Ebola
- Thread starter Rudie
- Start date
Panic!
Someone call the Ebola Czar!
Everyone needs to buy the Band Aid 2014 CD now.
I just bought a boxed set of The Jam, will that do?Everyone needs to buy the Band Aid 2014 CD now.
Can't do any harm.
If we can forget about Obama's bi-raciality with the emphasis on black because that is how he looks and identifies, he has been a rather lousy leader. What is weirdly familiar about him is the whole George W Bush by another name and background feeling. Not rich like the Bushes but certainly a life of the smooth path to power based on an image.
I wish Obama had been the leader the USA needs but it is clear he wasn't and is not. Everybody is hung up on his racial background and his supposed 'disadvantage' but he was a somewhat privileged, well travelled boy who lived in other countries, had a mother who has been portrayed as 'disadvantaged' in her finances but actually worked in organisations closely connected with the US Govt and received good salaries for it (the info is out there, do the research and no, I don't mean on right wing websites) and never had to do anything so realistic as a part time job as a student in the USA or a job where he had to get it by his own merits.
In fact the whole 'he was not born in the USA' bit is probably wrong but there are good reasons to think that the sealed records are sealed because his mother falsely had him registered as a foreign student in the USA because of the free money and other benefits it gave to him. I think that view has more credibility than the one that he was not born in Hawaii.
His 'Harvard Professor' position wasn't quite and he showed just about no interest in meetings or any such putting in the groundwork when he had that position. Again, do the research. His community organiser job was set up for him by blacks in Chicago who genuinely had been through the struggle or at least were close to it, he used these connections to get elected to his first political post and then of course as a Senator he didn't do much and had less experience when he became President than the not so experienced John F Kennedy who at least had been a Congressman then a Senator. Some of the African Americans from Chicago who gave Obama his opportunities have come to regret that and voiced it publicly.
It's symbolically significant that there is a black president of the USA but it should have been somebody else.
Like the guy almost in his 80s who was 71 at the time with his batshit crazy number 2?
There are talented African Americans who did the hard yards in life and have far more political commitment and nouse than Obama will ever have. He was fortunate in his timing but he would never have made it to the presidency if he had not been identifiably black.
He rode the wave of our times to the presidency but unfortunately cannot measure up to it and that is not because he is black - that's because he was not qualified in real experience and he is the typical utilitarian and narcissistic politician who gets to high positions.
Did they run for president? If not then it shouldn't have been someone else.
The Scottish nurse who contracted Ebola is now in a critical condition, sadly. Really hope she pulls through, it's a tremendously brave thing to do, to voluntarily risk your life to help others.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30666265
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30666265
Very sad indeed.
Have there been any deaths of Western nurses or doctors helping out yet?
Have there been any deaths of Western nurses or doctors helping out yet?
^ I don't believe so, there was the death of a Spanish priest IIRC although not as yet amongst those medical professionals who've travelled to the region.
I'm unaware of what percentage of patients recover from this stage in the condition, but hopefully she can.
I've also just seen this:
I'm unaware of what percentage of patients recover from this stage in the condition, but hopefully she can.
I've also just seen this:
The constant stress of working in such an environment must be difficult to say the least, i wonder what breaks if any they get, or if volunteers receive any psychological assistance.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Coincidentally, and one would hope fortuitously, Northampton General was a hospital selected for an Ebola contingency exercise late last year.
People aren't half stupid, I read an article today about the economic impact of Ebola on the main countries involved. A big earner for Africa is tourism, however some people think Africa is one country, and quite a small one at that. Bookings for Kenya safaris are down, despite that fact that Kenya is further away from the crisis zone than London. Another bizarre one was someone who cancelled their holiday to Papua New Guinea, on the basis that it has Guinea in the name!
They were probably American.
"After reviewing transcripts from Oct. 7 to Nov. 17 in the 5-11 p.m. time slot, Media Matters discovered that evening broadcast and cable news programs aired close to 1,000 segments on Ebola in the four weeks leading up to the elections, and only 49 segments in the two weeks that followed."
It was all an American right wing inspired media hustle in order to slander the black, Kenyan American president. Vintage White Race Card.
It was all an American right wing inspired media hustle in order to slander the black, Kenyan American president. Vintage White Race Card.
Or rather that those 4 weeks were when the 2 nurses got infected in American soil and everyone feared a national outbreak. No cases were reported from 17th November onwards, and the nurses were cured by then. Such a confounding event makes any conclusions completely biased.
Last edited:
A whole two cases that added up to nothing and who´s 15 minutes disappeared very quickly after the election. I don´t think the normal guy on the street feared a national outbreak or even gave a feck. This was totally fuelled by the media and the right wing in the run up to an election, which undoubtedly helped them do very well.
I´m sure way more Americans died from the flu or some other infectious disease during the same time span.
I´m sure way more Americans died from the flu or some other infectious disease during the same time span.
Isn't America's mainstream media considered rather left leaning? With the exception of Fox, the major networks do not strike me as pro-Republican, which would make it broad spectrum conspiracy by the standards set out above.
