What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Media Criticism (2 Viewers)

Cjw_55106 said:
The links you provided did nothing to indicate kids shouldnt being in school. You mention listening to Fauci, and his comment seems to indicate he thinks they should be:

"I feel very strongly we need to do whatever we can to get the children back to school. So I think we are in locked agreement with that."

He suggested that there could be "creative" measures to modify a school's schedule and structure to allow for a reopening of some kind.

As for the "science", I guess I cant help you there. The numbers indicate kids arent as susceptible and those that do get it, dont suffer like older people. You can qualify it by saying they dont get tested, but the numbers are what they are. 

As far as adults in the school, why are they any different than the millions of adults who have gone back to work or never stopped working? 
Click to expand...
I already agreed people think kids "should" be in school as the best thing for them.  He wasn't saying they should be as far as medical reasoning where places surge...which is the point.

And I think we don't have true numbers to say they aren't as susceptible...again they are less exposed from not being out as much...and less tested than other age groups  (its not qualifying it...its the fact of it).

We also have no science showing they don't spread it.

As for the adults...I think there are millions that aren't dealing with kids who won't wear masks and social distance.  Those millions going back to work, are they in close contact with 20+ people per day?  People from all over?  I continue to find teachers are not so happy with the thought of being babysitter and the risk when they know they are able (like millions of other workers) to do their job remotely (at least temporarily).  I know teachers do want to get back and engage with students...but want to do so safely and many areas are failing them in this.

Safe is the key word of what Fauci and Birx are saying...and they seem unsure in many areas how safe that really is.

 
Every area is different of course, but are childcare centers not back open in many places? Have we seen an uptick in child cases or workers from those? 

 
 
The 2/2017 outlandish NYT story that the Trump team had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials" was a transparently dishonest attempt to fuel the Russiagate narrative in its early stages (https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1120086029224964096?s=20…). Now the FBI's own docs confirm it:

Reporters on this story were @nytmike @MarkMazzettiNYT @mattapuzzo. They should have retracted it long ago -- when Comey denied it under oath in spring 2017 & when Mueller produced zero evidence of it & in fact undermined it. I don't see how they can justify leaving it up.

This is one of countless sad cases where mainstream reporters could have questioned, and dug into, why they were being leaked transparently false claims about an illicit Trump-Russia relationship. Instead they acted as stenographers for their sources' fictional narrative.

Q for @Comey: new FBI docs show Strzok wrote: "We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials." This was after FBI knew @GeorgePapa19 spoke to Mifsfud.

So why, 2 years later, did you claim that Mifsud is "a Russian agent"?

Did you discover some new evidence about Mifsud that Strzok & the FBI didn't have back in 2017, or were you making a false claim? It's one or the other.

At minimum, this is more evidence FBI launched the Trump-Russia probe on a predicate that was missing a key element: Russia.

The fact that FBI privately admitted in early 2017 that "[w]e have not seen evidence of" & "are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with" Russian intel is more evidence that intel officials/Mueller team fed public a false narrative.

NYT: "We stand by our reporting" of 2017 that Trump team had "repeated contacts w/ senior Russian intel officials."

This despite news that Russia probe's lead agent refuted it (oh, & zero evidence has emerged since). On what grounds do they stand by it? https://nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/steele-dossier-peter-strzok.html

Do they stand by this story that Strzok refuted privately, Comey refuted publicly, & Mueller found no evidence of like they stand by their Russia bounty story, which their own reporting contradicted? https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/07/pentagon-afghan-bountygate-us-intelligence-agencies/

That's not standing by reporting, it's denying reality.

Here is what @nytmike @MarkMazzettiNYT @mattapuzzo & @nytimes editors "stand by": the fact that some anonymous officials -- who fed false info on multiple stories, not just this one -- fed them the false info here. That's not standing by reporting, it's standing by stenography.
Click to expand...
It is important that the public reckons with how careless the "credible" news outlets were in reporting this TrumpRussia story.  And how dangerous it was on so many levels.  The media pushed a bogus narrative because they hated Trump and it made them a bunch of money.  This one will quietly disappear to the backpages too.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek said:
It is important that the public reckons with how careless the "credible" news outlets were in reporting this TrumpRussia story.  And how dangerous it was on so many levels.  The media pushed a bogus narrative because they hated Trump and it made them a bunch of money.  This one will quietly disappear to the backpages too.  
Click to expand...
I’ll say it again, I’ll know for sure if Trump tries to mess with the Magnisky act. Offering dirt on Clinton, meeting in trump tower about “adoptions,” love it later in the summer. There’s a lot more to the story, but for me this is what to watch. These are all undisputed occurrences, Junior said he’d love it, they in fact met, discussed a topic that pertains to magnisky (“adoptions” isn’t a lie but it’s not the main topic of their convo), and then lied about it. That is what Putin and the oligarchs want neutered, I’m not sure there is a path to do that without Congress, but Trump seems to try anyway. I’m skeptical of the administrations innocence, but that is ultimately what I’m watching for, a lame duck attempt at neutering magnisky.

