Coronavirus Pandemic

[Niall_Quinn]

they'll still be having drunken orgies down the station - what do you think those handcuffs and truncheons are really for...?

Thought you had to be senior staff to go to those orgies? Have they opened it up during the pandemic? Nice!

[Letters]

Yes, I am an independent thinker. Aren't you? You make it sound like an unobtainable ideal rather than a simple choice.

I think it's unobtainable in the way you paint yourself as one. I probably do take too much at face value, but if someone claims that a news story is "fake news" then I expect them to be able to present evidence. You rarely do.

Let's take the case of this 21 year old. I note you have provided no evidence for your opinion on that case.
I don't know her, do you? I don't know her family. I don't know who her doctors were. So I have no idea if she died purely of Covid-19 or she did have "underlying health issues" or if she died of something completely unrelated. Her family are saying it was Covid-19. Other sources may dispute that but on what basis? The doctors probably aren't allowed to comment because of confidentiality.
You are the one claiming that "mainstream" sources on this are unreliable. Honestly, I've no idea. So what's your evidence to the contrary and what makes you believe it to be reliable? You listed "individuals directly connected to stories" as one of your sources, this story is coming from her family. Why doesn't that count in this instance?

Just because you read and believe a difference source, that doesn't make you an "independent thinker". You're still believing what someone else tells you.

You've used a straw man army above in an attempt to disguise the simple fact that you asked where I get my "sources" from if not the mainstream media, or as well as the mainstream media. I answered.

Your answer was basically "other sources". You gave a bunch of different categories but didn't name a single specific one. Maybe there isn't a specific one but I'd be surprised if there aren't other specific sources which you believe to be more credible than mainstream ones.

You even threw in an illustrative lie about the fake news on the BBC which you are intent to defend, even though I showed you the historical record in that instance.

Yeah, the "historical record" was about the F1 race being cancelled and the "historical" article made it clear it was from a source and it hadn't been officially announced yet. It wasn't buried deep in the article, it was pretty much the second line. In the same way they reported that the Olympics and Wimbledon were looking like they'd be cancelled before either were officially announced. Again, both times the article made it clear that it hadn't been announced. In all 3 cases their sources were good, so from these examples they seem pretty reliable. And the 2nd example was them stating that the number of cases in the US was now higher than anywhere else. Which. It. Is.
You shouting "FAKE NEWS" at things which are true doesn't make them fake.

As for reading books and the danger it brings, I agree, the writers will almost certainly have their own opinions and biases. The simple solution is to read more than one book. And by a similar logic I watch the mainstream media, not all of it, some of it, in order to find out what the bias and agenda happens to be in that quarter.

OK, well that makes sense. Reading a range of sources on a story or topic gives you a more rounded view.

Then your lie about me never providing sources.

Oh whoopsie! Ironically, this in itself is a lie. Or maybe you "accidentally" misread my post but I said "rarely". Which is true. You do rarely post sources.
I didn't say never but you do tend not to. This story about the 21 year old. What's your source that tells a different side of things?

I feel like you'd prefer it if I spoon-fed you in the same manner as the legacy media. I can't see how that would help you.

I'd prefer it if you more regularly backed up your assertions with a source. If you're going to call a "mainstream media" story fake news then fine. Maybe you're right. But what's your source and why do you find it more credible? Not unreasonable questions.

just know I will continue to call the mainstream media out as being fake news, an easily confirmable statement of fact based on the historical record

Noted. But every time you do and the story is actually true it further undermines your credibility, not theirs.
It undermines your self-proclaimed ability to discern truth from lies.

[Niall_Quinn]

Just for reference and to remove the central plank of your defence of legacy media which you base on a single story while carefully ignoring the catalogue of media lies I referred to that have cost countless lives. Before the Guardian removed it:

‘Middleton was taken to Wexham Park hospital in Slough last weekend after she had a heart attack. Attempts to resuscitate her failed and she was pronounced dead soon after arriving… A Berkshire coroner said the death was related to Covid-19 after being told Middleton had a cough, the source said. But this surprised medics at the hospital, who have not recorded it as a coronavirus incident.’

An NHS source tells the Guardian that ‘the coroner’s move “raised eyebrows” at the hospital because [Middleton] had not tested positive for the disease’.

In terms of the definitions of fake news:

Propaganda, misdirection, omission. The fake news BBC. And organisation posing as a news agency that is actually a propaganda outlet. That's the fake news BBC, for example.

Or fake news in relation to a specific article, as with the fake news on Sky related to the 21 year old.

Today, western intelligence sources are reporting the death toll in China has been massively understated, this following on the heels of British officials claiming the toll may be 15 to 40 times higher. These are "sources". The former probably as unreliable as Chinese sources, the latter the most credible I would estimate.