This is for you.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/23/1204303/-How-to-Debunk-the-Liberal-Media-Myth
You can also google the hundreds of articles debunking the "liberal media" myth that conservatives keeping whining about in their poor victim screech. Have a read on the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine as well. A massive, massive affect on talk radio.
Also what many see in the US a left or left of center, would be seen as quite right most other places.
FFS Nobby, that's like me citing gunrights.org as a source in the gun control thread.
For the record, I am using an American perspective of the political spectrum as my reference point. As such, a site like dailykos would be filed under pinko commie.
Two Ebola transmissions inside their borders would always warrant coverage. It was the same in Spain where the same happened, and even in countries like Portugal were no cases were reported. It was all over the news everywhere, and it quickly lost momentum and became an African problem alone after people noticed it was a containable disease in western countries with their high quality healthcare, prevention measures and large resources.
Flu deaths are irrelevant for this issue, they're a given every year, just like traffic deaths or cancer deaths. A potential new epidemic with a disturbing death rate in which people vanish in blood would always warrant coverage.
Or wait . . . here´s a novel approach, why don´t you read and refute what the Daily Kos has to say instead of shooting the messenger. The right wing has becoming so totally united in the media. A right wing talking point will start somewhere, and suddenly it´s all over Fox News, every right wing politician, 24/7 on Talk radio . . . and it´s impossible not to ignore it and it´s everywhere. They have come to dominate the news.FFS Nobby, that's like me citing gunrights.org as a source in the gun control thread.
For the record, I am using an American perspective of the political spectrum as my reference point. As such, a site like daily kos would be filed under pinko commie.
Hardly any climate change news. The ¿liberal? media following George Bush to war . . . Benghazi, Hilary Hilary Hilary . . .
Anyway, go ahead, refute any of these points:
If the media are so liberal, where are all the Union-friendly news shows? I see lots of pro-big business & pro-investor shows. Where are the shows for worker interests? And, other than MSNBC, where are the pro-Union guests? I see lots of guests making the pro-corporate, anti-union arguments. Where are all the union defenders in the "liberal" media?
http://fair.org/...
If the media are so liberal, why do they keep focusing on debt/deficit/austerity and not the arguments against austerity that all the liberal economists are making?
If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore the 2011 Tar Sands protests in DC and the hundreds of arrested protesters, including a renowned NASA scientist?
If the media are so liberal, why have they completely ignored the controversy surrounding the drilling of the Alberta Tar Sands?
If the media are so liberal, why did they parrot Bush's link between Iraq & 9/11, and his claim that Iraq still had WMD's, while ignoring the many experts who could disprove these claims?
If the media are so liberal, why did they cheerlead us into the Iraq war, while censoring those who opposed it?
If the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the largest anti-war protest in the history of mankind on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003, but have since given plenty of mostly uncritical coverage of much smaller Tea Party protests?
Here’s a typical CNN segment on the Tea Party. It’s 3+ minutes of free promotion w/o any criticism:
http://www.youtube.com/...
If the media are so liberal, why did they give so much free publicity to Paul Ryan's "brave", "heroic" budget plan,
http://www.fair.org/...
...while they ignored the Progressive Caucus's People's Budget?
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/...
If the media are so liberal, why did even Bush's own press secretary think the media was too deferential to him?
http://www.salon.com/...
If the media are so liberal, why did they run the fake ACORN voter fraud stories & the faked ACORN video stings, then virtually ignore it when ACORN was vindicated and proven innocent of both?
http://www.factcheck.org/...
http://mediamatters.org/...
http://www.youtube.com/...
http://www.fair.org/...
http://mediamatters.org/...
http://www.bradblog.com/...
http://www.bradblog.com/...
If the media are so liberal, then why do the "liberal" TV stations gladly air tons of liberal-bashing campaign ads by right-wing groups?
If the media are so liberal, why do they keep covering-up for Wall Street and hiding the rampant criminality there?
http://www.alternet.org/...
If the media are so liberal, why was their coverage of right-winger Margaret Thatcher's controversial legacy so fawning and one-sided?
http://www.fair.org/...
http://www.fair.org/...
If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore proven and admitted GOP election fraud?
http://www.alternet.org/...
http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/...
http://www.salon.com/...
http://www.bradblog.com/...
If the media are so liberal, why is there a virtual news blackout of the Trans-Pacific Partnership controversy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
If the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the biggest climate change rally in US history on Februray 17?
http://fair.org/...
Since then, I've seen plenty of right-wing guests on the news urging Obama to approve Keystone and criticizing him for delaying it (even just this morning on MSNBC, with zero argument from the host!), but nobody to explain why there's a huge movement against it.
If the media are so liberal, why did they constantly demonize leftist Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, even promoting anti-Chavez disinfo?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
http://itsoureconomy.us/...
http://truth-out.org/...
If the media are so liberal, why do they treat far-right views as mainstream?
http://www.alternet.org/...