 
sho nuff said:
https://www.q13fox.com/news/marysville-daycare-closes-after-covid-19-outbreak

https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-outbreak-impacts-oregon-child-care-facility-report

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/01/texas-day-care-coronavirus-cases-rising/

https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/06/30/oregon-child-care-facility-reports-covid-19-outbreak-among-first-in-nation/

https://people.com/health/n-c-reports-covid-19-clusters-at-daycares-as-parents-and-providers-weigh-options-amid-pandemic/
Click to expand...
I owned a child care center and have been open since May 4th.  No cases for staff or kids, kids don’t wear masks, parents drop on front porch, 35 kids....kids don’t spread like adults and have much better immunity to covid.  It’s rare kids under 20 are hospitalized or die.  Please note there over 130,000 day cares in us so your 5 examples work out to .00003846.  Better chance to die in car accident so we shouldn’t  drive with our kids?  Or get hit by lightning, so I’m guessing kids can’t go outside?

 
ren hoek said:
It is important that the public reckons with how careless the "credible" news outlets were in reporting this TrumpRussia story.  And how dangerous it was on so many levels.  The media pushed a bogus narrative because they hated Trump and it made them a bunch of money.  This one will quietly disappear to the backpages too.  
Click to expand...
Yeah, let’s ignore all of Team Trump’s Russia contacts and Trump’s own pro-Russia policies because Assange conspiracy theorist Aaron Mate says the NYTImes is bad. 🙄

 
stlrams said:
I owned a child care center and have been open since May 4th.  No cases for staff or kids, kids don’t wear masks, parents drop on front porch, 35 kids....kids don’t spread like adults and have much better immunity to covid.  It’s rare kids under 20 are hospitalized or die.  Please note there over 130,000 day cares in us so your 5 examples work out to .00003846.  Better chance to die in car accident so we shouldn’t  drive with our kids?  Or get hit by lightning, so I’m guessing kids can’t go outside?
Click to expand...
Daycare and preschool are critical to so many people. Where I work, the onsite daycare and preschool closed late during the initial shutdown, opened about 5 weeks ago, then closed again 2 weeks ago because a staff member tested positive. My roomate works at a university-based preschool, ages 3-4, and they tried to make it work virtually for about 6 weeks until the parents stopped paying  $1400 a month. It was closed during the summer. It will reopen in late August, with less administrators, only 8 children per classroom, instead of 16, and 1 aid per teacher, instead of 2. Many parents aren't sending their kids to school in South Florida. I hope it works out.

 
SoBeDad said:
Daycare and preschool are critical to so many people. Where I work, the onsite daycare and preschool closed late during the initial shutdown, opened about 5 weeks ago, then closed again 2 weeks ago because a staff member tested positive. My roomate works at a university-based preschool, ages 3-4, and they tried to make it work virtually for about 6 weeks until the parents stopped paying  $1400 a month. It was closed during the summer. It will reopen in late August, with less administrators, only 8 children per classroom, instead of 16, and 1 aid per teacher, instead of 2. Many parents aren't sending their kids to school in South Florida. I hope it works out.
Click to expand...
Thanks, we had 35 kids pre-covid, opened with 10 in May, had about 20 in June and now have 28 and expect/hope to get back to 35 by September.  We didn’t charge parents while closed or when their didn’t attend.  I agree that more people will work from work meaning less kids for daycares.  

 
stlrams said:
Thanks, we had 35 kids pre-covid, opened with 10 in May, had about 20 in June and now have 28 and expect/hope to get back to 35 by September.  We didn’t charge parents while closed or when their didn’t attend.  I agree that more people will work from work meaning less kids for daycares.  
Click to expand...
What city?

 
stlrams said:
I owned a child care center and have been open since May 4th.  No cases for staff or kids, kids don’t wear masks, parents drop on front porch, 35 kids....kids don’t spread like adults and have much better immunity to covid.  It’s rare kids under 20 are hospitalized or die.  Please note there over 130,000 day cares in us so your 5 examples work out to .00003846.  Better chance to die in car accident so we shouldn’t  drive with our kids?  Or get hit by lightning, so I’m guessing kids can’t go outside?
Click to expand...
It was a quick search...not the only 5.

and the latest link posted was that 10-19 spread it just like adults.