Which demonstrates more forms of fake news, the lie by omission and fake equivalency. The official Chinese statistics, when compared entirely out of context with the US related statistics, suggest a higher case count in the latter. But considering the first set of data is a lie (reference all previous Chinese official lies in sequence as precedent), and the unknown standards in China by which "cases" are recorded, to say the number of cases in the US has outstripped the total in China is meaningless. Yet the media presents it as fact. Fake news. A comparison made between two incompatible sets of data in order to reach un unsupported conclusion for propaganda and/ or commercial purposes.

Of course if you prefer to take the legacy media at face value and make many assumptions and apologies on their behalf, none of the above will be relevant to you. So it's possible, through cognitive dissonance, to observe the history of legacy media fakery whilst still accepting current reporting as honest and factual. This may be how you are viewing it and why you ignore the evidence I do provide so you can claim I don't provide any.

The source I was most recently speaking of, by the way, was in the article I linked to that in turn linked to the United Nations Agenda 2030. That's a long trail you can follow that will provide endless context for much of the headline propaganda being pumped out by the legacy media you are consuming.

[WMUG]

I do love these

[Niall_Quinn]

I do love these

Can't say that I do. It's a frustrating and thankless process. In the heat of it, assumptions are made about the legitimacy of the legacy media. Then time elapses and almost everyone accepts, well yeah, okay, they fucked that up, maybe they lied, maybe it was a mistake... Then the next wave of stories comes along and the credibility of the legacy media is reset to infallible and off we go again, as if the previous trail of deception never happened.

So many honest mistakes that favour power over people. As I saw it put very nicely by a commentator whose name I can't recall, a fifth column masquerading as the fourth estate.

[Niall_Quinn]

Here's Tim Pool, a lifelong leftie (to take that easy criticism off the table). A real journalist who has routinely outperformed the legacy media on the ground, right in the heart of the story as opposed to the cosy, graphics drenched whore houses manned by the stooges on the 24/7 rolling bullshit circuit. Here he's doing a roundup of several legacy and independent outlets. There are THOUSANDS of independent journalists like this outside the dinosaur, propaganda establishments.



One video like this gives you an alternative perspective. Not the "truth" but something useful outside the repeater cycle of the establishment. Two videos like this, five, ten a hundred and you can start to see how strands connect, how patterns are formed, how the behaviour of relevant individuals and changes in that behaviour can be key indicators of what's really going on, even when you don't have any facts to work with. Or "conspiracy theories" for those indoctrinated to instantly reject any narrative outside the approved one.

Tim pool is easily consumable. Non-controversial. A bit naive. But fundamentally honest, so he already has a massive head start on the corrupted, stuffed shirts from the WAPO, NYT, BBC, Guardian, etc. He's an easy introduction to the process of news gathering (as opposed to consuming). Once you can gather news dispassionately and then analyse it logically you can often determine at least some of what is happening in the world. And it's often hysterical just how far removed it is from the absolute drivel being pumped out by the legacy media. If you gather and collate information for long enough, eventually you don't even need to dig deep. As soon as you see the legacy media start up their machine to pump out the propaganda, all those events from the past and the patterns they form make it instinctively simple to determine the real events. The "how" is never a problem. The "why" is always the challenge.

[Niall_Quinn]

Amazing news! Howard Stern, fake corporate bad boy, is providing his show for free during this time of crisis. Between this and Mrs Brown's Boys, we're saved!

I hope he does that hilarious thing where he says "vagina" over and over again. That's so funny. Genius.

Props to the guy for allowing his 1 listener to listen for free!

[Niall_Quinn]

"Record breaking" cases and deaths today. The media is drooling. If this keeps up we could be right up there challenging Italy and Spain. Engurland, Engurland, Engurland!

Meanwhile, bad news in the Testing Cup. England 8,000, Germany 100,000. Ouch! Something must be done! Maybe bring a "testing czar" in to play down the middle?

Whether any of these figures are actually real is highly debatable. But the excitement in the media can't be denied.

We need to get some cameras into those wards, close-ups of people who have been separated from their families in their final hours, gasping their last breaths. Like the coverage from Italy.

The clicks are surging. It's like the good old days of shock and awe.

And all for the great price of a license fee. And who can complain about that?

I give you the mainstream media, in all their pomp and profanity.

[Niall_Quinn]

The most obvious news in the history of news.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ace-masks.html

But let's not believe until it is official.

Of course masks work. Ask the Japanese and Chinese and Thais and everyone else that has the indisputable data.

More people killed by "experts" who need to balance their Excel spreadsheet predictions with reality.

[Niall_Quinn]

Some incorrect and potentially life threatening advice for "experts"



WRONG!

Take the mask off from the FRONT, with the gloves you should also be wearing. If you put your hands or gloves behind the mask you have defeated the whole fucking purpose of the mask, you incompetent morons.

Using your disposable gloves, pull the front of the mask away gently and unhook WITHOUT touching your face. Then roll the mask in the gloves and pull one glove over your hand and then pull the other glove from the top (again not underneath) over the first glove and the mask. Dispose. Now wash your hands.

Not sure if there has ever been a more incompetent organisation than WHO.