Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

COVID-19 Check-in

1107108110112113159

Comments

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited May 2020

    Here was Fauci's position as of Jan. 26.

    And here was the headline from his Feb. 29 appearance on NBC's Today Show.

    To say our government should have been "doing more" in the month of February is revisionist history, or (at best) some serious Monday morning quarterbacking.

  • CaliforniaDawgCaliforniaDawg ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Fleming,

    You come at this thread a bit aggressively and are making statements that i dont believe to be true. You say that "people including some on this board" by which you are probably referring to folks like me say Trump should have done something in January.

    I think this is not correct. In fact i praised the effort to screen people at airports in January on this board.

    My suggestion would be not to come at this thread with accusations, it doesnt help, especially when they are not correct.

  • Thank you for showing your work as my high school algebra teacher used to say. I was wrong. Which is a challenging phrase to say around here.

  • CaliforniaDawgCaliforniaDawg ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I always love the analysis of the news from a left/right perspective - keeps me grounded. I particularly like how this one shows how the left/right skew is done and it reminds us not to be suckered by sensationalism on matter what side of the spectrum it is on. I think Dawgnation would definitely be near AP, Bloomberg, the Economist etc. Great analysis and fact reporting! Go Dawgs!


  • RxDawgRxDawg ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Apologies if I was overly casual in my reply to you Kasey. But you posted something that wasn't true. But it was pushed in mass by the media. So I can understand why you and others might think it was true. This brings us back to the media and just how awful they've been lately.

  • RxDawgRxDawg ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    This.

    If your intent is to discuss and possibly persuade, don't attack. People will shut down if attacked.

    If your intent is to froth at the mouth and get your dopamine spike then attack. But it won't accomplish anything.

  • RxDawgRxDawg ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    This cannot be accurate. It depicts FOX twice as partisan as CNN. That isn't accurate and likely could be reversed. But it points out the flaw of assigning an objective value to a subjective topic.

  • Apology accepted. If i've learned anything is that the blue tie will be very quick to jump on anything the tangerine tweet machine utters. That is a problem. Then his preferred news channel will defend vigorously (understandable) and double down. Someone could just as easily post a few videos of Fox News from February that look pretty bad. It's all a grab for dollars and to be expected.

    So on this we agree. If anything, this has taught me I need to be better about collecting experiences rather than consuming things. Eating less while eating better instead of trying to eat every type of food ever made.

  • Canedawg2140Canedawg2140 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    If the WSJ is as far RT as CNN is left, then the term "Neutral" is similar to the word "inconceivable."

    I don't think that means what they think it means...

  • Canedawg2140Canedawg2140 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    But, I do like the intent of this graphic, Cali! It shows the relative nature of everything, and show JUST HOW MANY VOICES are out there to consume.

    Not sure three channels on the TV didn't make us a stronger country!

  • LORLOR ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I would say they are both equally partisan with CNN parroting democratic talking points and Fox parroting talking points from the RNC. It’s even worse during prime time with Hannity and Tucker on one side and Cooper and Maddow on the other. They bend stories to fit their narratives and are all but campaigning right now for their choice of President.

  • Boss_DawgBoss_Dawg ✭✭✭ Junior

    All have brought up great points on media bias. CaliforniaDawg, thanks for bringing the ad fontes chart up. It is the reason I have moved most of my news reading to the AP and Reuters sources. I find it keeps my blood pressure down.

    Usually use it to understand the skew of all of the new "news sites" out there before becoming invested in an article. This is the latest version (2019) and you will see they moved CNN further left and FOX a bit more left where the bias of each is pretty comparable.

    They also publish their methodology for those interested.


  • SupraSupra ✭✭✭ Junior
    edited May 2020

    Good stuff here. As an add on, I always try to get my info from multiple sources.

    As a couple of others have mentioned, I think part of the problem is getting everything from 1 outlet... no matter how good you think that outlet might be, it's going to have blind spots.

    All media is going to have bias. It's part of being a good citizen to pull from multiple sources, recognize their bias, and make up your own mind.

  • AnotherDawgAnotherDawg ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Thanks Kasey. I'm trying to stay out of the politics. (Still managed to get a DV- probably won't be the last.) Was hoping the info would be helpful to the discussion.

  • YaleDawgYaleDawg ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I DVed you because it seemed like you were making a bad faith argument. The threat to everyday life was low back in late January and there was no need for major changes from the public. That doesn't mean the government doesn't need to be prepared to prevent a widespread outbreak as you suggested. In that first source Fauci said that the government needs to be prepared and take it seriously. The best tool for preventing infectious disease outbreaks is rapid testing and contact tracing, and we didn't do that effectively. Because of that we have had to rely on more blunt public policy tools which have led to economic shutdowns.

This discussion has been closed.