The Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
24,742
5,457
113
B.C.
Outrageously true. I have been involved in MANY news stories - some important some trivial. But i have NEVER seen one reported without significant error. Most don't matter in the grand scheme, but reporters are NOT good at getting the facts 100 percent correct And i doubt most of that was 'intentional' it's just the way it is.

So always with a grain of salt until you hear it from every angle.
When they report and change your words to fit the story it is rather disconcerting. If they can’t report honestly on trivial matters how does one trust them on anything ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Foxer

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
When they report and change your words to fit the story it is rather disconcerting. If they can’t report honestly on trivial matters how does one trust them on anything ?
one does not if one is wise. you can take it as an "unverified 'report of' - but don't trust anything as being gospel.

One always wants to remember Mr wilde's commnet - "If you don't read the paper you're uninformed. If you do read the paper you're misinformed,"
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
13,902
1,670
113
Toronto, ON
Outrageously true. I have been involved in MANY news stories - some important some trivial. But i have NEVER seen one reported without significant error. Most don't matter in the grand scheme, but reporters are NOT good at getting the facts 100 percent correct And i doubt most of that was 'intentional' it's just the way it is.

So always with a grain of salt until you hear it from every angle.
Intelectual laziness in the most part. Most reporters have some sort of Journalism major which doesn't teach them much on any subject. They approach as story knowing little. They listen until they think they understand and then they consider themselves experts and make a report. Unfortunately in most cases they have just scratched the surface and if they learned a bit more could do a better story. But they do the minimum and you get errors.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
Intelectual laziness in the most part. Most reporters have some sort of Journalism major which doesn't teach them much on any subject. They approach as story knowing little. They listen until they think they understand and then they consider themselves experts and make a report. Unfortunately in most cases they have just scratched the surface and if they learned a bit more could do a better story. But they do the minimum and you get errors.
True. It is somewhat similar to the effect one sees in the 'telephone game' where a phrase passed to the next person becomes distorted as their mind interprets it and fills in additional information or missing info.

ANd of course many are on deadlines and are just rushing to get the story out as fast as possible. As long as it's MOSTLY accurate in their minds, good enough.

Here's some fun - go do a web search for "lisa laflamme fired". You will find dozens of news stories about how she was fired, using that specific word. But laflamme was never fired. Her contract ran out and they chose not to renew it with a new contract. They never fired her. One might say she was 'dropped', or the like, but she was never fired at all. And it's an important difference.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,509
3,991
113
Washington DC
Intelectual laziness in the most part. Most reporters have some sort of Journalism major which doesn't teach them much on any subject. They approach as story knowing little. They listen until they think they understand and then they consider themselves experts and make a report. Unfortunately in most cases they have just scratched the surface and if they learned a bit more could do a better story. But they do the minimum and you get errors.
Roger that. The day of the competent science reporter seems to be behind us.

The good news is we have plenty of asswits on Twitter doing their own research.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
18,023
3,778
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Science ALWAYS cares. The only question is how much influence bias has in any given science.

When there is minimal bias or influence then science tends to be relatively accurate. When there is a lot, we get skewed results.
I stumbled across something this morning, just a news story, about around 1000 scientists, mostly retired so outside of hunting for funding, as signatories on a paper regarding AGW/Whatever….it’s interesting.

More than 1,000 signatories, including climate scientists and other experts, have endorsed a “World Climate Declaration,” asserting that there is no present climate emergency??? But how is that even possible? They MUST be ill informed!! No soup for you!! “What do you mean they’re retired? Don’t give them grants &…oh…”
…However we can look at climate change science as a more practical example. Projects that start with the hypothisis that climate change is man made tend to get funded. Projects that intend to examine other causes are not. Projects that attempt to look at the future damage if nothing changes are well funded, but projects that tend to look at how humans might adapt to such changes instead of reducing them are much less likely to.

The foundation Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) produced a one-page statement arguing that climate science should be less political and more open about the many uncertainties in predictions of global temperature changes and more comprehensive in judging the costs and benefits of proposed policy measures, especially radical reductions in the use of fossil fuels. Sounds Unreasonable already in todays light of one sided reaction.
And projects that prove the worst and most drastic results get the most love and that team tends to get more future funding. Have you noticed that it's ALWAYS the case that more recent research shows previous estimates were wrong and it's "Much Worse/badder than we ever thought! (yikes!)"
Crok acknowledged that advocates of proactive fossil fuel reduction had objected to CLINTEL’s findings and had particularly made a point of the fact that many of the 1,152 signatories are not now active climate scientists and that many are retired.

