Corvid-19 and its impact (name edit)

[Silvanus]

To briefly return to the discussion we were having on the previous page, about whether medical professionals have reason to fear for their jobs if they contradict Trump (after the journalist asked Fauci if he was speaking entirely of his own accord):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/rick-bright-trump-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus

Dr. Rick Bright, charged with procurement of coronavirus medication, was abruptly removed without given reason, and claims it's down to disagreeing with Trump's unfounded claims about Hydroxychloroquine.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't accept a statement like "I was one of the people who accompanied the bishop during services at that time, I can attest church policy would never have left him unattended in that scenario" as definitive, because there is always a possibility that every once in the while the normal policy doesn't happen for whatever reason.

You can state what the normal circumstance was and it has a certain amount of weight in terms of probability, but it really needs to be a specific memory about the precisely that time and event to be the strongest.

Here's the thing: both the clergy and lay people do their parts in a mass on a schedule. There's likely records of who was involved in any given mass. But the victim didn't name a specific mass, it was some Sunday when he was 13 years old. No witness can assert a specific memory about precisely the time and event without being told when that time and event happened. So by my understanding they pulled in people who were likely witnesses to his alibi given the specifics of the accusation, but the accusation isn't specific enough for any witness to say it's totally impossible.

 

[Agema]

Here's the thing: both the clergy and lay people do their parts in a mass on a schedule. There's likely records of who was involved in any given mass. But the victim didn't name a specific mass, it was some Sunday when he was 13 years old. No witness can assert a specific memory about precisely the time and event without being told when that time and event happened. So by my understanding they pulled in people who were likely witnesses to his alibi given the specifics of the accusation, but the accusation isn't specific enough for any witness to say it's totally impossible.

Yes, that's fair enough. But the point remains that you cannot blanket deny something happened because a contradicts a normal way people do things, when we all know the normal way of doing things doesn't actually happen every time.

I'm really not trying to say the bishop is guilty of that particular crime - I'm just saying that I don't think he's as obviously innocent as some of his defenders have presented it.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, that's fair enough. But the point remains that you cannot blanket deny something happened because a contradicts a normal way people do things, when we all know the normal way of doing things doesn't actually happen every time.

I'm really not trying to say the bishop is guilty of that particular crime - I'm just saying that I don't think he's as obviously innocent as some of his defenders have presented it.

I suspect you might not be Catholic. Our church services are rigidly formulaic. The normal way of doing things might not happen literally every time, but that's rare enough that any deviation from the norm is noteworthy. We once had a visiting priest do the sign of peace after the intercessions instead of after the Our Father, and people were whiplashed (it's an allowed variation, but I had to look it up).

If a bishop snuck away to the back immediately after a mass, every old lady in the building would notice immediately that they didn't get to say hi on the way out. It's like ringing the bell for Pavlov's dogs and then not giving them a treat.

 

[Trunkage]

Just an update:

In the US
March 23: 689 deaths
April 23: 50 236 deaths

That's around the normal number of deaths caused by flu each year happening in one month.

But... now we should disinfect intravenously

 

[Trunkage]

But your right, I should just shut my mouth and just accept how things are.

I mean, I'd be a pretty extreme hypocrite if I said that to you. I'm just saying that had you ammended your statement of "Well, now you have some idea how it is being a leftie or liberal" with "when I go to places that I know people will disagree with me and proactively engage with them."

And I'd still say, do you really think I don't know what it's like to argue with a wall and be demonized?

Nope, I totally think you've been demonised before. I was just claiming that I might have had more instances since I went on certain other forums. I hope you recognise that, while we may disagree with you, we aren't hurling insults at you. That's uncommon on both sides.

It's funny, I was looking at comments on the Daily Wire and Sam Seder's program today. You could have copied and pasted some of the comments, with just a few tweaks (like replacing destroying lives with destroying the economy. And thus lives). I made similar comments about Occupy Wall street and the Tea Party in 2009. A lot of rhetoric is similar, even if the desired outcomes were different.

First cab off the ranks should be Larry Nassar. A lot of evidence was just he said, she said with maybe more available time on his hands based on schedules.

So, do you think Michael Jackson did dodgy things with children?

