Noory in denial

[davideduardo]

Sometimes I wish we had a government funded news organization that was independent and free from commercialization. An organization not beholden to commercial or foreign government interests. Although, I'm not too sure how long that would last before it became corrupted.

There have been a number of government funded news agencies. Prensa Latina in this hemisphere is the shining example. Any resemblance with the truth is coincidental. It was offered to me for my news stations in Ecuador back in the late 60's... free. We declined.

Prensa Latina's model is, of course, TASS, the Russian state funded agency. We know how impartial, fair and balance it has always been.

China has several state funded agencies.

Isn't it funny that in free nations, state funded news agencies do not thrive? That is because in totalitarian states, "funded" and "controlled" mean the same thing, and in free nations that bird does not fly.

 

[davideduardo]

That was the idea behind public broadcasting in the 60s. But Reagan pulled the plug on most of the gov't funding. So now we have a hybrid.

Probably a good result, too.

But I never thought that public broadcasting was to be a news agency like AP and UPI and Reuters or FrancePress. It was to be a fully state funded broadcast service that included news and cultural content.

 

[KeithE4]

I think we still don't know enough about the virus in order to make any claim. It's irresponsible to make any conclusion until all of this is said and done due to the nature of this virus. All we can do is take caution and report the opinions of experts, scientific studies, and what our federal, state and local governments are doing.

Other than Dr. Fauci and, believe it or not, VP Pence, there are no leaders at the Federal level.

Having said that, I've been bothered by news outlets in how they have "sensationalized" this event for their own ratings and agenda. The pissing match between the president and the media about Hydroxychloroquine was absolutely ridiculous. And it was mind boggling to see outlets such as Fox News and CNN even waste time discussing the name fiasco. Coronavirus, Covid-19, Wuhan Coronavirus, China Virus....?*♂️. It's almost as if they're trying to please China in order to protect their Chinese interests....almost

Don't watch the New York-based national news broadcasts, regardless of their political slant (or claimed lack thereof). Just don't watch any of them. Because NYC has been hit the worst, and quite a few network news folks have been infected (CBS having the most casualties, both physical and human), none of them can report this pandemic in any way objectively. The networks have written their news stories, at least in recent decades, with strictly a Northeastern perspective, and really don't give a flying fig about the rest of the country.

But at the same time, the local newscasts, including those from the O&Os, have been filled with good, factual information. Their local anchors and reporters have been on the ball, maybe because they are only broadcasting to their local areas and aren't interested in pushing any kind of agenda to the rest of the country. If you have a Roku or other streaming TV box, get the NewsOn and CBSN apps, and watch the local newscasts. Forget the networks. Especially the cable noise-babblers.

My personal opinion of the president is that he's incompetent. But the media right now...oh boy. They're just more interested in getting in their licks instead of holding their journalistic integrity. Sometimes I wish we had a government funded news organization that was independent and free from commercialization. An organization not beholden to commercial or foreign government interests. Although, I'm not too sure how long that would last before it became corrupted.

The Federal Government, except for Pence and Fauci, is incompetent, impotent, and incapable of leading or accomplishing anything. That goes for all three branches. This effort is being run by the states by default, with varying degrees of success.

And we already have a taxpayer-funded news agency that is impartial by charter. It continues to give the world straight-up news with no political or corporate interference. Meaning that Trump probably has never heard of it. It's called The Voice Of America. Its shortwave broadcasting days may be numbered, but they have a good online presence. It's been around since 1942.

 

[KeithE4]

Sick as he is, Rush Limbaugh is saying the same thing.

Maybe he's hoping that massive amounts of egg on his face is a potential cure for cancer.

 

[davideduardo]

And we already have a taxpayer-funded news agency that is impartial by charter. It continues to give the world straight-up news with no political or corporate interference. Meaning that Trump probably has never heard of it. It's called The Voice Of America. Its shortwave broadcasting days may be numbered, but they have a good online presence. It's been around since 1942.

I've been hired twice by the agency that includes the VOA and other institutions and it's obvious that you have not worked for the VOA or followed it closely.

It's highly political, and it's approach to the news is frequently not the best; when they don't like a story, they don't cover it or they only cover certain aspects.

When owned a group of radio stations in Ecuador, I got constant pestering to carry VOA programs and newscasts. Never accepted as the stuff we auditioned was rather biased.

 

[TheBigA]

But I never thought that public broadcasting was to be a news agency like AP and UPI and Reuters or FrancePress. It was to be a fully state funded broadcast service that included news and cultural content.

That's correct. "Cultural" meaning opera, drama, jazz, folk. After the federal funding got cut, a lot of the cultural went away.

 

[KeithE4]

I've been hired twice by the agency that includes the VOA and other institutions and it's obvious that you have not worked for the VOA or followed it closely.

It's highly political, and it's approach to the news is frequently not the best; when they don't like a story, they don't cover it or they only cover certain aspects.

When owned a group of radio stations in Ecuador, I got constant pestering to carry VOA programs and newscasts. Never accepted as the stuff we auditioned was rather biased.

Interesting. I don't remember VOA being blatantly pro-administration at any time, except for the Nixon era. And I've been a listener, either on shortwave or online, since 1965.

 

[davideduardo]

That's correct. "Cultural" meaning opera, drama, jazz, folk. After the federal funding got cut, a lot of the cultural went away.

They discovered that those music forms and plays did not generate contributions the way news did.

 

[TheBigA]

They discovered that those music forms and plays did not generate contributions the way news did.

They spun production of those shows off to stations (stations get the direct funding anyway). NPR still handles distribution.

 

[davideduardo]

Interesting. I don't remember VOA being blatantly pro-administration at any time, except for the Nixon era. And I've been a listener, either on shortwave or online, since 1965.

VOA was not pro-administration. It was pro-democratic capitalism under the American model (lower case "d" in "democratic").

The content tended to favor through both inclusion and frequency of insertion stories about the greatness of the US and its allies, and they were fond of the most negative ones about Russia and its sphere of influence.

I was first approached to carry VOA stuff in 1964, within days of putting my first station on the air. I got numerous invitations to things like the monthly meetings with the U.S. Ambassador in Ecuador for the "expatriate business community" (I hated that name, and never attended as I was not in exile) and 4th of July gatherings of a bunch of Americans working there who all shared the quality of not speaking a word of Spanish.

After a while, they left me alone. It would have been a kiss of death to carry their stuff, which was pretty awful anyway.

Everything that Burdick and Lederer wrote in "The Ugly American" about American diplomacy in Southeast Asia was true in South America. And that attitude of moral superiority was very much part of the VOA content at the time. And it was still prevalent nearly three decades later when I was appointed to do the annual revues of Radio Marti.

 

[KeithE4]

VOA was not pro-administration. It was pro-democratic capitalism under the American model (lower case "d" in "democratic").

The content tended to favor through both inclusion and frequency of insertion stories about the greatness of the US and its allies, and they were fond of the most negative ones about Russia and its sphere of influence.

Well, it was during the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and just a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the assassination of the President who was in office at that time. Besides, that was no different than what the commercial networks were doing at the time, and had been since at least the 1950s. Criticism of the Federal Government was still considered a bit of a no-no in those days, at least until Cronkite went after LBJ in '68.

I was first approached to carry VOA stuff in 1964, within days of putting my first station on the air. I got numerous invitations to things like the monthly meetings with the U.S. Ambassador in Ecuador for the "expatriate business community" (I hated that name, and never attended as I was not in exile) and 4th of July gatherings of a bunch of Americans working there who all shared the quality of not speaking a word of Spanish.

After a while, they left me alone. It would have been a kiss of death to carry their stuff, which was pretty awful anyway.

One would think that if somebody was going to work in a country who's language is other than English, it would make a lot of sense to learn the native tongue. No different than the immigrants I worked with over the years who had to learn English. It took time, but most of them were able to do so.

As far as VOA's broadcasts to Latin America went, I didn't (and don't) speak Spanish, so I have no idea what they were sending to that part of the world.

Everything that Burdick and Lederer wrote in "The Ugly American" about American diplomacy in Southeast Asia was true in South America. And that attitude of moral superiority was very much part of the VOA content at the time. And it was still prevalent nearly three decades later when I was appointed to do the annual revues of Radio Marti.