If the media are so liberal, why was coverage of Occupy Wall Street mostly hostile or dismissive?
(Find me ANY example where CNN treated the Tea Party this harshly:
http://www.youtube.com/... )
From Henry A. Giroux: "Missing from both the dominant media and state and national politics was any attempt to critically engage the issues the protesters were raising, not to mention any attempt to dialogue with them over their strategies, tactics, and political concerns."
I could go on and on...
And if you try to argue that all my sources above are themselves "liberally biased", you'd just be proving my point. If the truly liberal alternative media are the only ones pointing these things out, then obviously the mainstream corporate media isn't very liberal, is it?
This is correct.
Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is a good book on the subject of the American media.
Well we are all still alive so the Ebola Czar saved the day then!
I did read the page, Nobby, and it was readily apparent to me why so few of those stories made it into the mainstream media in the US. The big networks are interested in ratings, which generate revenue. Ratings are driven by viewer interest, so the mainstream media in the US has little interest in any so-called controversies regarding the Alberta tar sands or Margaret Thatcher's legacy as those subjects have minimal immediate relevance to their target demographic. This is further exemplified by their general reluctance to report on issues in other nations if they are not directly related to US policy.
Further to that, mainstream media will air any kind of advertising as long as they're paid for it. That's a few of dailykos's whys addressed. I'm happy to concede that big media outlets are typically owned by very wealthy people who do tend to influence the editorial slant at times.
Hugo Chavez, though, seriously? Why wouldn't the American media demonize him? He was rabidly anti-American. The mainstream American news organizations are businesses, pro-Chavez content would be suicidal for them.
Everything you´ve pointed out pretty much leads to the conclusion that there is no "liberal" slant. More to the contrary. Sounds like business and corporate issues would carry more weight and we all know who serves them. Obviously the mainstream media would´t support Chavez (agree it was a lame point by dailykos), but you might think a left leaning one would. And to get back to the original point, who would the whole Ebola madness serve during an upcoming election when the theme has to do with damaging Obama handling of it, healthcare, immigration, Africa (Obama Keynan). You don´t have to be a genius to see who´s interest Ebola-scare served.
And the fact that Benghazi is still mainstream news speaks volumes. If only the environment and climate could generate as much attention. And now the e-mails. Hillary Hillary Hillary!
Oh and don´t forget to check out how the breakdown of the "fairness doctrine" has been a massive game changer.
All I can say in response is that my original point was based on mainstream outlets and the traditional two party divide down south of me. That might clear up my statement that most mainstream outlets are left leaning, i.e. left of GOP/Tea party views. It may be only slightly left and certainly can be influenced by money and power but in general I still stand by the notion of big media in the US being more progressive minded than not.
That said, I think there's more of a distraction policy at work in US mainstream media. I'd be more interested in seeing what political news made the back pages during Ebola Scare 2014 than considering any right wing conspiracy. I reckon something juicy got tacked on to a bill during that time.
That said, I think there's more of a distraction policy at work in US mainstream media. I'd be more interested in seeing what political news made the back pages during Ebola Scare 2014 than considering any right wing conspiracy. I reckon something juicy got tacked on to a bill during that time.
Conspiracy is definitely a word I would not use. It´s plain and simple a political party trying to control the headline news, and the right wing has become very dedicated to it, and to a certain (sad) extent, very very good at it. Watching how they line up among the politicians, news shows, Fox news and talk radio, Murdoch newspapers . . . they will all focus on their same talking point de jour, and squeeze every last drop out of it. 24/7. I´ve never seen anything like it. Can you imagine a political party with a 9/11 attack on its hands, with a memo saying it´s going to happen sitting on their National Security Advisor´s desk a mere month before, being able to years later, make Benghazi (going on two years now) sound like so much of a bigger security issue. Pure malicious genius.
Both parties made what hay they could with the Ebola "scare" , the appointment of an "Ebola Czar" was nothing more than an attempt to look like something was being done even if the step was uncalled for. Everything is not some vase Right Wing Conspiracy
One story that did not get a lot of coverage during the whole scare-mongering about Ebola was the issue of placing troops returning from the "plague zone" in various states of quarantine. Nothing as severe as placing them in total isolation, but many did have some limits placed on who they could contact, if they could leave the base, etc. All this was happening at the same time as some Governors in the US were over-reacting and trying to quarantine returning aid workers.
It seemed strange that one part of the issue got a lot of coverage and debate, while the other did not.
It seemed strange that one part of the issue got a lot of coverage and debate, while the other did not.
The right is well organized, one must admit. Do you remember Lewinsky-gate? (quite fun calling everything some variation of Watergate). Coverage of that was immense.
If you want to see a political party controling the news, I invite you to tune in to the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC), they've been the unofficial mouthpiece of our Liberal party for decades. And we pay for it!
Update - The condition of nurse, Pauline Cafferkey, is now being described as "serious" by doctors as London's Royal Free Hospital.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34483584
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34483584
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date