Ok, but with Nassar and Jackson, there are corroborating witnesses that can attest those men were alone with the children for periods of time when they might have committed the assaults. With Pell, he's being accused of molesting boys in public without anyone else noticing.

Like, to swing back around Agema's comment: he wouldn't leave his hypothetical children alone with Pell. That's what makes the assault implausible: nobody did leave their kids unsupervised with him that lead to the alleged incident. It's not just a he said/he said scenario. He said/she said situations are those where the only evidence is two people's testimony. If there was physical evidence of the incident, it certainly wouldn't he said/she said. If the alleged perpetrator has an alibi, it's also not he said/she said. After mass, priests stand at the main exit and shake hands with the people leaving. After mass, other people than the priest use the sacristy. Bishops have assistants that follow them around. You have to find a way to dismiss all 3 of those things before there was even an opportunity to commit the crime. Nassar was alone behind closed doors physically touching young girls, and obviously can't dispute that. Pell has multiple alibis.

Now, I think it was he was alone for 30 mins with the boys. But, the case was years ago, so I may not be remembering correctly. This is much less time than Nassar or Jackson was with their kids. And Jackson was acquitted. In any case, I would like to know how the judges reached their decision, as others thought it was beyond reasonable doubt. Why didn't they? Also, we didn't get to find the specifics of the case and maybe that makes the whole issue much clearer.

 

[Agema]

But... now we should disinfect intravenously

Not necessarily. He might have meant intramuscular, intrathecal or subcutaneous injection.

In any case, I would like to know how the judges reached their decision, as others thought it was beyond reasonable doubt. Why didn't they? Also, we didn't get to find the specifics of the case and maybe that makes the whole issue much clearer.

I only know of England and Wales here, but by extension with the Australian system deriving relatively until recently from that system, I'm guessing it's the same.

The judge usually "directs" the jury before their deliberations, which can include basically telling them the accused is innocent or guilty from the judge's (and by implication the law's) perspective. However, the jury can ignore the judge's direction and find as they please, and the judge cannot overturn their decision.

The appeals court and higher can overturn the jury's decision, but the basic principle is that the jury's verdict should stand unless the judges have a very good reason to overturn it. Firstly, as basic practice, overruling the jury should not be taken lightly. Secondly, that the jury had access to the full information of the trial where the appeals judges get fragments and summaries, so the jury is therefore held - in principle - as being in a better place to assess testimony.

Thus I would guess the appeals court judges decided that they did not have sufficient grounds to overrule the jury's belief in the alleged victim's credibility. The Aus High Court evidently decided otherwise, that the jury put too much stock in the credibility of the alleged victim.

 

[tstorm823]

But... now we should disinfect intravenously

Feel free to have a good laugh at this one. Suggesting we can disinfect the virus internally or blast our lungs with UV light is pretty exceptionally dumb.

But at least it's not evil. The media response is evil. Trump made stupid suggestions and said the doctors would have to figure it out. Yes, dumb, very dumb, fundamental misunderstanding of biology, got it. But there are people who respect the president. And not all of them will have watched the press conference, they'll read the headlines. If Donald Trump HAD literally told people to inject themselves with bleach, it would still be ethically reprehensible to put it in a headline. They know there are people who trust the president, and they're putting incredibly dangerous words in his mouth, and slapping it at the top of the page in bold letters.

Look at this crap: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-injection-disinfectant-beat-coronavirus-clean-lungs-n1191216

Not only are they putting it in the headline, they're not including that it's wrong. If you find that article in google news, it looks like this:

You can't put the part that might kill people at the top and then explain it later. I understand, the media probably does things like this because they see Trump's name and instinctively assume whatever he says is the opposite of true (and this time they're right about it), but I don't think they could come up with a more dangerous headline if they tried. It's like they want people to die.

 

[Agema]

But at least it's not evil. The media response is evil.

Well, no it isn't. It's arguably societally unhelpful in ways, but by journalistic ethics the right thing to do.

The news is to report facts about what happened as accurately as possible. It is supposed to take a neutral tone, where it may allows others to analyse and assess but should not itself. When the reporter overtly takes sides it becomes opinion, not news: it's not the reporter's place to call the president wrong. One might argue a headline could be something like "Experts condemn Trump's suggestion of injecting disinfectant". But the core newsworthy fact is that Trump suggested injecting disinfectant, and that sort of headline the media have used is the most direct and neutral summary of it.

