Rick Bright-top vaccine scientist files whistleblower complaint against the dictator!

[oxmixmudd]

Again, this is just ad hom. You're showing your true bias colors here, ox. You did nothing to address any of the email exchanges or Political articles they cited. But if that's your stance, have at it

Recognizing brieitbart as an illegitimate source of information isn't 'revealing my true colors' anymore than recognizing AIG as an illegitimate source of information. It's offensive to those that place their trust in what they produce, but it's simply the reality of the situation. Now that is not to say that I don't recognize that sometimes they might hit on something interesting. It's just that I know what their biases are and what their track record is. IOW, I have read enough of what they produce to know they are not to be trusted. That is not a 'bias' in the true sense of the word, that is simply learning what is and what is not a legitimate source of information.

There is a huge difference between a source that has pledged itself to only produce information from a certain point of view, and an organization that will try to present information as it is without changing it to suit a particular ideology. Breitbart, AIG are extremes of the latter. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the WSJ, WPO, NYT are instances more in line with the former. This is just the reality of the situation. When MM trots out a breitbart article, I know up front that I can't trust anything in it to be the actual truth - though that does not mean what they write is always false. With legitimate news organizations, while I may need to cross check them with other outlets to filter out underlying bias, I am much more likely to get something relatively honest wrt the subject matter of the article. Especially if it is a paper based news outlet, as opposed to a TV based news outlet.

So you can dismiss that reality if you want. Those are your 'true colors', but I prefer to face reality head on with very very heavy value on truth as opposed to a fantasy bubble with a high value in reinforcing what I already think is true.

[seanD]

Recognizing brieitbart as an illegitimate source of information isn't 'revealing my true colors' anymore than recognizing AIG as an illegitimate source of information. It's offensive to those that place their trust in what they produce, but it's simply the reality of the situation. Now that is not to say that I don't recognize that sometimes they might hit on something interesting. It's just that I know what their biases are and what their track record is. IOW, I have read enough of what they produce to know they are not to be trusted. That is not a 'bias' in the true sense of the word, that is simply learning what is and what is not a legitimate source of information.

There is a huge difference between a source that has pledged itself to only produce information from a certain point of view, and an organization that will try to present information as it is without changing it to suit a particular ideology. Breitbart, AIG are extremes of the latter. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the WSJ, WPO, NYT are instances more in line with the former. This is just the reality of the situation. When MM trots out a breitbart article, I know up front that I can't trust anything in it to be the actual truth - though that does not mean what they write is always false. With legitimate news organizations, while I may need to cross check them with other outlets to filter out underlying bias, I am much more likely to get something relatively honest wrt the subject matter of the article. Especially if it is a paper based news outlet, as opposed to a TV based news outlet.

So you can dismiss that reality if you want. Those are your 'true colors', but I prefer to face reality head on with very very heavy value on truth as opposed to a fantasy bubble with a high value in reinforcing what I already think is true.

All news sources have bias. All of them. To reject one source over another is itself a bias approach, and not an efficient way to get to the truth of a subject. The best way is to acknowledge all sources have a bias slant, and to cross-reference multiple sources to try and see where their biases lie. The fact you've done nothing to address the content of this story tells me perhaps you can't address it, so you resort to "Eww, Breitbart is such a scary bias rightwing source, I simply refuse to address any of their bias content." You can say that over and over, but it doesn't change the information they gave about this subject.

[oxmixmudd]

All news sources have bias. All of them. To reject one source over another is itself a bias approach, and not an efficient way to get to the truth of a subject. The best way is to acknowledge all sources have a bias slant, and to cross-reference multiple sources to try and see where their biases lie. The fact you've done nothing to address the content of this story tells me perhaps you can't address it, so you resort to "Eww, Breitbart is such a scary bias rightwing source, I simply refuse to address any of their bias content." You can say that over and over, but it doesn't change the information they gave about it.

Key concept: News sources. Brietbart is propaganda source, not a news source. There is a HUGE difference. And you can scream bias all you want because I won't recognize a propaganda source as a news source, but it won't change my mind or the fact Breitbart is not a legitimate news source.

[seanD]

Key concept: News sources. Brietbart is propaganda source, not a news source. There is a HUGE difference. And you can scream bias all you want because I won't recognize a propaganda source as a news source, but it won't change my mind or the fact Breitbart is not a legitimate news source.

Cool.

[DivineOb]

Cool.

Sean, where do most news sources get their funding? (ads + cable fees)
Where do Breitbart and other RWNJ news sources get their funding? (The Mercers and the like)

Does it not give you pause that a new source survives primarily on the patronage of a handful of ultra rich? I'm not saying throw Breitbart out. I'm asking whether such a news source deserves at least a little more scrutiny than those which are traditionally funded?

[seanD]

Sean, where do most news sources get their funding? (ads + cable fees)
Where do Breitbart and other RWNJ news sources get their funding? (The Mercers and the like)

Does it not give you pause that a new source survives primarily on the patronage of a handful of ultra rich? I'm not saying throw Breitbart out. I'm asking whether such a news source deserves at least a little more scrutiny than those which are traditionally funded?

Where did I say any news source doesn't deserve scrutiny? Strawman much? In fact, I said the exact opposite.

[mikewhitney]

Sean, where do most news sources get their funding? (ads + cable fees)
Where do Breitbart and other RWNJ news sources get their funding? (The Mercers and the like)

Does it not give you pause that a new source survives primarily on the patronage of a handful of ultra rich? I'm not saying throw Breitbart out. I'm asking whether such a news source deserves at least a little more scrutiny than those which are traditionally funded?