He said that both these claims ”are true and very understandable,” by which he meant that the status of many of the paper’s supporters is understandable, not the activists’ objections to them.

He explained that the majority of working climate scientists today rely on government money for their income and that climate activists are so zealous and aggressive, those who dissent from the conventional wisdom do so at risk of their jobs.

Crok made the point that activists dominate the media and academia and almost never engage in direct debate with those who consider the possibility that a less alarmist view than the conventional wisdom is not just a cranky denial of “settled science.”

The old “Do not question my statement or Authority ‘cuz Settled Science” line….
.

So we will wind up with a body of 'science' that is incomplete and somewhat inaccurate and doesn't present all the options available. Science cares.
The activist leadership rely on their domination of the media to discredit the dissent as coming either from parties financially interested in traditional energy sources, or eccentric or even mad contrarians. Many commentators, however, have pointed out that these decades of mistaken dire predictions of imminent climate disaster are bound to incite skepticism. The climate disaster has supposedly been imminent for over 50 years.

(I know this is a huge side track from the whole “Wuhan Lab or Market” question)

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, who has made himself a centimillionaire from his decades of doom-laden climate jeremiads, produced his film “An Inconvenient Truth” 20 years ago. It made a number of alarmist claims, including whole cities under water and frequent super-hurricanes, that never materialized.

It has been well over a decade since the Prince of Wales warned us that the end was nigh and that we would all be doomed within “less than 100 months” without drastic conservationist measures.

It has been more than 15 years since then-British prime minister Tony Blair, otherwise a sensible man, wrote to European leaders warning that, “We have a window of only 10-15 years to take the steps we need to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points.”

Of course, the fact that all of this has proved to be nonsense, as many people at the time evidently believed it to be, does not mean that there is no truth to any of it

Not a single person in the world approves of the pollution of the air and water, and in many countries, great and gratifying progress has been made in cleaning up the environment.

But it is becoming increasingly obvious, especially in western Europe and more recently in the United States, that the sensible majority of citizens will not tolerate the unsustainable increases in the cost of normal life inflicted on all of our societies by a headlong rush into sustainable energy.

The eco-zealots have refused for 30 years to acknowledge that we absolutely do not have any precise predictions of where present climate trends may lead. It is hard to argue with CLINTEL’s statement that “the gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.… Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools.”

The CLINTEL paper continues to attract learned supporters and it warns that, “Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.”

No country has been more profoundly afflicted by this planetary blunder than Canada, and no large country is less offensive to the environment or better placed to lead serious objective research to assure that humanity responds constructively to climate issues. It is needless to add that the current federal government has not only missed the policy bus; it has embarked on a dysfunctional policy leading away from where we should be aspiring to go: achieving adequate knowledge to enact the best policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Foxer

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
An excellent example. Science ALWAYS cares about human bias and politics, and that's not surprising at all because it's a process that relies on humans from start to finish. Humans create the questions, humans craft the experiments, humans fund it and humans interpret the results. So it's almost impossible to separate the human element from the "science".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,532
2,565
113
Edmonton
Whenever I see we’re someone or other is accused of some horrible foopaw I try and watch the whole interview , speech or whatever . It is amazing how close to reality the reporting isn’t.
Yes, simply reading the headlines isn't news. Most times, the headlines are very deceiving and not even remotely close to what the story actually is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,532
2,565
113
Edmonton
Outrageously true. I have been involved in MANY news stories - some important some trivial. But i have NEVER seen one reported without significant error. Most don't matter in the grand scheme, but reporters are NOT good at getting the facts 100 percent correct And i doubt most of that was 'intentional' it's just the way it is.

So always with a grain of salt until you hear it from every angle.
Investigative journalism has gone by the way-side. They couldn't be bothered to actually dive into the story so that they get at least most of the facts correct; they'd prefer to simply spew whatever garbage is already out there. Haven't you noticed that when reporting on something that no matter which news channel one watches, the words are almost exactly the same - in other words, they're just repeating the narrative without actually looking into the story which is why they get it wrong most of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Foxer

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
Investigative journalism has gone by the way-side. They couldn't be bothered to actually dive into the story so that they get at least most of the facts correct;
That is very true - but i'm talking even more basic than that. I've seen again and again - "Here are the facts of this story" 'Ok - i'll write the article" Article contains substantial errors and includes things that didn't happen or strongly mistake things that did.

And I'm talking about stories where there is really zero point or desire to deliberately misrepresent anything. They just don't. get. it. right. Even tho the facts were presented to them directly.

When you add in what You're talking about it's amazing there's ANY facts in the stories these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup