Still doesn't change the fact that the ones that were dumb enough to take it, took it in a panic or thinking nothing would happen to them without doing what it's actually in that liquid or drug. Not the smartest decision. Regardless of which side, it's why you talk or wait for the medical experts and not so armchair know nothing know it all with a webcam or some talking box on Fox News.
Of course just taking the experimental medicine is not smart. But at the same time people treating it like it was for horses in the media, when they shoulda just been clear that it just needs more research and it could be helpful or not, is definitely not what we should expect form the news. I can forgive scared laymen who potentially may have lost family to covid or are unable to work and aren't thinking straight but the media should be held to a higher standard. The reason they did this btw, is that pharmaceutical corporations are some of the biggest advertisers who buy tons of ads for the media and Ivermectin's patent had ran out so they didn't stand to gain any serious profit from selling it like they could with the vaccines, so it wasn't concern for the public motivating them, it was greed.
Massive caveats here.
Firstly, it is well known that an audience can alter people's views: they need that audience, so they are liable to shift their actions and statements to gratify and grow the audience. Thus the spectator has no idea at all whether they are saying what they believe, they could be putting it on because they think they'll get more views and likes. Secondly, self-employment is often risky and insecure: many people will prefer the safety of a regular paycheck, thus a job writing for an online magazine. Or of course they are potentially good writers, but poor on camera: typing up stuff for Polygon etc. plays to their strengths where Twitch/YouTube doesn't.
You're not wrong on that. I just think it eventually surfaces and if you're not real you will not garner or maintain an audience long term. There's a reason why people like Angry Joe have lasted for so long. Meanwhile audience captured folks or other fake people don't go far.
Neither of these are really fair criticisms.
Just because someone hasn't played games for a while doesn't mean they can't start up again and do the job fine. (I'd feel a bit funny about a game journo that had never played games, unless the hook was about a newbie's experience of getting into games.) And having poor dexterity at a game shouldn't bar anyone from being able to play, enjoy and appraise a game: especially when that game is BG3 where good dexterity and reflexes aren't remotely necessary. Also, I like some people with bad dexterity and reflexes playing certain games, because it makes my score better.
I think you're applying the standard of a general gamer to judge a journalist here. Sure, you can start anytime and it's valid and all that. But you don't get to be the authoritative voice on the subject you're just a novice at best at. And if you wanna make a journal of your foray into this new experience you couch your words in that inexperience and lack of authority if you seek to be modest. You don't just fake it till you make it, opining left and right as if you're the right hand of god on the subject on things you clearly have no clue on.
The bad dexterity isn't an issue of someone like, missing an arm or something, it's just them not having practiced at all so sucking at doing button inputs due to inexperience. There was a literal blind man who placed well on the SF6 tourney at evo, playing through sound ques and executing motions he couldn't even see with his fingers. You can train dexterity if you just put in the time, and it should be required that someone has that minimal time investment before they start telling others what's what for their feedback to be of use.
