Media responses to Trump, the Wuhan Virus and China

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,516
Case in point: El Presidente was on CNBC the other night. They invited him on after his lockdown rant went viral. The lady starts by saying I understand you're coming at this not from a political perspective but purely from the perspective of a business owner. He basically says yes and explains how he created his company and how this would have ended his company if it had happened during that initial 10 year run. She then pivots and the next words out of her mouth are something along the lines of "You are saying we need to re-open, but the numbers are showing us how dangerous it is to do that. The states of X Y and X have all re-opened and have all shown a substantial increase in cases. How can you possibly be in support of that?!?". No mention of the fact testing is way up and % positive is down. She also oh-so-conveniently left Georgia off her list because their numbers didn't fit her point. Dave (who I'm not a fan of) immediately called her out on not including Georgia and basically said you can handpick stats to try and paint a lot of different pictures. Good for him!

But this is in the vein of what I'm referring to above. What is CNBC's M.O. on something like this, other than the theory I put forth above? Sincere question for those who don't subscribe to my theory above. I would genuinely like to hear your thoughts.
 
Last edited:

423Hurricane

High Profile Wannabe
Joined
Feb 1, 2018
Messages
4,075
Case in point: El Presidente was on CNBC the other night. They invited him on after his lockdown rant went viral. The lady starts by saying I understand you're coming at this not from a political perspective but purely from the perspective of a business owner. He basically says yes and explains how he created his company and how this would have ended his company if it had happened during that initial 10 year run. She then pivots and the next words out of her mouth are something along the lines of "You are saying we need to re-open, but the numbers are showing us how dangerous it is to do that. The states of X Y and X have all re-opened and have all shown a substantial increase in cases. How can you possibly be in support of that?!?". No mention of the fact testing is way up and % positive is down. She also oh-so-conveniently left Georgia off her list because their numbers didn't fit her point. Dave (who I'm not a fan of) immediately called her out on not including Georgia and basically said you can handpick stats to try and paint a lot of different pictures. Good for him!

But this is in the vein of what I'm referring to above. What is CNBC's M.O. on something like this, other than the theory I put forth above?
[/Quote

It’s extremely obvious that since Trump was elected - and even during his campaign - the MSM has absolutely nothing positive to say about him or his policies. Every question they ask has a negative connotation and every report as well. In pressers, reporters are belligerent and disrespectful and ask questions that have nothing to do with the topics at hand.

The Communist News Network and MSDNC are the worst of the bunch.
As has been said, Trump could find a cure for cancer and the lame stream media would find something negative to say
 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,516
I've watched the NBC nightly news every day for most of my life. There was seemingly a story about Italy on that show nightly throughout March and most of April. I mean every single night. I genuinely don't believe there has been a single story about Italy on that program in the last 3+ weeks. Not one. Other than the UK, I havent heard much coronavirus news from Europe be broadcasted here recently. Why is that?
I posted the above on Tuesday. Last night I watched NBC Nightly News as I always do, and there finally was a story....

But not about Italy. I can ensure you there was no Italy story, no story about any of the other european countries that are experiencing positive trends, and no story about Florida or Georgia's successful re-openings. Nope. Then what story am I referring to? They had a piece last night, one that was highlighted as a feature story in that little summary introduction/blurb they always do before the jingle, and it was...

"We go inside a hospital in Mexico, where the ICU is completely overrun with COVID patients and experts say the nation's entire medical system may be on the verge of collapse".

Yep, Mexico. Sent a crew down there to tape some scenes of carnage in the ICU and everything. Believe it or not, this is real life, folks. I genuinely wish I was making this up.
 
Last edited:

ddann

Sophomore
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
3,943
I posted the above on Tuesday. Last night I watched NBC Nightly News as I always do, and there finally was a story....

But not about Italy. I can ensure you there was no Italy story, no story about any of the other european countries that are experiencing positive trends, and no story about Florida or Georgia's successful re-openings. Nope. Then what story am I referring to? They had a piece last night, one that was highlighted as a feature story in that little summary introduction/blurb they always do before the jingle, and it was...

"We go inside a hospital in Mexico, where the ICU is completely overrun with COVID patients and experts say the nation's entire medical system may be on the verge of collapse".

Yep, Mexico. Believe it or not, this is real life, folks. I genuinely wish I was making this up.
I could actually hear Don Henley singing “Dirty Laundry” as I read this post.
 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,516

This is real life, folks.
 

mirvin88

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
11,216

This is real life, folks.
"COVID-19 obviously doesn't discriminate based on politics, so there is no definitive reason why these counties are seeing coronavirus spikes now."

But we'll write an article anyway. Genius.
 

RemainMack

Sophomore
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
1,486

This is real life, folks.
I read it. In a nutshell it’s saying that among the newest determined high prevalence counties in the United States, the large majority of those counties (typically less urban and less foreign born) voted for Trump. An initial glance at that article can indicate a macro level political bias (more Orwellian themes pushed by this board) eventually pushing high trump voters to shift to the other side (again no discussion about how trump has ignored a lot of his base and likely initially saved a lot of lives.). Once again another article discussing economics with no regards to quality of life and public health (when I’ve said over and over they need to work together) and that importance.

The problem that they stated but didn’t account for in their work, is that admission that:

‘a large portion of these counties who carried these demographics voted for Trump.’

Basically what has been said all along is that the virus would start spreading in more non-urban areas once it took root in the United States. That’s no surprise and it’s not a surprise that a large portion of these counties voted for Trump (but it has been said it would
eventually happen for several months).

