Like Scientific American, The New England Journal of Medicine has taken the extraordinary step of weighing-in on the 2020 race for president. The New York Times reported that the unprecedented editorial read: “When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs.”
Where to begin? This NEJoM article is only evidence of the partisan preferences of the editors who clearly wrote it to flatter the ideological presuppositons of their intended audience. No references or detailed facts. They just used circular reporting and continued the gaslighting of past events. If truth and transparency prevail, which I hope it will, this fear-inducing MSM narrative will fall apart.
ReplyDeleteWhat would it take for you to lose trust/faith in the MSM?
Did you read the article? There were four references in it and a detailed look at the statistics comparing the United States' response to that of other nations around the world. Objectivity? The opening paragraph: "Covid-19 has created a crisis throughout the world. This crisis has produced a test of leadership. With no good options to combat a novel pathogen, countries were forced to make hard choices about how to respond. Here in the United States, our leaders have failed that test. They have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy."
DeleteThe MSM is often biased and not infrequently incorrect. However, the journalistic standards and sourcing practiced by the MSM reduce the impact of bias and the number and severity of inaccuracies. Sources outside of that mainstream love conspiracy theories and very often make no pretense about the fact that they have an ideological agenda. Finally, I believe an expert is superior to someone with an opinion in almost every instance. Like the MSM, we can and should look at multiple sources and perspectives before we reach any conclusions (and several conservative sources does not constitute due diligence). Kinda like all of the folks who swallowed the Hunter Biden laptop story hook, line and sinker courtesy of the New York Post and FOX News). We want facts, not partisan spin.
Of course I read the article, and those 4 references meet the very definition of "circular reporting." That opening statement was just that,...a statement. And if they had backed it up with specific historical facts and with a timeline pointing out who and how mistakes were made, that would have been more respectable. They failed in that regard. I remember having a mini-debate with BB at Banned about how the MSM was gaslighting Trump's response to covid19. Here it is with some links, which is only the tip of the iceberg of data that can't be erased or should no longer be ignored.
ReplyDeleteAgain, and without appealing to authority this time, what would it take for you to lose trust/faith in the MSM(including Fauxnews)?
Partisanship? Collusion? Censorship? Lies? Corruption?