I think this goes into an area where responsible media can do a lot of hard thinking. The BBC, for instance, had a long investigation into why a lot of the public weren't taking accurate information away from BBC reports (the Beeb perhaps care more than many as it has a charter obligation to inform and educate), and thinking about how it presented information. Indeed one thing that was frequently cited as a problem is the concept of the neutral presenter who can chair an expert and a crank arguing, and just lets them speak - but that effectively lets lies be presented with equal weighting to truth.

I think it's actually a harder line to judge than we might immediately think.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

2020 has not been a good year for my family.

I'm getting ready to move to Florida in August to take care of a family member who was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer. And in the space of a week, I lost my Grandmother and Mother to Covid. I've been away dealing. I'll probably skulk back off into the internet ether after this, or lurk as this is taking a good deal of my energy as it is.

I legitimately hope everyone is doing well. That your friends and family are doing well. And just make it known how you feel about them. I didn't even get a chance to talk to my mother before she passed.

But... now we should disinfect intravenously

Feel free to have a good laugh at this one. Suggesting we can disinfect the virus internally or blast our lungs with UV light is pretty exceptionally dumb.

But at least it's not evil. The media response is evil. Trump made stupid suggestions and said the doctors would have to figure it out. Yes, dumb, very dumb, fundamental misunderstanding of biology, got it. But there are people who respect the president. And not all of them will have watched the press conference, they'll read the headlines. If Donald Trump HAD literally told people to inject themselves with bleach, it would still be ethically reprehensible to put it in a headline. They know there are people who trust the president, and they're putting incredibly dangerous words in his mouth, and slapping it at the top of the page in bold letters.

Look at this crap: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-injection-disinfectant-beat-coronavirus-clean-lungs-n1191216

Not only are they putting it in the headline, they're not including that it's wrong. If you find that article in google news, it looks like this:

You can't put the part that might kill people at the top and then explain it later. I understand, the media probably does things like this because they see Trump's name and instinctively assume whatever he says is the opposite of true (and this time they're right about it), but I don't think they could come up with a more dangerous headline if they tried. It's like they want people to die.

If placed in a Vacuum, Trump's actions are uniquely not evil. Willful ignorance isn't evil as long as the implementation of such a choice does not directly affect the lives of others. I willfully refuse Pluto's designation as a dwarf planet. It was called a Planet when I was raised. It will always be a planet in my heart.

People will not lose jobs or property due to my beliefs. There is no spinning of that knowledge that could cause someone to harm themselves or worse. It's a willfully ignorant thing that brings no harm. Likewise, there is no malice intertwined with it.

That is a minor issue. Let's take another. I don't believe in seat belts. I am assured that they kill more people than they save. I read articles online, and I'm thoroughly convinced of their harm. Willfully ignorant. If I get in a car crash and die, well that's just me. No outright evil there.

But I have a child in the car with me. And I'm not going to put one of those death straps on her. And she unfortunately meets my same fate. No one is going to laud me as a hero for following my beliefs. Especially after having my beliefs hoisted on my child and what occurred because of that. A well intentioned act can be Evil. We only have to look in our own country history and see the attempts to "Civilize the Natives" for blaring examples.

But Trump can't claim willful ignorance here. Using your same link, He is purposefully leading his new claim and placing it on a Doctor when it inevitably goes wrong [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/dr-birx-goes-viral-reaction-trump-s-injection-comments-n1191841].


He lines his halls and his advisers with people who will do what he says. He hides behind them. It's impossible that for almost four years now, he can only find 'the best people' that happen to agree with his way of thinking. It's also been shown that Trump will fire and Oust anyone who disagrees with him, and will back anyone who does agree with him as long as that person will keep the heat off of him.

Dr. Rick Bright [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52400721] is a grim reminder of that.

He is trying to lead through puppets. Willful sycophants who will state this inane ideas for the power to get things done his way, but the deniability that "Oh, I was just listening to my advisers. You heard her say it. She's a doctor, not me." That is evil, due to the misdirection.

And let's be absolutely fair and honest here.

MSNBC said exactly what the president said. That is what is in the title. Disinfectant.

Between you and the article, you are the only one who said Bleach.

