Quote:
Originally Posted by
mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
accountinquestion
What is your point? Some poster "blamed the media" which is exactly what Trumps wants his followers to do. The news is fake, listen to me, says our fearless leader. I'm just pointing this out. It isn't worth discussing.
So myself, not being a Trump follower, does not dismiss the media. While it has its problems, go look at the non-existent media of Russia and China. Any real American should be proud that we have the media like we do, regardless of whether you choose to listen to Foxnews or CNN.
So given the above paragraph I simply pointed out the widow directly attributed their learning of the drug's potential to Trump. It wasn't some made up connection by the media.
Your argument is like that of many other Trumpers. "Well it happened at some point somewhere else so we can't blame Trump at all". In this case "it" was the mentioning of this drug in the media.
During this whole episode, I am starting to have a greater appreciation for "Trump Derangement Syndrome" as a clinical diagnosable condition.
Do you know what your precious media is up to now? CNN and NBC say they are going to stop airing Trump's coronavirus press conferences. And of course they are going to say Trump is dangerous. That's their cover. But the real reason is Trump's coronavirus press conferences have given him a 60% approval rating on handling the crisis. The mainstream media will absolutely not tolerate anything that helps Trump's approval ratings.
PS: If they do what they say they are going to do it will send Fox News ratings, already super strong, thru the roof.
PSS: Accountinquestion, if the guy that died would have been you, and you read the ingrediencts, would you have eaten the aquarium cleaner?
Can any lawyers chime in on legal liability to the news networks if they promulgate inaccurate information? I assume that the president, while in office, can't be sued for providing inaccurate information. But would networks quoting him be similarly insulated from civil suits? Or could they be held responsible?
My theory is that anyone, from either party, who would do the following would boost their approval ratings:
1) Tell people what they want to hear.
2) Give people the most optimistic version of upcoming events.
3) Advertise that they have control of the situation in some way, which can be partly accomplished by setting dates and plans in advance.
Telling people what they do not want to hear, giving people pessimistic projections, and explaining that control is limited -- all good ways to decrease approval ratings.
The question is which way saves more lives, the high approval rating schtick or the low approval rating schtick?
