Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

[taxiya]

In the case we're discussing, you.

As I expected. Here comes what I have prepared but did not post hoping to give you a chance to clarify.

Your accusations of "unsourced, making up and unchecked" are better suited to BBC or whatever MSM you want to defend.

If you really want evidence of who makes things up, you should be able to find it as easy as you dug up BBC's later "clearing-up". In case you don't want to (I believe you don't want to), I will help everybody else. Here is the screen dump of BBC two days ago, one day after the front page article



see that the report used "severe adverse incident" about the reason. That is a later proven false claim made up by Brazilian federal administration. Instead of doing a thorough investigation and verification BBC was happy picked it up. A fact that could be easily checked.

It seems that you spend more time in searching in the haystack to defend BBC's "clearing up", but no time to search for BBC's "spreading unfounded and unchecked misinformation" in the first place. That is double standard and bias by instinct.

All you have found are "technical deniability" that has been a integral part of the propaganda work from the bunch of BBC and alike. And you are just fulfilling the part of "deniability".

 

[solarz]

I typed 'vaccine' into the search window.

As of now there is no evidence to show that only the first article was on the front page.



And what you did write was wrong.

Media critiques are usually more convincing if they are based on facts. Also, as of now there is no evidence to show that only the first article was on the front page.

In the case we're discussing, you.

Doesn't seem like you're living in the 21st century yet.

"Front page" just means news that is pushed *to* you, as opposed to news that *you* have to search for, as you admittedly did for the follow up article.

It seems to me that the fact you had to do a search to find that article already proves the point. What more evidence do you want?

 

[taxiya]

Media critiques are usually more convincing if they are based on facts. Also, as of now there is no evidence to show that only the first article was on the front page.

So how long do you want us to wait for to find "clearing up" article to show up in the front page? Forever? Or Never?

Or you actually wish everybody would forget this in a week? In that way, you can say BBC has "cleared up" the damage without actually clearing up?

You are "amazing". Welcome to my "ignored" club.

 

[Klon]

As I expected. Here comes what I have prepared but did not post hoping to give you a chance to clarify.

Your accusations of "unsourced, making up and unchecked" are better suited to BBC or whatever MSM you want to defend.

Just to be clear, the words in quotation marks are not something I wrote.

If you really want evidence of who makes things up, you should be able to find it as easy as you dug up BBC's later "clearing-up". In case you don't want to (I believe you don't want to), I will help everybody else. Here is the screen dump of BBC two days ago, one day after the front page article

see that the report used "severe adverse incident" about the reason. That is a later proven false claim made up by Brazilian federal administration. Instead of doing a thorough investigation and verification BBC was happy picked it up. A fact that could be easily checked.

It seems that you spend more time in searching in the haystack to defend BBC's "clearing up", but no time to search for BBC's "spreading unfounded and unchecked misinformation" in the first place. That is double standard and bias by instinct.

All you have found are "technical deniability" that has been a integral part of the propaganda work from the bunch of BBC and alike. And you are just fulfilling the part of "deniability".

This is unfortunately largely incoherent or addressing something other than what was originally in question. To remind everyone reading, taxiya and another user claimed that the BBC wouldn't cover the resumption of the trial (taxiya: "BBC published an article earlier about the hault. But so far have not published the new finding. I doubt BBC would do so."). However, at that time there was already an article published, clearly proving them wrong, which is what my first post pointed out. Since then, there was an attempt to pivot to different claims (only one of the articles was on the front page, double standard and bias, etc.), presumably because someone can't accept they were wrong.

Doesn't seem like you're living in the 21st century yet.

"Front page" just means news that is pushed *to* you, as opposed to news that *you* have to search for, as you admittedly did for the follow up article.

So, is there any evidence that one story was pushed to more people or anything similar?

It seems to me that the fact you had to do a search to find that article already proves the point. What more evidence do you want?

Evidence that only the first story was on the front page. Also please note that I haven't said that this claim is false, only that so far it's uncorroborated.

So how long do you want us to wait for to find "clearing up" article to show up in the front page? Forever? Or Never?

Or you actually wish everybody would forget this in a week? In that way, you can say BBC has "cleared up" the damage without actually clearing up?

You are "amazing". Welcome to my "ignored" club.