Seriously. Open up the link again. Ctrl+F. Type in 'Bleach'. I did it several times. I tested "Birx", "Disinfectant", "Trump", "Beat" (has three hits).

Nor would it be reprehensible to actually put it in the headline. Because that is literally what reporting is. You report on what happens. If someone you like says something bad, you don't write "Public misunderstands what Celebrity says" the day that it happened. You write "Celebrity says this". You report this incident. You get every bit of the facts out first and you print that.

Afterwards, when the words are clarified, you print that. Then you print rebuttals, op-eds, and the later after you give just the facts of the incident during the first moments of the incident.

They are not putting words in Trump's mouth. No one said Bleach. The article you linked is almost a word for word transcript of what happened along with how it happened. I invite anyone to open up the link, view it, listen along and read along. And then come back and show us what words they added or amended to make Trump look bad.

If the end, we can't find any... I'm afraid this is a case of You putting words in the Media's mouth to make them look bad.

 

[tstorm823]

Well, no it isn't. It's arguably societally unhelpful in ways, but by journalistic ethics the right thing to do.

The news is to report facts about what happened as accurately as possible. It is supposed to take a neutral tone, where it may allows others to analyse and assess but should not itself. When the reporter overtly takes sides it becomes opinion, not news: it's not the reporter's place to call the president wrong. One might argue a headline could be something like "Experts condemn Trump's suggestion of injecting disinfectant". But the core newsworthy fact is that Trump suggested injecting disinfectant, and that sort of headline the media have used is the most direct and neutral summary of it.

I think this goes into an area where responsible media can do a lot of hard thinking. The BBC, for instance, had a long investigation into why a lot of the public weren't taking accurate information away from BBC reports (the Beeb perhaps care more than many as it has a charter obligation to inform and educate), and thinking about how it presented information. Indeed one thing that was frequently cited as a problem is the concept of the neutral presenter who can chair an expert and a crank arguing, and just lets them speak - but that effectively lets lies be presented with equal weighting to truth.

I think it's actually a harder line to judge than we might immediately think.

I'm willing to judge that line here. Because the headline is 100% meant to say "Trump Said a Stupid". That's why it's news.

Even the president of the United States isn't so important that him saying things is inherently news worthy. The worth of the news is dependant on what he said. Trump stood in front of reporters and asked scientists to look into injecting people with disinfectant. That's only newsworthy because it is dumb. If he stood there and asked them to look into something reasonable like effectiveness of homemade masks, there'd be no headline. The decision to run the story is not neutral. Which is fine, the truth doesn't have to be evenly weighted between sides. If you run a story for the express purpose of informing the public of the President's mistake, writing a neutral headline is lying.

And like, does this not look sick to you? They run articles with the purpose of tearing Trump down, and they don't hesitate to propagate dangerous misinformation to do so. That's a sickness.

 

[tstorm823]

Between you and the article, you are the only one who said Bleach.

I'm aware. I was making a hypothetical worse statement. You wouldn't write a headline about an anti-vaxxer and have it read "Dr. So-and-So recommends not vaccinating your children", even if that's what they said.

Nor would it be reprehensible to actually put it in the headline. Because that is literally what reporting is. You report on what happens. If someone you like says something bad, you don't write "Public misunderstands what Celebrity says" the day that it happened. You write "Celebrity says this". You report this incident. You get every bit of the facts out first and you print that.

Accurate headline option that wouldn't potentially lead to people killing themselves:
"Trump asks advisors about treating covid-19 with disinfectant."
Or how about:
"Trump proposes ineffective treatment options for covid-19."

And like, I'm not a professional writer. There's 1000 ways to do that headline without saying "suggest...inject...disinfectant...lungs" and risking the consequences. Even the word "suggests" is a bit suspicious, because Trump definitely suggests it as in "put forward", but suggests can also be read as "recommends", which isn't true and is dangerous.

 

[Silvanus]

Trump stood in front of reporters and asked scientists to look into injecting people with disinfectant. That's only newsworthy because it is dumb.

Do you not think it newsworthy to know how uninformed your highest representative is during a pandemic?

These claims are exceptional. The exceptional is newsworthy, when it concerns the highest office of state.