 
SoBeDad said:
What city?
Click to expand...
We are in Hamden, ct but right next to Yale university and Yale new haven hospital so we get a lot of international kids which makes our center very unique.  Currently have kids from Netherlands, China, Slovenia, Hong Kong etc.   

 
sho nuff said:
It was a quick search...not the only 5.

and the latest link posted was that 10-19 spread it just like adults.
Click to expand...
I agreed the 10-19 same but was referencing preschool age kids which spread at much lower rate.   The stats support young kids hospitalization and death rate is minuscule .  The reality is on-line education will help suburban rich kids out perform urban kids as they have more support and resources.  So,  on-line schooling will leave more urban poor kids behind,.  Is this your desire?  I read an article today that well off parents are bonding together and hiring tutors/teachers leaving urban poor further behind. 

 
stlrams said:
I agreed the 10-19 same but was referencing preschool age kids which spread at much lower rate.   The stats support young kids hospitalization and death rate is minuscule .  The reality is on-line education will help suburban rich kids out perform urban kids as they have more support and resources.  So,  on-line schooling will leave more urban poor kids behind,.  Is this your desire?  I read an article today that well off parents are bonding together and hiring tutors/teachers leaving urban poor further behind. 
Click to expand...
My desire is safety.  And kid’s getting ng a quality education.  Not being political with reopening schools.

I was simply answering the questions asked.

 
sho nuff said:
My desire is safety.  And kid’s getting ng a quality education.  Not being political with reopening schools.

I was simply answering the questions asked.
Click to expand...
Same here.  My point is risk vs reward and imho it’s very much worth the risk to have kids attend school.  

 
sho nuff said:
What science is on their side?  The problem of claiming kids don't get it and spread it so much is that kids are also some of the least tested people out there when it comes to Covid....and relies on statements about kids under 10.

It also ignores the numerous other people making contact to have schools, parents, teachers, administration, support staff.

https://www.wfla.com/news/dr-birx-addresses-how-schools-can-open-safely-mixed-messages-from-white-house/

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/884658409/watch-live-senate-hearing-on-reopening-schools-workplaces-amid-coronavirus

But we can instead keep listening to Birx and Fauci who caution certain things...or we can listen to Trump?  I will choose the doctors.

I think its clear people would want schools to reopen...we should, it is what is best for the kids in order to learn as well as for their mental state.  Its also clear there are hurdles to that as we see cases surging...deaths going up again and so on.  And taking into account kids are less likely to keep a mask on...less likely to do well with distancing and personal space...and still a big unknown as far as reactions to the virus.  Not only from being least tested...but given schools and activities had mostly been closed...kids are also the least out there being exposed to things.  Now with cases rising...I hope it remains true with kids not getting it or not getting it as bad.  Id rather it not be a test activity to open up and "see how it goes" and kids end up sick and dying.

Given the numbers here...the uncertainty...and the liklihood of an outbreak that periodically shuts it back down...if I had to choose right now...my kids will be going virtual this fall.  They already have to start that way the first month...and it seems likely it will go virtual at least another time or two during the semester.  Id rather have the continuity of all of it with my kids than trying to juggle starting up and shutting down and starting up again.
Click to expand...
Schools are encountering some issues as they look to start the school year. Older teachers in their 60s are retiring earlier than they planned and older retired  teachers that used to sub are saying no more. Hearing this first hand from family members.

 
sho nuff said:
And in addition to the links posted that were after a quick  search, there is this that relates to kids 10-19 spreading it similarly to adults.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-children-schools.html
Click to expand...
It is funny that you posted this link in the media criticism thread. It is exactly where I was going to put it. 

Older Children Spread the Coronavirus Just as Much as Adults, Large Study Finds

A large new study from South Korea offers an answer

Several studies from Europe and Asia have suggested that young children are less likely to get infected and to spread the virus. But most of those studies were small and flawed, said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.

This is terrible reporting. Sure, the overall data set is large, but the amount of child data is small. I mean they made their 0-9 conclusions off of three infections. 

