I'm going to wait for you all to have yours and if it doesn't kill you, then I'll have mine. However, if I end up being the only one posting here, I'll know what's happened and just not bother.
Coronavirus vaccine with 90% protection was just announced.
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
You fool, we're going to act as though we got it, tell you it worked great, and then you will get it first!
What, you guys haven't got it yet? Wow. I pity you.
I was just Turbo Jet Skiing around the Mojave Desert with my Good friends Tom Cruise and Jeff Gerstmann, and my Godfather Beyonce (roll with it) gave us our vaccines with Tang and an extra heaping of Sass!
We just laughed and laughed. Anyway, you guys need to get on it. It causes X-men mutations. I don't want you to miss out.
...
Seriously, I don't like getting consoles before a revision or two. I don't know how I feel about this vaccine straight out the gate.
No, I'd like them to do reporting. If it's not worth doing actual reporting, it's not worth repeating. You're ok with professional headline writers, I am not.
OK, so what would you like them to do with this story, then?
There's zero basis for this tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. But, the press aren't allowed to say so apparently, so... what, then? Must they pay undeserved credence to every wackjob 5G-tower theory?
If I have to take a guess, by the time either of you even can have access to it, it will already had been tried out on hundreds of thousands of people for weeks or months: doctors, nurses, seniors and people with chronic illness. I doubt either of you can pre-order or get day-one access to it even if you wanted to.
You're really developing a talent for just blasting past what someone is saying and doubling down on your initial perspective.
I can't tell them what to do, they have options. They can ignore it if they don't find it important. They can research the facts and present them if it is important. What isn't acceptable is posting an article with little more substance than the tweet they're reporting on.
They shouldn't, because it's newsworthy and in the public interest.
The "facts" were presented: it's baseless. You simply don't like the conclusion they drew, because it makes a politician you like look foolish. That's the long and the short of it.
...Why isn't that acceptable? Just giving a rundown on a simple event has been part of reporting since the inception of the profession. Some stories don't have more for the reporter to add. And there's nothing to "investigate", because it's just rank bollocks.
Does it come with a chip? Because I was promised a chip and I'm not taking a vaccine without one. If I can't get a chipped vaccine in this day and age then what have I been working towards? What has all this been about?
The chip will be replaced with NANO-MACHINES that will course through your bloodstream. It comes with the vaccine, but nobody is supposed to know!
This is smart. If you ever get lost, someone can bring you to a veterinarian and get your chip scanned so that you can be returned home!
a) I gave you multiple bases. Your repeated insistence that they don't exist is your own problem.
b) Did they ask for evidence? Almost literally any statement made by anyone ever could be described as "claimed without evidence". Where were these people a week ago when Joe Biden claimed without evidence that he was going to win Pennsylvania. Even people on here didn't believe it yet, and he didn't offer up any explanation, he just said he was going to win Pennsylvania. Sounds like an important claim to make without evidence. Better headline that he claimed it without evidence, amirite? Nah, they just took that one at face value, and if they didn't, they would have asked why he believed that. Did they ask Trump before writing this article why he believed that? No. They didn't try to see evidence. The case they intend to make is stronger if they don't do actual journalism.
You gave me multiple speculations and insinuations. You gave me absolutely nothing solid, no actual evidence. And yes, for an enormous conspiracy, you need a shred of evidence.
Oh my gosh. Almost every candidate in US political history has said something along the lines of, "we're on track to win!", "we're going to win!", etc. There's nothing notable about that. Similarly, before the election was called, Donald Trump also said he was on track to win, and... the media didn't preface it's reports with the disclaimer that it's "without evidence"!
Because it's fucking obvious.
If you don't see the difference between saying you reckon you'll win an election that's still going on (which is plausible), and claiming a massive conspiracy exists to cost you your job, then that's on you. The media obviously has different duties to those two stories.