On one point I can agree: the news should perhaps have included the term "falsely" in the headline. But we all know who would have objected most strongly to that wording. After all, you yourself objected when I described Hydroxychloroquine in such definitive, dismissive terms.

 

[tstorm823]

Do you not think it newsworthy to know how uninformed your highest representative is during a pandemic?

I just said it was newsworthy. Because they're dumb. That's the news.

On one point I can agree: the news should perhaps have included the term "falsely" in the headline. But we all know who would have objected most strongly to that wording. After all, you yourself objected when I described Hydroxychloroquine in such definitive, dismissive terms.

You mean I object to lies and untruths. When someone says something definitively without definitive knowledge, that's dishonest.

 

[Agema]

I'm willing to judge that line here. Because the headline is 100% meant to say "Trump Said a Stupid". That's why it's news.

It is important. Because he says things that are untrue or stupid with terrifying dependability. The best reason to not report them is that they aren't news because it happens so often... But it keeps happening and it is genuinely awful for a president to have such catastrophic relationship with the truth, and the press should document it.

And like, does this not look sick to you? They run articles with the purpose of tearing Trump down, and they don't hesitate to propagate dangerous misinformation to do so. That's a sickness.

He deserves to be torn down. It's awkward for you, because he's your party's chosen. But he is, objectively, the most incredibly awful bullshitter. Is this the way you think it should be? Should this be the future? Should it really not matter that the president can step up to a podium ignorant, utterly self-absorbed, and with no agenda bar their own self-aggrandisement? The press wouldn't be saying a damn thing about injecting disinfectant if it weren't for that cretin in the Oval Office. He's the disease. Whatever the press ends up reporting because of his incomptence and idiocy is just a symptom.

This is what this "blame the media" stuff really is (although a lot of it predates Trump). Yeah, the press often aren't great, nobody's pretending they are. But a lot of it is really a cover for the shittiness of the politicians who don't want to answer for their inadequacies. They need someone else to blame, and who better than the messenger.

And you know what? I'm bored listening to this crap from Republicans. They can remove the speck from the eye of the press when they've removed the plank from their own. Until then... just don't bother.

 

[Silvanus]

I just said it was newsworthy. Because they're dumb. That's the news.

You seemed to be disagreeing that the news outlets should report that the claim was made. If I misunderstood and that's not the case, apologies.

You mean I object to lies and untruths. When someone says something definitively without definitive knowledge, that's dishonest.

You're quite okay with definitive statements for the sake of public safety. It's a matter of public safety to debunk baseless claims about ineffective drugs. There's ample evidence of that.

Trump has financial interests in Hydroxychloroquine, doesn't he?

 

[tstorm823]

Trump has financial interests in Hydroxychloroquine, doesn't he?

No. If you saw that reported , it was based on him having a tiny investment in one French drug company through a mutual fund, that if the company took off by curing covid-19, would stand to add a couple hundred dollars to Trump's net worth.

So, no.

 

[Trunkage]

But at least it's not evil. The media response is evil. Trump made stupid suggestions and said the doctors would have to figure it out. Yes, dumb, very dumb, fundamental misunderstanding of biology, got it. But there are people who respect the president. And not all of them will have watched the press conference, they'll read the headlines. If Donald Trump HAD literally told people to inject themselves with bleach, it would still be ethically reprehensible to put it in a headline. They know there are people who trust the president, and they're putting incredibly dangerous words in his mouth, and slapping it at the top of the page in bold letters.

I mean, that's like calling George Wallace dumb but anyone who reported his Segregation speech as the real racists.

Like, I understand the fact that platforming misinformation is bad. YouTube is trying to fix this all the time. The ban on the word Coronavirus being a prime example. But this isn't misinformation. It's just relaying the presidents words. But let's have a look at what your examples.

Accurate headline option that wouldn't potentially lead to people killing themselves:
"Trump asks advisors about treating covid-19 with disinfectant."

He did no such thing. He just went ahead said. This would be a lie. Maybe you could say 'told', because he certainly isn't waiting for an answer and wasn't interested in information. Also, this have the same exact problem of the example you thought was evil. In fact, your making seem like the experts AGREE with the president. Because, as you said, there are people who didn't see the press conference and wouldn't know the context

"Trump proposes ineffective treatment options for covid-19."