The 0-19 group represented 1.2% of the total data set. 

Also one of those links you posted had a story in it referring to two "outbreaks" in denver from daycare centers. Two cases at each place. Two cases is an outbreak? 

 
parasaurolophus said:
It is funny that you posted this link in the media criticism thread. It is exactly where I was going to put it. 

Older Children Spread the Coronavirus Just as Much as Adults, Large Study Finds

A large new study from South Korea offers an answer

Several studies from Europe and Asia have suggested that young children are less likely to get infected and to spread the virus. But most of those studies were small and flawed, said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.

This is terrible reporting. Sure, the overall data set is large, but the amount of child data is small. I mean they made their 0-9 conclusions off of three infections. 

The 0-19 group represented 1.2% of the total data set. 

Also one of those links you posted had a story in it referring to two "outbreaks" in denver from daycare centers. Two cases at each place. Two cases is an outbreak? 
Click to expand...
And the underlying data un the studies?  Going to complain about adjectives?

Thats our complaint now?  Also the amount of data in small children is  small...because  of the amount of testing done.  Birx talks about this in a link i posted earlier.

I believe it referenced one outbreak where  4 adults and one child teated positive and wasn’t  even the focus of the story.

 
stlrams said:
Same here.  My point is risk vs reward and imho it’s very much worth the risk to have kids attend school.  
Click to expand...
And I say that depends on where you are.  In Nashville right now...I disagree that we are at all near ready to have them attend school.

The good of the studies...10-19 you can typically get them to follow the social distancing a bit better and wear masks at least close to properly and not play with them like toys.

 
sho nuff said:
And the underlying data un the studies?  Going to complain about adjectives?

Thats our complaint now?  Also the amount of data in small children is  small...because  of the amount of testing done.  Birx talks about this in a link i posted earlier.

I believe it referenced one outbreak where  4 adults and one child teated positive and wasn’t  even the focus of the story.
Click to expand...
Yes i am going to complain about adjectives. What kind of silly comment is that? They are words. They have meanings. 

They clearly were trying to portray this data as more robust than other studies.

It clearly is not.

I also believe it is a pre print. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
We just need Bloomberg to give each of them a million dollars and it will all add up. 

On a serious note, the complete refusal to correct these things is insane to me. 
Click to expand...
It's not the correction that matters to me.  If you get it wrong once, you should get a letter on your file, twice a suspension and third they let you go.  Like any other job.  Writers and reporters in a lot of ways are treated like CAOs.  Like they are something special.  Like there isn't a 1000 people that could line up behind them and do just as good or even better of a job.  

Putting a small box on the last page that says 'we made a mistake' does nothing to stop the initial flow of information.  Once it's printed it's gone. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
If this were a thread about media criticism, I'd put this here:

https://unherd.com/thepost/an-untrue-claim-in-the-new-yorker-speaks-volumes/

I'm not sure what the thread is about now, though.
Click to expand...
And it turns out I was right — the ‘two-thirds’ claim is not true. Not even close.

Lepore is right to draw a comparison between the rate of ‘legal intervention injuries’ (to use Feldman’s phrase) and the rate of pedestrians injured by motor vehicles, although this only applied to men aged 15-34.

But it’s not clear where Lepore got the ‘two-thirds’ figure from. Possibly she misunderstood a line from from the paper itself, which includes the finding that 61.1% of people injured by police fell into the 15-34 age bracket. Or from the Harvard press release, which reports that:

Sixty-four percent of the estimated 683,033 injuries logged between 2001-2014 among persons age 15-34 resulted from an officer hitting a civilian.

Which is to say, they were injured by hitting, rather than some other use of force. But I’m sorry to say that Lepore’s claim is straightforwardly false, as Feldman himself replied when asked by another twitter user: ‘Oh weird, the rate being the same as car accidents is true, but the other part is definitely not.’

I did my best to work out a rough estimate of the true proportion of 15-34 year olds visiting the ER who had suffered legal intervention injuries, and arrived at a figure of 0.2% (you can follow my working in this thread). So I believe Lepore’s claim to be off by a factor of several hundred.
Click to expand...
I'm just going to point something out - functionality and technology affects substance. Newspapers used to have considerable editing as a matter of course. There was (is) a whole culture built around it. What has changed is the resources dedicated to editing and fact checking and also the call for immediate, quick publication and celebrity authorship, and IMO this has come with the online world.

