The print media is almost exclusively right wing. In comparison the BBC are paragons of virtue. And the amount of air time they give to liars in the name of balance without pointing out those lies is absurd.
What they DON'T tell you about Covid: Fewer beds taken up than last year, deaths a fraction of the grim forecasts, 95% of fatalities had underlying causes... and how the facts can be twisted to strike fear in our hearts https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...l-Covid-facts-twisted-strike-fear-hearts.html Information not seen on Sky or the BBC but as it's in the Daily Mail some will just ignore it because of the source not even consider the content.
I should add that the Daily Mail is as guilty as the rest for putting out scaremongering headlines in the recent months.
All that stuff “they” don’t tell you about covid. I knew all of that and I don’t read the DM. And who the hell are “they”? Their headlines are good at reeling in people that like a conspiracy and playing with people’s emotions, I guess.
Unfortunately, anyone trying to look through the fog of gumph to find 'facts' will lazily be accused of being a 'conspiracy theorist' which is a term created by the CIA to stop people looking for uncomfortable facts, and push them to follow the prescribed narrative. Even science has been driven down this unscientific route of non-critical thinking.
That is in itself a conspiracy theory. The CIA certainly worked at increasing its negative connotations, but they didn't invent the term and there's plenty of conspiracy theories that pre-date the CIA. Hitler was a big fan of conspiracy theories and had teams of people coming up with them to forward his anti-Jewish narrative.
I'll look back later to see if there's a reasoned response to the point, rather than attempted deflections. I expect it'll be ad hominems.
Or maybe their headlines are good at reeling people in to read an article that alludes to a colossal **** up by scientists and their 'models'?
In this case, it's just a **** article from a journalist who claimed in March that this wouldn't develop in to a pandemic, that it was no worse than flu and he's been doubling down ever since.
Fair point, but conspiracy theories & alternative views have been around much longer than social media. Social media has just made them easier to share
The crux of the article appears to be that a scientist with the ear of the Government said a few months ago there could be 50,000 deaths if nothing was done. There hasn't been 50,000 deaths, which is used as evidence that the scientist was wrong. Which omits to recognise the fact that something WAS done to alleviate that prediction. They are definitely good at reeling people in. I'm not sure the article alludes to what you say though.