What do you think would have happened here? You are disagreeing with Trump. That automatically makes you Fake News. Those certain people aren't going to listen to you now. So... you have the same problem, as they will just get their information elsewhere.

These suggestions are probably worse than what you thought was evil. It's either telling lies, giving weight to the idea that it would work or making sure more misinformation comes out.

Let's look at a real example: Trump, officials suggest coronavirus is weakened by sunlight and humidity [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-coronavirus-sunlight-heat-and-humidity] In the first sentence, it states that the officials and Trump are actually arguing, not in unison as the headline suggests. But then has the head of Science in Homeland security providing a study that suggests that heavy sunlights kills corona on surfaces quickly. That's only one official. So, quite possibly a bunch of misinformation, as later stated, Bill Bryan make sure he adds this is one study and everything is in the nascent stage. And, since its Fox, I gather they wanted this info out so everyone can get back to work, since that's been their theme

If they are talking about the press conference about this, it was probably one of Trump's better ones. He was asking an expert about sunlight and providing follow up questions to add further details. Great information (I'd probably add that it was messy due to the way Trump asked questions, but that's a minor quibble.) That's also not part of the headline either.

Yeah, I understand that headlines are a problem. We've got to push people to read past the headline, because it's problematic everywhere.

 

[Silvanus]

No. If you saw that reported , it was based on him having a tiny investment in one French drug company through a mutual fund, that if the company took off by curing covid-19, would stand to add a couple hundred dollars to Trump's net worth.

So, no.

You're right. Snopes has covered it too here [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-profit-hydroxychloroquine/].

I imagine Trump is pushing the drug because he read something about it somewhere, and just wants to give a hopeful message. No malice (or finance, for whatever difference there is): just general lazy unwillingness to do any research.

It's noteworthy, though, that several TV personalities (including a Fox host) had been touting the drug to Trump beforehand. If it's just ignorance & hopefulness on his part, he's also very easily led by others. And that's a concern as far as corruption is concerned. How hard is it to get your pet drug peddled by the Federal Government?

 

[tstorm823]

It's noteworthy, though, that several TV personalities (including a Fox host) had been touting the drug to Trump beforehand. If it's just ignorance & hopefulness on his part, he's also very easily led by others. And that's a concern as far as corruption is concerned. How hard is it to get your pet drug peddled by the Federal Government?

Why were they touting the drug? Could it have been that it was a genuine top contender among the list of potential treatments being tested? Could it be that Bayer announced they were donating a mountain of it [https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bayer-is-donating-its-malaria-drug-that-could-help-coronavirus-patients-in-the-u.s.-2020] to the US government literally the day before [https://www.newsweek.com/hydroxychloroquine-malaria-drug-coronavirus-fda-1493293] Trump started talking about it?

Do you think anyone stood to gain financially from pushing an off-patent medicine that drug companies were giving away before Trump said a word? I don't think there's a single reason to be suspicious about the initial hope that hydroxychloroquine would work, other than people instinctively believing the opposite of what Trump says.

I mean, that's like calling George Wallace dumb but anyone who reported his Segregation speech as the real racists.

You're saying this as an extreme example, but you're very close to the truth. It's not that anyone who reported is "the real racists". It's that reporting a certain way has the result of fomenting racial resentment, and some people are willing to accept that result in an effort to defeat their political adversaries. With someone like George Wallace, obviously his election is worse for race relations than reporting on him. When they do it to George W. Bush as well, then the people hammering that he's a racist are the bad guys.

Group mentality is a real thing, and people feel more confident in an opinion that is shared with other people, particularly prominent people. The constant hammering that every Republican is a bigot (which to be clear, isn't remotely true) doesn't just attack Republicans, it encourages actual bigots who are now being told daily that they have a bigot in the White House. If you left both parties to speak for themselves on an issue as straightforward as race relations in current times, every politician would denounce racism every time (even Trump), and leave bigotry politically homeless, but academics and the media just won't shut their stupid, fat mouths for 6 seconds.

It's not that they're the real racists. They're arguably worse, they're willing to encourage things they know are evil for the sake of their pet politics. It's basically like the wackos on the new forums arguing about accelerationism: they're willing to push the bigotry they know is bad in an effort to try and make the Republican party collapse.

