The book “How Not to Diet” uses an appeal to authority and extensive cherry picking to formulate the author’s argument that we should all eat a plant-based diet.
Facebook, Twitter and Google outrageously censored scientists and doctors for asking questions about challenging issues in the pandemic. Today, we are recognizing that these discussions were important – but silenced by the unethical billionaires of social media.
Facebook permits only pro-vaccine comments and photos on their platform. Anything not in support of vaccinations may be removed. (I am fully vaccinated, FYI).
“Could U.S. be next?” is a click-bait question in a headline. The answer is “no”.
Covid-19 cases have fallen dramatically in several states. The media, which gleefully reported the rising case counts, doing its best to create fear and hysteria, vanishes when cases start dropping. They move on to the next state to having rising case numbers. A consequence is readers only see constant bad, scary news – and never see the good news. This causes everyone to live in a constant state of anxiety.
Numerous Oregon news outlets ran fake news stories in the past day, leaving out CRITICAL CONTEXT to the state’s Covid-19 report.
Study finds U.S. mass media coverage of Covid-19 is excessively negative (and scary) in tone compared to international media, science media, etc. This twisting everything into scary news is intentional – inducing fear creates more clicks and generates more ad views and return visits to keep appraised of what is happening. The fear mongering is intentional.
A “report” by an advocacy group opposes “vaccine nationalism” and says we need “a massive course correction” on vaccine distribution by redirecting “excess rich-country doses” to “poorer countries”. But they pulled a little trick in their description – twisting the facts.
Al Jazeera runs a column by a professor of philosophy who says capitalism is a failure and that only government can deliver the “innovation” necessary to deliver vaccines for Covid-19. Al Jazeera fails to note his background as an avid socialist member of groups opposed to the “neoliberal capitalist model”. Failing to disclose this background context turns this into a propaganda piece versus not legitimate analysis of issues.
If the government prohibited us from engaging in speech someone in power did not like, this would be called censorship and a violation of the First Amendment. What is it called when the government puts pressure on BigTech companies to censor speech? It’s called government censorship via proxy. And the BigTech companies seem very happy to comply with government censorship campaigns – to curry political favors as government threatens them with regulation.