You've totally missed the point. You still haven't presented evidence that only one article was on the front page. In any case, this wasn't your initial claim, which was already debunked.
I'll gladly ignore you as well, unless you keep lying, in which case I might correct you again.

 

[solarz]

You've totally missed the point. You still haven't presented evidence that only one article was on the front page. In any case, this wasn't your initial claim, which was already debunked.
I'll gladly ignore you as well, unless you keep lying, in which case I might correct you again.

You're the one who totally missed the point. BBC plastered the halting of the trial all over its front page, but you had to go and search for the article reporting the resumption of the trial. THAT is the point.

If you're trying to claim that Western media does not play these kind of propaganda games, then you're the one who's the liar!

 

[Blitzo]

You're the one who totally missed the point. BBC plastered the halting of the trial all over its front page, but you had to go and search for the article reporting the resumption of the trial. THAT is the point.

If you're trying to claim that Western media does not play these kind of propaganda games, then you're the one who's the liar!

Selective reporting is one way of shaping opinion, but selective signal boosting is a much more insidious and "deniable" way of shaping opinions.

 

[Klon]

You're the one who totally missed the point. BBC plastered the halting of the trial all over its front page, but you had to go and search for the article reporting the resumption of the trial. THAT is the point.

Repeating something endlessly doesn't make it true. It might be true, but as of now there is no evidence to show that only the first article was on the front page (I won't tire of copying this until the evidence is presented or people stop repeating this assertion as fact).

If you're trying to claim that Western media does not play these kind of propaganda games, then you're the one who's the liar!

This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. In this case, two SDF posters claimed that the BBC won't report something and when proven wrong, one tried to pivot to a different claim, still without providing any evidence. I don't take a position on this second point, but I do note that so far it's unsubstantiated. Even if it turns out to be true, it won't make the first claim correct.

 

[solarz]

Repeating something endlessly doesn't make it true. It might be true, but as of now there is no evidence to show that only the first article was on the front page (I won't tire of copying this until the evidence is presented or people stop repeating this assertion as fact).

This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. In this case, two SDF posters claimed that the BBC won't report something and when proven wrong, one tried to pivot to a different claim, still without providing any evidence. I don't take a position on this second point, but I do note that so far it's unsubstantiated. Even if it turns out to be true, it won't make the first claim correct.

LOL, you had to search for that second article, and you're still asking for evidence?

Tell you what, when BBC posts that article on its front page, then you can say we're wrong, mmmkay?

 

[Klon]

LOL, you had to search for that second article, and you're still asking for evidence?

When I was looking for the article, it was already 20 hours old. It could have spent plenty of time on the front page before being moved (theoretically; I don't know if this actually happened). Anyway, I didn't even look at the front page, which is huge with dozens of links. Instead I searched with a relevant keyword and found it. So yes, that I searched for that article doesn't mean anything.

Tell you what, when BBC posts that article on its front page, then you can say we're wrong, mmmkay?

There really is some massive disconnect here. How do you know it wasn't already on the front page? As of now, nothing about the relative prominence of each article has been demonstrated. Maybe only the first was on the front page, maybe only the second, neither or both. I don't know how people can keep acting like this is a settled question.
Actually, I don't even care. I never claimed that both articles received equal exposure. I noted that the opposite claim was unsourced and promoted by a person with a recent (immediate) record of being wrong on this topic.

 

[solarz]

When I was looking for the article, it was already 20 hours old. It could have spent plenty of time on the front page before being moved (theoretically; I don't know if this actually happened). Anyway, I didn't even look at the front page, which is huge with dozens of links. Instead I searched with a relevant keyword and found it. So yes, that I searched for that article doesn't mean anything.

There really is some massive disconnect here. How do you know it wasn't already on the front page? As of now, nothing about the relative prominence of each article has been demonstrated. Maybe only the first was on the front page, maybe only the second, neither or both. I don't know how people can keep acting like this is a settled question.
Actually, I don't even care. I never claimed that both articles received equal exposure. I noted that the opposite claim was unsourced and promoted by a person with a recent (immediate) record of being wrong on this topic.

@taxiya provided a screenshot of the first article on the front page of BBC. You had to search to find the follow up article.

That's plenty of evidence right there. Why do you feel the need to make suppositions? If you have evidence of the follow up article also being on the front page, then show it.

People act like this is a settled question because we've been seeing this kind of behavior for years from all Western media.