies, corruption, mind control, and deprivation of rights (via vaccine passports in my county). All the Russians I know says this all reminds them deeply of the Soviet period. But Americans are so keen to trust authority, and not to know to be suspicious of it. We knew from January 2021 that the "vaccine" doesn't prevent infection, but it's still being treated as such. It is not a traditional vaccine; it is a prophylactic medication to limit risk of death for 6 or 7 months. Even calling this a "vaccine" is a linguistic trojan horse, because it's _not_; the CDC's very definition of "vaccine" was changed [3], just so they could shoehorn this product into that category and bring record profits to Moderna and Pfizer. The next two or three years' of lawsuits are going to be _very_ interesting. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/about-us/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative... [2]: https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/... [3]: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...

muzika 4y ago
I can confirm that in the Russian-American community there is a lot of talk about how western governments now using same tactics that were used by the USSR government.
- TurkishPoptart 4y ago
  I'd like to hear more about this or get their take. Maybe if I could gather some interviews it'd be easier to get the word out about what's been going on. But most people don't care, and will keep getting jabbed without thinking twice.
nonameking2026 4y ago
Either you are one of those anti vaccers or I have to start thinking for myself.