So if the large proportion of these given counties voted for Trump in general, but we’ve known it would start spreading in these areas in the first place then what they should initially be doing is providing analytical context.

Basically they are providing only absolute numbers in comparing Trump and Clinton. They should be providing the proportion of these high prevalence counties as a numerator while accounting for the total counties that voted for Trump in their denominator (or with the given demographics). In my opinion there is an analytical bias that doesn’t take into account the fact that a large number of counties with the respective demographics voted for Trump, anyways.

Besides the glaring bias they created to attract the readers they want to attract I think another interesting thing they could have done is compare the highest risk groups in Trump specific counties versus Clinton specific counties. Basically among these newer high prevalence counties, if you would see that the Trump counties were showing inflation relative to Clinton‘s and seeing for example that a lot of trumps counties were not as high risk as the general population then they could be onto something.

But again, I think there is a large bias being ignored to inflate their point.
 

Go Canes!!

All ACC
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
6,975
I read it. In a nutshell it’s saying that among the newest determined high prevalence counties in the United States, the large majority of those counties (typically less urban and less foreign born) voted for Trump. An initial glance at that article can indicate a macro level political bias (more Orwellian themes pushed by this board) eventually pushing high trump voters to shift to the other side (again no discussion about how trump has ignored a lot of his base and likely initially saved a lot of lives.). Once again another article discussing economics with no regards to quality of life and public health (when I’ve said over and over they need to work together) and that importance.

The problem that they stated but didn’t account for in their work, is that admission that:

‘a large portion of these counties who carried these demographics voted for Trump.’

Basically what has been said all along is that the virus would start spreading in more non-urban areas once it took root in the United States. That’s no surprise and it’s not a surprise that a large portion of these counties voted for Trump (but it has been said it would
eventually happen for several months).

So if the large proportion of these given counties voted for Trump in general, but we’ve known it would start spreading in these areas in the first place then what they should initially be doing is providing analytical context.

Basically they are providing only absolute numbers in comparing Trump and Clinton. They should be providing the proportion of these high prevalence counties as a numerator while accounting for the total counties that voted for Trump in their denominator (or with the given demographics). In my opinion there is an analytical bias that doesn’t take into account the fact that a large number of counties with the respective demographics voted for Trump, anyways.

Besides the glaring bias they created to attract the readers they want to attract I think another interesting thing they could have done is compare the highest risk groups in Trump specific counties versus Clinton specific counties. Basically among these newer high prevalence counties, if you would see that the Trump counties were showing inflation relative to Clinton‘s and seeing for example that a lot of trumps counties were not as high risk as the general population then they could be onto something.

But again, I think there is a large bias being ignored to inflate their point.
This too:

FD98232C-8777-462B-8E35-2955EDFB6354.png
 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,516
Cuomo deserves some blame, but I hope you aren’t that delusional to think Trump doesn’t deserve any...
While obviously the nursing home decision in NY was disastrous and that lead to a big difference in, say, NY vs FL deaths, I think those numbers more reflect how much covid deaths are being inflated in those states from a recording perspective vs a state like Florida. When you read that the criteria in some states is covid positive IRRESPECTIVE of cause of death, I have to think that is a main factor at play in the massive disparity there. Having said that, I don't know which states are using that standard vs which are not. Has that ever been listed/confirmed somewhere?
 

For_The_U

All ACC
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
5,516
I read it. In a nutshell it’s saying that among the newest determined high prevalence counties in the United States, the large majority of those counties (typically less urban and less foreign born) voted for Trump. An initial glance at that article can indicate a macro level political bias (more Orwellian themes pushed by this board) eventually pushing high trump voters to shift to the other side (again no discussion about how trump has ignored a lot of his base and likely initially saved a lot of lives.). Once again another article discussing economics with no regards to quality of life and public health (when I’ve said over and over they need to work together) and that importance.

The problem that they stated but didn’t account for in their work, is that admission that:

‘a large portion of these counties who carried these demographics voted for Trump.’

Basically what has been said all along is that the virus would start spreading in more non-urban areas once it took root in the United States. That’s no surprise and it’s not a surprise that a large portion of these counties voted for Trump (but it has been said it would
eventually happen for several months).

So if the large proportion of these given counties voted for Trump in general, but we’ve known it would start spreading in these areas in the first place then what they should initially be doing is providing analytical context.

Basically they are providing only absolute numbers in comparing Trump and Clinton. They should be providing the proportion of these high prevalence counties as a numerator while accounting for the total counties that voted for Trump in their denominator (or with the given demographics). In my opinion there is an analytical bias that doesn’t take into account the fact that a large number of counties with the respective demographics voted for Trump, anyways.

Besides the glaring bias they created to attract the readers they want to attract I think another interesting thing they could have done is compare the highest risk groups in Trump specific counties versus Clinton specific counties. Basically among these newer high prevalence counties, if you would see that the Trump counties were showing inflation relative to Clinton‘s and seeing for example that a lot of trumps counties were not as high risk as the general population then they could be onto something.

But again, I think there is a large bias being ignored to inflate their point.
Very well-written post. Enjoyed the read.
 

561Cane

Senior
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
3,496
The Dems and Communist News Network will and have at all cost do anything possible to destroy Trump, and in their wake are the American people. A shame the Radical Socialist Party of America have done nothing more than politicize a health issue which was calculated by CHI-NA and has crippled world economies!

#PatheticDems
 
Top