I say this because that stat is begging to be fact checked. Ordinarily an editor would circle this and have it fact checked by staff. But no, obviously at the esteemed New Yorker (!) this didn't happen. 

I've seen this more recently with more political op-eds, basically news sites coming back and saying famous politician X just wrote what he wrote and it wasn't held to usual editorial standards. I'm afraid it happens way too often these days, apparently even at great editorial standard bearers like New Yorker.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Tucker Carlson monologue last night in which he claimed the NYT was trying to out his residence.

In a statement to The Washington Post, a spokesperson for the Times denied Carlson’s claims.

“While we do not confirm what may or may not publish in future editions, the Times has not and does not plan to expose any residence of Tucker Carlson’s, which Carlson was aware of before tonight’s broadcast,” the spokesperson said. 
Click to expand...
- So Carlson didn't explain what the story is about. Personal addresses do show up in lawsuits, so it's possible Carlson is named in something like that, but again he did not explain.

- On his show, TC postulated, gosh what would liberals say if the reporters' name was doxed instead of his. And naturally what ended up happening was:

Meanwhile, Carlson’s supporters quickly got to work. Several accounts shared addresses, phone numbers and other contact information for the reporter. One account tweeted, “Give him a taste of his own meds.”

“Maybe Tucker can’t do anything about it but somebody else can,” another user wrote.

Carpenter declined to comment to The Post.

By early Tuesday, at least one tweet that publicized Carpenter’s personal information had been hidden by Twitter and flagged for violating the platform’s rules.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I guess I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Tucker Carlson monologue last night in which he claimed the NYT was trying to out his residence.

- So Carlson didn't explain what the story is about. Personal addresses do show up in lawsuits, so it's possible Carlson is named in something like that, but again he did not explain.

- On his show, TC postulated, gosh what would liberals say if the reporters' name was doxed instead of his. And naturally what ended up happening was:
Click to expand...
What if they were going to publish it and he headed it off? 

But regardless he should know better than to allude to doxxing somebody. Two wrongs dont make a right. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I say this because that stat is begging to be fact checked. Ordinarily an editor would circle this and have it fact checked by staff. But no, obviously at the esteemed New Yorker (!) this didn't happen
Click to expand...
It has to be more than that. Even if things have changed that they missed it. Once they know about it why not change it? 

 
parasaurolophus said:
It has to be more than that. Even if things have changed that they missed it. Once they know about it why not change it? 
Click to expand...
Hm, this I agree with, at least for online articles. It's been so common that conservatives will attack a NYT or Wapo for editing a live article with a correction but you're right that's what they're supposed to do, it's good journalism. Good point.

 
parasaurolophus said:
What if they were going to publish it and he headed it off? 
Click to expand...
Just about this - it doesn't sound like much a headline does it? 'Tucker Carlson's new address revealed'? I really doubt that's what the story is about. And I'm guessing there will be a report about him or Fox. But we'll see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Blutarsky said:
More than likely the insurance company contacted him for a statement. 
Click to expand...
Statement doesn't do anything for the plaintiff. The process would involve Wapo/insurer seeking dismissal, the plaintiff pointing out a deposition would be needed, and then the company/insurer agreeing that that would be necessary and then taking the deposition. However if both sides - especially the plaintiff - agree that the claim isn't worth much if anything and that the time and expense of a deposition won't change anything then they'll just agree to settle. Settling without a deposition like here indicates a really poor case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Thanks
Reactions: rct
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Statement doesn't do anything for the plaintiff. The process would involve Wapo/insurer seeking dismissal, the plaintiff pointing out a deposition would be needed, and then the company/insurer agreeing that that would be necessary and then taking the deposition. However if both sides - especially the plaintiff - agreeing that the claim isn't worth much if anything and that the time and expense of a deposition won't change anything then they'll just agree to settle. Settling without a deposition like here indicates a really poor case.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies typically require statements from those involved when claims are made. I’m in the business.

And none of us knows what took place between the attorneys and what it was settled for. So now you are an attorney too?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone read the Real Clear Politics investigative report about the Steele dossier and the fake Russian at Brookings? Be interested to get a synopsis. Sounds like there's legs to this. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
995
ren hoek
ren hoek
chet
One generation of progressive leadership to plunge Venezuela into civil war
Replies
29
Views
837
Shula-holic
Shula-holic
LawFitz
Let's Talk Peaceful USA Realignment
2 3 4
Replies
181
Views
3K
AAABatteries
AAABatteries

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top