4 ms·

How is it political hackery? There is a clear pattern of this administration appointing inept leadership to public health positions. The article is not C-SPAN d

How is it political hackery? There is a clear pattern of this administration appointing inept leadership to public health positions. The article is not C-SPAN dry, but it's not New York Post hackery either.

timr 11mo ago
It's an article about a single corrupt individual. Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first. I don't care what your opinions are of the administration. This is crappy journalism. I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.
- abduhl 11mo ago
  I don’t think these are ad hominem attacks. The article seems to just state the (perhaps biased) facts: people are calling it a clown show, Prasad was ousted, Prasad did gain popularity on social media as a COVID-skeptic. It doesn’t become an ad hominem just because you don’t like the way the facts are stated or the inferences your own brain makes.
  - timr 11mo ago
    > people are calling it a clown show Not "people" -- a single, unnamed, VC. It's right there in the article. Read it. > Prasad was ousted No, he wasn't. He voluntarily resigned pre-emptively after the WSJ editorials, then he was re-hired almost immediately. You are just misinformed. You'd know this if you read a better source.
    - abduhl 11mo ago
      So, again, you’re not showing how it’s an ad hominem, you’re just disagreeing with the biased reporting.
      - timr 11mo ago
        Where did I say it was an ad hominem?
        abduhl 11mo ago
        >> Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
        timr 11mo ago
        Touché. I shouldn't have said "ad hominem attacks", because, while these arguments are certainly specious, and completely unrelated to the subject of the article, they're not strictly ad hominem. I agree with your comment that my criticism is (and was) biased reporting.
- smithoc 11mo ago
  > I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan. I'm even willing to admit that water might be wet, but not when someone is standing in a swimming pool splashing it around.
- Hnrobert42 11mo ago
  Okay. I see your point. This is how filter bubbles work, and maybe I am in one. I don't think this is viciously partisan. It's not Laura Loomer. But it is not straight journalism .

timr 11mo ago

It's an article about a single corrupt individual. Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first. I don't care what your opinions are of the administration. This is crappy journalism. I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.

abduhl 11mo ago
I don’t think these are ad hominem attacks. The article seems to just state the (perhaps biased) facts: people are calling it a clown show, Prasad was ousted, Prasad did gain popularity on social media as a COVID-skeptic. It doesn’t become an ad hominem just because you don’t like the way the facts are stated or the inferences your own brain makes.
- timr 11mo ago
  > people are calling it a clown show Not "people" -- a single, unnamed, VC. It's right there in the article. Read it. > Prasad was ousted No, he wasn't. He voluntarily resigned pre-emptively after the WSJ editorials, then he was re-hired almost immediately. You are just misinformed. You'd know this if you read a better source.
  - abduhl 11mo ago
    So, again, you’re not showing how it’s an ad hominem, you’re just disagreeing with the biased reporting.
    - timr 11mo ago
      Where did I say it was an ad hominem?
      - abduhl 11mo ago
        >> Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
        timr 11mo ago
        Touché. I shouldn't have said "ad hominem attacks", because, while these arguments are certainly specious, and completely unrelated to the subject of the article, they're not strictly ad hominem. I agree with your comment that my criticism is (and was) biased reporting.
smithoc 11mo ago
> I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan. I'm even willing to admit that water might be wet, but not when someone is standing in a swimming pool splashing it around.
Hnrobert42 11mo ago
Okay. I see your point. This is how filter bubbles work, and maybe I am in one. I don't think this is viciously partisan. It's not Laura Loomer. But it is not straight journalism .