Where’s the misinformation? Did you actually read the articles?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Covid and the media =confusion
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
But it wasn’t different. Don’t just read headlines.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Credibility isn't a simply binary. Anyway, I didn't comment on the credibility of USA Today, I just said that the specific fact check article of theirs linked was correct. I based that on the evidence they directly linked (and what I already knew on the topic) rather than any specific faith in the source.
And vice-versa, often with the entire "mainstream media" in the US being dismissed as left-wing. That is less about the media (and nothing about their actual credibility) are more about blinkered partisan politics.
Careful YAHOO is not a primary source. Any on line general web news sources needs to checked carefully. YAHOO just posts news and articles, though reasonable it does neither censor nor seriously review the material. Actually concern info the article is OK, and commentary it was questionable.
It is not a matter of doing your own research. It is a matter of whether you use reliable sources. Reliable sources are not confused, nor do they change their information from day to day.
USA Today is not a primary source of information on COVID or even science. There headlines sometimes are misleading sensationalist, but over all they are reasonable on their information, only reasonable.
The difficult truth is your intentional ignorance of science based on a religious agenda.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Oh, I never read the commentary of anything. It only makes me mad.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
"Reality has a well known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert
We Never Know
No Slack
100's of million use it.
Plus...
"Yahoo’s frequent user base skews Gen Z and Millennials – as much as 60% of adults aged 18-24 are using Yahoo at least monthly, along with 51% of those between the ages of 25 and 44. Gen Xers and Baby Boomers, on the other hand, are more likely to say they ‘never’ use Yahoo.
Along political lines, Democrats (54%) are most likely to visit Yahoo sites at least monthly, followed by Republicans (44%) and Independents (42%). "
Discovering Yahoo's Frequent Users: Who They Are and How They Stand Out
This is just a sneak peek at the thousands of consumer insights available to CivicScience clients. Discover More Data. It’s no secret that Google dominates the search engine market, with 73% of U.S. adults using it as their primary search engine, according to CivicScience data. In contrast, only...
civicscience.com
Well ah , . . would it really consider it a bias?
Rejection of reality is a well known Conservative bias.
We Never Know
No Slack
Why should I care what he said?
Is he one of your hero's?
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
you cared enough to respond
We Never Know
No Slack
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Argumentum ad populum does not make for a sound or strong claim unless you're point is how popular something is.
I don't care how many or who, it's a junk source for news.
Last edited:
We Never Know
No Slack
You said you quit using it.
100's of millions do use it.
More younger than older
More dems than repubs
Those were my points.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
So? That doesn't address my point of Yahoo being a garbage source for news.
We Never Know
No Slack
I didn't say it was a good source now did I?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I use it 6 days a week and like it because it posts from multiple sources that includes both left-leaning and right-leaning sources.
I do nor believe you can reach an meaningful conclusion, based on this, What would be meaningful would be examples of surveys such as their support for the sciences of evolution, or Who supports the conspiracy theories concerning the COVID 19 and who supports science?100's of million use it.
Plus...
"Yahoo’s frequent user base skews Gen Z and Millennials – as much as 60% of adults aged 18-24 are using Yahoo at least monthly, along with 51% of those between the ages of 25 and 44. Gen Xers and Baby Boomers, on the other hand, are more likely to say they ‘never’ use Yahoo.
Along political lines, Democrats (54%) are most likely to visit Yahoo sites at least monthly, followed by Republicans (44%) and Independents (42%). "
Discovering Yahoo's Frequent Users: Who They Are and How They Stand Out
This is just a sneak peek at the thousands of consumer insights available to CivicScience clients. Discover More Data. It’s no secret that Google dominates the search engine market, with 73% of U.S. adults using it as their primary search engine, according to CivicScience data. In contrast, only...
The same problems with the support for the science concerning Global Warming.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The practical problem is although mosts medicines are useful, very few do not have some side effects. Name a medicine that does not have a warning of possible side effects on the label? This is not rocket science. There is always someone who has a risk with any medicine and the warning is there for legal protection. This is due to casino science and the black box. Medicine spawned in the black box, like Schrödinger's cat, can be both alive and dead, or in the case of the COVID vaccines, helpful and harmful at the same time. One does not know until you open the black box, which by the nature of casino science, is never opened, so both dead and alive cats appear with a warning label. A better type of medical science would require reason and rational models and not just hope you win more at the casino of science than you lose.
One of the unspoken issues is the Biden-Harris Administration, forced the vaccine on people, with their DNC Draconian measures. Trump offered the vaccine as an option and choice. Under Biden-Harris you needed a COVID card; sign of the liberal beast, to travel. You were shunned if you did not get the vaccine and carry the card. How many people were forced to get the side effects, and could not opt out? Good thing the Supreme Count offered presidential immunity for blunders like the draconian COVID vaccines mandates .All 50 states could sue, one at a time if Biden and Harris did nougat supreme court protection that the Lefts thinks we should remove.
Climate science is also uses casino science and the expected side effects of the suggested actions of the Left, also come from a black box. We will know until economic disaster strike, then it is too late. We need all science to update to rational models. These are harder for politicians, who also use the black box, to tamper with. Reason has more immunity from side effects.
One of the unspoken issues is the Biden-Harris Administration, forced the vaccine on people, with their DNC Draconian measures. Trump offered the vaccine as an option and choice. Under Biden-Harris you needed a COVID card; sign of the liberal beast, to travel. You were shunned if you did not get the vaccine and carry the card. How many people were forced to get the side effects, and could not opt out? Good thing the Supreme Count offered presidential immunity for blunders like the draconian COVID vaccines mandates .All 50 states could sue, one at a time if Biden and Harris did nougat supreme court protection that the Lefts thinks we should remove.
Climate science is also uses casino science and the expected side effects of the suggested actions of the Left, also come from a black box. We will know until economic disaster strike, then it is too late. We need all science to update to rational models. These are harder for politicians, who also use the black box, to tamper with. Reason has more immunity from side effects.