I wholeheartedly agree with you and DWill on that.geo wrote:Ironic though, as DWill says, that people blabbing about fake news are frequently the ones peddling it.
EDIT: Fixed a stupid mistake.
In total there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
I wholeheartedly agree with you and DWill on that.geo wrote:Ironic though, as DWill says, that people blabbing about fake news are frequently the ones peddling it.
I checked out Dr. Lisa Koche from one of KS' links. If she was censured, it was for making false claims about vaccines. A medical doctor of all people should know that any potential treatment has to be shown to be effective in drug trials and medical literature. She's basically a quack who can only offer anecdotal evidence that hydroxychloriquine is effective with her patients. She may ultimately be proved right, but in evidence-based medicine, we rely on clinical trials. Her statements here are obviously politically motivated.ant wrote:I also believe there are doctors that have attempted to share their positive experience with the drug as a treatment but were censured for it.
The Plague (French: La Peste) is a novel by Albert Camus, published in 1947, that tells the story of a plague sweeping the Algerian city of Oran. It asks a number of questions relating to the nature of destiny and the human condition. The characters in the book, ranging from doctors to vacationers to fugitives, all help to show the effects the plague has on a populace.
The novel is believed to be based on the cholera epidemic that killed a large percentage of Oran's population in 1849 following French colonization, but the novel is placed in the 1940s.[1] Oran and its environs were struck by disease multiple times before Camus published this novel. According to a research report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Oran was decimated by the plague in 1556 and 1678, but outbreaks after European colonization, in 1921 (185 cases), 1931 (76 cases), and 1944 (95 cases), were very far from the scale of the epidemic described in the novel.
The Plague is considered an existentialist classic despite Camus' objection to the label.[2][3] The narrative tone is similar to Kafka's, especially in The Trial, wherein individual sentences potentially have multiple meanings, the material often pointedly resonating as stark allegory of phenomenal consciousness and the human condition. Camus included a dim-witted character misreading The Trial as a mystery novel as an oblique homage. The novel has been read as a metaphorical treatment of the French resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II.
Although Camus's approach in the book is severe, his narrator emphasizes the ideas that we ultimately have no control, and irrationality of life is inevitable. Additionally, he further illustrates the human reaction towards the "absurd"; The Plague represents how the world deals with the philosophical notion of the Absurd, a theory which Camus himself helped to define.
As always, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. We, more often than not, cannot comprehend the totality of any given truth.I would guess that KS doesn't know what truth is. The very concept of it is beyond his comprehension
And why are you leaving out Donald Trump? I suspect the journalists have been holding back because libel laws are not kind to innuendo. If you are going to tar someone, better make it stick.ant wrote: And now we have Mr. Epstein (RIP) and Ghislaine Maxwell, who has pedo-related dirt on people like Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton?
And what of Bill Clinton? We have first hand testimony, flight records, and even photographs of good ol Democratic Bill hanging all over under-aged girls.
Why isn't this blockbuster bit of news getting more journalistic coverage?
Journalism is nothing more than political activism.
I studied journalism law in college. I have continued to follow the developments in the law, which have not been a lot. The definitive ruling is still "New York Times v Sullivan" from the 60s, in which the SCOTUS ruled that the usual burden, in which the publication is not required to pay damages if they can prove what they printed is true, does not apply to stories about public figures. Instead they have to be shown by a plaintiff to have exhibited a "reckless disregard for truth". On a private-ish matter like participation in a sex ring, the publication would have to have pretty solid evidence, or the cover provided by an actual grand jury indictment, before that Sullivan immunity kicked in. Some publications are willing to go with such a story if they have public accusations or two independent corroborating witnesses, but they are playing with fire if they do.ant wrote:Since when did journalism start being sensitive to libel and or slander?
You a lawyer now?