Media agrees “not to report” on suspected ebola cases in u.s.

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by poncho, Nov 6, 2014.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Pharmacologist reveals how press has bowed to government demand to keep Americans in the dark

    An eyebrow-raising admission at the end of a Forbes article written by pharmacologist David Kroll reveals that the media has agreed not to report on suspected Ebola cases in the United States.

    In a piece entitled Liberian Traveler At Duke Hospital Shows Preliminary Negative Result For Ebola, Kroll describes attending a press conference involving Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Aldona Wos.

    After revealing that “an unnamed official abruptly called the press conference to a close” when Wos was asked a difficult question about the suspected Ebola victim, Kroll then drops a bombshell.

    “The Associated Press and other press outlets have agreed not to report on suspected cases of Ebola in the United States until a positive viral RNA test is completed,” he writes.

    Read More At: http://www.infowars.com/media-agrees-not-to-report-on-suspected-ebola-cases-in-u-s/
     
  2. PreachTony

    PreachTony
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly, we'd be a lot better informed as a nation if the media would stop reporting "suspected" situations and simply stick to the facts. But, we're basically a captive audience to a media that is more concerned with selling copy than with reporting actual news. The media is so afraid of offending their corporate overlords...er, sponsors, that they have stopped the hard reporting that once made them famous.

    Just look at the reaction to Sharyl Attkisson. She was a reporter with CBS, and her new book shows just how much the media has coddled liberal politicians.

    As an aside, I would be careful in just how much gravity you lend to infowars.com. Alex Jones isn't exactly the most unbiased, neutral source of news out there.:smilewinkgrin:
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I'd be happy to use unbiased, neutral sources of news if you'll post a list of them here.

    Imperfect as infowars is they are one of the few sources of information out there that doesn't bow to the corporate interests the mainstream media does. I have seen many posts here that use "credible" mainstream sources of information that are totally devoid of any proof that what they are reporting on is true, yet it still passes as "credible" information. People believe what they are "reporting" on as if it were loaded with documented evidence.

    The alleged "Russian invasion" of Ukraine is but one example. I've come to believe after many years of pointing out the lack of evidence and contradictions in these mainstream reports posted here that people don't care if what they are reading is actually accurate and true so long as it confirms their own preconceived notions and prejudices. Just for fun ask one of these posters to provide evidence to support what their "source" is claiming. I would expect three reactions in most cases. Silence, demonization or a link to another corporate controlled source that is equally devoid of hard evidence.

    Look at all the threads posted here and in the politics forum on any given week. What do they have in common? Accurate reporting and documented evidence or "reports" skewed one way or another to fit certain paradigms? Are these "credible" sources trying to inform us or manipulate us? From my own long time experience on this board I have found the major problem people here have with infowars isn't so much the content of what they report but rather that the content doesn't mesh with their "left vs right" paradigm.

    I think you might be surprised at how many people here secretly visit prison planet and infowars regularly to find out what the corporate media isn't telling them. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #3 poncho, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014
  4. PreachTony

    PreachTony
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish such a list existed, poncho. For American news sources, you have Fox leaning to the right while ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC all lean leftward. Consider also that these channels are attacked for the bias of their opinion shows. Fox News gets slammed for being a "right-wing news source" because of Sean Hannity, who isn't even a reporter.

    BBC news is usually pretty neutral. Oddly enough, the news reported by Al Jazeera is often quite neutral. Again, it's the opinion pieces that skew public perception of these networks.

    I've just always seen Alex Jones as being in the same tin-foil-hat boat with Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Al Sharpton, and Ron Paul. He's always been a tad too conspiracy-theory minded for my tastes.
     
  5. CatMommy

    CatMommy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's not a credible news outlet reporting this alleged claim.
    Google keyword search:media pressured not to report ebola cases

    It's the perfect conspiracy vehicle though. A non-credible news outlet claims the Obama administration pressured all credible corporate owned media not to report Ebola outbreaks. People search for stories about that, looking for credible corporate owned media sites to report and find nothing.
    Ipso facto, the conspiracy article is proved right.
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    What people work very hard to overlook is that both the "liberal and conservative" sides in the mainstream information flow is controlled by the same big corporate interests.

    The "think tanks" who formulate, I mean "advise" the government on domestic and foreign policy that look to be either left or right leaning are controlled by the same big corporate interests.

    Both major political parties are controlled by the same big corporate interests.

    Would these big corporate interests that control both the left and the right in all these areas want us to understand that they control both sides in the "left vs right" paradigm, or would they deny it and call anyone who points out the mass of documented evidence "conspiracy theorists" and "kooks"?

    The truth is the big corporate interests control both sides of the debate and they do it to keep us divided and arguing amongst ourselves. A house divided is easier to control.

    If we as a nation ever figured out who our real rulers are and united against the big corporate interests that have gained control of our government and mass media they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hawaii of holding onto the power they have usurped.

    And they know it. They will continue to keep us divided along religious, racial and political lines as long as we'll play along and sleep walk through the false left vs right paradigm.

    It's time to wake up.
     
    #6 poncho, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    To say that they "lean" that way is an understatement at best.
     
  8. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,181
    Likes Received:
    610
    I see you've met Poncho...
     
  9. PreachTony

    PreachTony
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    You'd think more liberals would be into NASCAR, seeing as all they do is turn left...
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    Yea well except for the road courses
     
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    "Credible" is a matter of perspective. Lefties feel Maddow is credible while righties feel O'Rielly is credible.

    This . . . “The Associated Press and other press outlets have agreed not to report on suspected cases of Ebola in the United States until a positive viral RNA test is completed,"

    Has been disappeared down the memory hole and replaced with this . . . http://blog.ap.org/2014/10/17/advisory-on-ebola-coverage/

    The great thing about the MSM is it can't keep a secret very long. Sooner or later the truth will seep out of the cracks. It may be on the back page and it may be a month or a year from now.
     
    #11 poncho, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    This post is an informal fallacy called ad hominem. Attacking the source is not a legitimate means of debate. Deal with the info alone.

    I also disagree that the claim, by poncho's sourc, is proven right in any way.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    This is funny coming from you Rev.

    You still haven't provided any evidence to support your own "source's" claim that Russia fired shells into Ukraine.

    How long has it been now? Couple of months?

    While we're at it were's the evidence that the "Russian separatists" shot down the Malaysian airliner? Where's all the evidence that Russia invaded Ukraine?

    These were big headlines from "credible" sources not to long ago and most folks here immediately believed them. Where's all the evidence?
     
  14. CatMommy

    CatMommy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe you are confused and that is because you do not know what an ad hominem is.

    I addressed the information presented in the OP by demonstrating only those similar sites to that linked in the OP are ones that align with conspiracy theories and outright fallacies. And it is they who are reporting what the OP claims is credible.

    When no legitimate news agency supports the claim the information source in the OP reports the reporting is suspect.
     
  15. CatMommy

    CatMommy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    And for the record, David Kroll is a contributor to Forbes online.
    Pharma & Healthcare 11/02/2014 @ 10:06PM 38,309 views

    Liberian Traveler At Duke Hospital Negative For Ebola

    Continued from page 1




    (Sic)"....
    **CORRECTION: This piece originally and inadvertently suggested that The Associated Press and other news organizations were in agreement “not to report on suspected cases of Ebola in the United States until a positive viral RNA test is completed.” I regret this misinterpretation. In fact, AP is in no agreement with other outlets regarding news coverage. AP’s own position is that it will still report some suspected cases of Ebola if they cause enough disruption, even if there’s no confirmation the person has Ebola.
    To be fully clear, I am providing both the link to the October 17 AP advisory and the full text of the advisory, as follows:
    EDITORS:
    We’re increasingly hearing reports of “suspected” cases of Ebola in the United States and Europe. The AP has exercised caution in reporting these cases and will continue to do so.
    Most of these suspected cases turn out to be negative. Our bureaus monitor them, but we have not been moving stories or imagery simply because a doctor suspects Ebola and routine precautions are taken while the patient is tested. To report such a case, we look for a solid source saying Ebola is suspected and some sense the case has caused serious disruption or reaction. Are buildings being closed and substantial numbers of people being evacuated or isolated? Is a plane being diverted? Is the suspected case closely related to another, confirmed Ebola case?
    When we do report a suspected case, we will seek to keep our stories brief and in perspective.
    The AP "

     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    Posted by catmommy



    The problem with your argument is that you cannot prove, by the argument you made and by attacking the source (ad hominem), that poncho is wrong. I do not know if the claim is true or not and quite honestly poncho brings to this board on a regular basis some outlandish claims.


    However, I think it is possible that news agencies have agreed not to report on "possible" cases of Ebola until there is a firm confirmation that someone has it. Also, I do not believe that is all that unreasonable.

    Where poncho and his sources vear off of reality, imho, is how to interpret that. They see it as some negative conspiracy to hide something. If it is true, then I see it as being careful not to cause nationwide panic.

    Honestly, I would rather they report all of it. However, when news agencies are trying to do the responsible thing and not over report on something then that is hard to criticize.

    Alot of what poncho posts has some truth to it. Usually it is the interpretation of that truth where he and I disagree and I do not have to attack the source in order to disagree with him.
     
  17. CatMommy

    CatMommy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again and for the final time, you demonstrate an absence of knowledge as to the definition and application of Ad hominem.
    Further, you misrepresent the truth of my remarks. I have never "attacked" Poncho. I addressed and called into question the credibility of the source, as is evident in the reading of my first post on this particular issue.

    Secondly, I have proven that the OP source is errant.
    Perhaps you'd like to read the Forbes link so that you understand David Kroll's own Forbes article renounces the OP source claims.

    Thank you.


     
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    I did not say you attacked poncho but you did attack the source, he provided, as "not credible" and compared it to other "corporate news" of which you deemed credible. That is an ad hominem. Attacking the source is an ad hominem. More specifically it is an Ad Hominem (abusive).
     
  19. CatMommy

    CatMommy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Terribly sad.

    This is why you are wrong. Firstly, it was never an ad hominem, by definition of the term itself. Secondly, it is not abusive, nor was it ever abusive to recognize the OP source, that is the linked news site, is able to be deemed non-credible. It is not abusive to recognize, and link via keywords, the fact that mainstream media has not reported what the OP source reporting site has on this matter. Rather, it is the truth. Which you seem to insist on ignoring.

    And finally, and most importantly for the sake of those members here who are interested in availing themselves of the truth, the Forbes article I posted, which David Knoll contributes to as an author, proves the OP linked source is lying.

    Therefore, posting a link that shows the OP source is not credible is not abusive. Nor has it ever qualified as an ad hominem.

    What is abusive is that you refuse to recognize the OP news site has been proven false. And you persist in laying false charges against me.
     
    #19 CatMommy, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780

    Ok here is the post to which I objected too. You attacked the source as non credible simply because you do not like the source. Just because other news sights are not reporting on this does not make poncho's source not credible. The lack of reporting from other people is irrelevant. Therefore it is an informal fallacy known as "Ad Hominem (abusive)" the category is Ad Hominem and the "abusive" is a sub category of an ad hominem.

    What you need to do is leave the source alone and just deal with the info. Poncho has post a source that has made a claim. Did the source substantiate that claim? Did the source prove beyond and reasonable doubt that their claim is true. Fact is the answer to both of those questions is no and that is sufficient without engaging in informal fallacies.
     
    #20 Revmitchell, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014

Share This Page

Loading...