Interesting question. About 70% of the TV revenue is Big Pharma, so we should not be surprised if the TV stations cater to stories that help that industry

[JimL]

But you did nothing to present evidence against the evidence presented in the article. You just ad hom(med) -- "Eww, Breibart bad," then scoffed. Based on email evidence presented in the article, that isn't at all why Trump ousted Rick Bright, and it looks like Bright is using the hot button topic hydroxychloroquine as an attempt to make it a media spectacle.

According to Dr Brights complaint, the President, on his own hunch, was trying to flood the NY-NJ area with Hydroxycloroquine manufactured in, and imported from, India, which for one thing was not FDA approved, showed no evidence of beneficial effects, but did pose potential serious harmful side effects according to the science. In light of the science, and in order to protect peoples lives, Dr Bright advised against its use but to no avail and so he apparently went public with the findings. That though was just the final disloyalty straw that broke the tyrants patience. He also repeatedly warned the administration early on in January that we needed to ramp up medical supplies, PPE's etc. for the oncoming pandemic, but to no effect. Dr. Bright claimed that he was continually pressured by the administration to ignore the experts and the scientific recommendations and instead to awaerd lucrative contracts to Trumps political cronies.

Trump on the other hand, at first, tried to claim that his removal of Dr Bright was actually meant to be a promotion, something Dr. Bright earned for all his good work in his long and distinguished career, which of course was just another of Trumps lies, and Dr. Bright was having none of it. So of course, now that Dr. Bright is fighting back, the administration is trying to come up with other reasons for why they demoted him. The actual reason is that he was doing his job in the interests of the health of american people, not doing Trumps corrupt bidding.

Dr Bright will be testifying before Congres on May 14th

[DivineOb]

Interesting question. About 70% of the TV revenue is Big Pharma, so we should not be surprised if the TV stations cater to stories that help that industry

If you could demonstrate that 70% of TV revenues was due to pharma advertising then yes, we should view any news story favorable to the pharma industry with suspicion if it wasn't backed up with solid data. I'd say the same thing for a heck of a smaller percentage than 70%, I can promise you that.

[Juvenal]

First of all, I want to congratulate you on your incredibly unbiased reporting, particularly the title of your OP, and absolutely factual information.

Except, of course, that it's 57 pages, not 89. 63 if you include definitions of Acronyms and references.

It's 89 pages.

[rogue06]

Key concept: News sources. Brietbart is propaganda source, not a news source. There is a HUGE difference. And you can scream bias all you want because I won't recognize a propaganda source as a news source, but it won't change my mind or the fact Breitbart is not a legitimate news source.

The same can be said about CNN, MSNBC and with an ever increasingly frequency, even the New York Times

[rogue06]

Why was I not surprised this came from beitbart

Hopefully Bright is well aware of the fact that the Foxes and Breitbarts of the world will be looking for ways to smear him into the mud, anything and everything will be used and whatever context is necessary to fully understand whatever they 'find' will be stripped.

Truth tellers can not be tolerated by Trump or his supporters.

Bretbart was merely repeating what Dan Diamond of Politico (not a right-wing outlet) uncovered.

First, Bright's transfer had been in the works for a year now so unless Trump had a crystal ball it is not related to any opposition to using hydroxychloroquine as he claimed.

Second, his opposition to hydroxychloroquine is questionable at best:

Source: Ousted vaccine expert battles with Trump team over his abrupt dismissal

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Annotation 2020-05-06 060350.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

The same can be said about CNN, MSNBC and with an ever increasingly frequency, even the New York Times

I dont think so rogue. The MSM is a fake news bogeyman is a itself a true fake news construct preying on certain conservative paranoias. News sources based on real journalistic ideals focused on the broader set of events with the goal of reporting the important events in the world as accurately as possible is a very different construct from an organization that exists solely to promote a specific ideology, or to counter constructs found in another ideology. Those legitimate news outlets may also have underlying bias in how they choose what they report on, what they believe are the events of the day that should be of most concern to their audience, but they still occupy a fundamentally different place in the world than propaganda outlets which exist only to facilitate adoption of a certain set of ideals by their audience, or to sway opinion of an audience towards a certain ideology.

Breitbart is almost purely the latter. Organizations like the nyt or wpo are more closely aligned with the former.

For me, once an organization becomes mostly aligned with propaganda I am no longer interested in using them in my own search for truth about what is going on in the world. The likelyhood what they are reporting on is slanted to the point recovering the truth from it is impossible without hailing back to a legitimate news source or the raw data is just too high to waste time on what they have to say - with they exception that sometimes to understand why some group is creating or involved in a certain newsworthy event or trend, one must understand what misinformation is being fed to their faithful followers.

[rogue06]

I dont think so rogue. The MSM is a fake news bogeyman is a itself a true fake news construct preying on certain conservative paranoias.

And yet you dismiss conservative news sites as fake news.

Hypocrisy much?

[Cow Poke]

Calling out Trump for what he is, whether you can see it or not, is not being petty.

The manner in which you do it is - very much.

Please excuse me for getting the number of pages wrong, CP.

It just shows your haste to condemn apart from the facts.

What are you accusing me of lying about, CP?

You want to call it lying? I saw it as 'stretching the truth', but you can call it lying if you'd like.