Accurate headline option that wouldn't potentially lead to people killing themselves:
"Trump asks advisors about treating covid-19 with disinfectant."

He did no such thing.

Watch the actual footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wcQYA-ol_A

He leads by literally calling it a question, and actually says "is there a way we could do something like that?" and follows with "you're going to have to use medical doctors". And he looked directly at his medical advisors almost the entire time. You're denying what can be seen on camera happening.

In fact, your making seem like the experts AGREE with the president. Because, as you said, there are people who didn't see the press conference and wouldn't know the context.

If the advisors agree, it would be "Trump, advisors suggest treatment with disinfectant".

"Trump proposes ineffective treatment options for covid-19."

What do you think would have happened here? You are disagreeing with Trump. That automatically makes you Fake News. Those certain people aren't going to listen to you now. So... you have the same problem, as they will just get their information elsewhere.

So you'd rather be personally responsible for misinformation so that other people can't be a fault? They should kill people before someone else does? Bad logic.

Trump, officials suggest coronavirus is weakened by sunlight and humidity [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-coronavirus-sunlight-heat-and-humidity] In the first sentence, it states that the officials and Trump are actually arguing, not in unison as the headline suggests. But then has the head of Science in Homeland security providing a study that suggests that heavy sunlights kills corona on surfaces quickly. That's only one official. So, quite possibly a bunch of misinformation, as later stated, Bill Bryan make sure he adds this is one study and everything is in the nascent stage. And, since its Fox, I gather they wanted this info out so everyone can get back to work, since that's been their theme

You're reading the first sentence wrong. It's not saying Trump argued with the officials, it's saying Trump and officials made the argument. And that's true, they did claim that sunlight and humidity weaken the virus and should lead to less illness in the summer. Also, that's like 99% likely to be fact. Like, California and New York were both set to be hammered, California got away with it. Florida was infamously reckless and got hit less than Massachusetts per capita. There's only one state below the mason dixon line faring worse than the US average. Australia and New Zealand are super proud of how great their covid response has been, but the pandemic started in the southern hemisphere's summer. Viruses usually degrade faster in heat, humidity, and sunlight. People's immune response is worse in the winter. The pattern of pandemic spread supports these assumptions. We don't even need a laboratory experiment to tell us this, but hey they did one anyway.

If they are talking about the press conference about this, it was probably one of Trump's better ones. He was asking an expert about sunlight and providing follow up questions to add further details. Great information (I'd probably add that it was messy due to the way Trump asked questions, but that's a minor quibble.) That's also not part of the headline either.

I mean, this is a different story about the same press conference. Fox has chosen to report on the good parts of it rather than the really really dumb part. That's irresponsible reporting in its own way, just ignoring the news they don't like. BUT, at least nobody learning about the press conference from Fox News was likely to inject themselves with bleach.

And like, now there are reports of an actual uptick in calls to poison control over people exposing themselves to disinfectants. I'm very skeptical of this actually being serious. The reports on it are things like "NYC had more calls than the same period a year prior" which is meaningless because poison control issues with disinfectants and hand sanitizers has been higher since this March for obvious reasons. Or they'll say they had a surge of calls of people asking if injecting disinfectant would treat covid, and there's no knowing how many of those people are just trolls.

But assuming for a moment that people were actually trying to treat themselves with bleach or some such nonsense, where do you think they got the idea from? Do you think people were tuned into Trump's press conference and intently focused as he mumbled away from the camera about looking into maybe an injection of some sort that you'll need medical doctors for, and went "Lightbulb, drink bleach!" Like, do you think there's an overlap in the Venn diagram of people who could translate that Trump mumble into the suggestion of home treatment by household cleaners and people ignorant enough to try it? Or do you think they saw the stupid headlines on places like NBC?

And before someone else pulls the "nobody said bleach but you". A) It doesn't matter, and B) on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" this weekend on National Public Radio one of the questions asked what Trump said to treat covid with, the person answered "Disinfectant" and was told "Right, or bleach."

Yeah, I understand that headlines are a problem. We've got to push people to read past the headline, because it's problematic everywhere.

Truth. Most of the news media everywhere is run by the equivalent of J. Jonah Jameson. It doesn't even matter what the reporters write, the headline will always be clickbait about how bad Spiderman is.