"American exceptionalism," no matter what it was called, has been an ugly stain on the US since the 19th century, but it really took off after World War II. And it's still a thing today, thanks to the current inept fool in the White House and his minions. There is nothing exceptional about any of them.

 

[BamaTX]

Isn't it funny that in free nations, state funded news agencies do not thrive? That is because in totalitarian states, "funded" and "controlled" mean the same thing, and in free nations that bird does not fly.

DW out of Germany seems ok. Don't really care for the BBC, but they seem to have a good following.

But outside of those, you're right. I know some Mexican states have public broadcasts that also handle news for their regions.

 

[davideduardo]

Well, it was during the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and just a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the assassination of the President who was in office at that time. Besides, that was no different than what the commercial networks were doing at the time, and had been since at least the 1950s. Criticism of the Federal Government was still considered a bit of a no-no in those days, at least until Cronkite went after LBJ in '68.

We were still only a bit over a decade away from the end of WW II, a time when national unity was pretty much the norm in the US and criticism was replaced with colaboration.

One would think that if somebody was going to work in a country who's language is other than English, it would make a lot of sense to learn the native tongue. No different than the immigrants I worked with over the years who had to learn English. It took time, but most of them were able to do so.

That was never my experience in any of the places I worked... Ecuador, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Argentina, Peru and more.

There is even an old and often repeated joke:

A: What do you call a person who speaks many languges?
B: A polyglot.
A: So what do you call a person who speaks two languages?
B: Bilingual.
A: And what is someone who only speaks one language?
B: An American.

"American exceptionalism," no matter what it was called, has been an ugly stain on the US since the 19th century, but it really took off after World War II. And it's still a thing today, thanks to the current inept fool in the White House and his minions. There is nothing exceptional about any of them.

Actually, the "fool" is trying to extract the US from involvement in many foreign nations. I see that as a positive for him.

The year before I got to Ecuador, the President of the Republic, Carlos Julio Arosemena Monroy, did something unmentionable at a diplomatic reception that involved urine and the U.S. Ambassador. Within a couple of days, the U.S. Military-supported army had taken over the country and tossed Arosemena on a plane to St. Elsewhere.

That was the typical American "influence" in Latin America, repeated a hundred times over since the 19th Century. It's why when I travel outside the US I speak Spanish, French, even broken Italian or Portuguese before trying English...

 

[davideduardo]

DW out of Germany seems ok. Don't really care for the BBC, but they seem to have a good following.

But outside of those, you're right. I know some Mexican states have public broadcasts that also handle news for their regions.

But those are news media, not news services. Reuters, AP, UPI, FrancePress are or were the significant English language services, mostly existing for newspapers but offering radio services in many countries.

In Ecuador, I used FrancePress for my news/talk/sports stations as they had better Spanish and more Latin American news than the others. Of course, Cuba's Prensa Latina wanted in and so did an offshoot of the TASS Russian news agency... they even offered an almost free Czech transmitter (up to 135 kw, in fact) if I'd take the service.

 

[TheBigA]

So here's an example of a false and misleading OPINION just posted by Sean Hannity at FoxNews.com:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sean-hannity-gov-cuomo-stop-denying-new-yorkers-hydroxychloroquine

Enough is enough. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo needs to IMMEDIATELY lift his pharmacy ban that is forcing New Yorkers stricken by the coronavirus into an already overburdened hospital system to get the potentially life-saving drug hydroxychloroquine.

The truth is two weeks ago, the governor stopped prescriptions of drugs that weren't FDA approved. Seems fair, right? Since then, the Governor has encouraged the experimental use of the drug in NY hospitals. The governor is doing as much as he can without the FDA. The opinion is false and misleading. Should Hannity be sued? Why would a celebrity TV host write an opinion that is obviously misleading? Because it furthers the narrative that the Governor isn't a hero. That he's a bad guy causing the people of New York pain and even death. So this is an example of the game that's being played. The article was clearly marked as OPINION. Is it illegal? Should the FCC step in? At what point is having false opinions illegal?

 

[gr8oldies]

The celebrity would write the opinion because he, and many Trump cult members are convinced, with no real evidence, that the malaria drug cocktail (#TrumpPills) is the miracle cure that will eliminate the COVID-19 virus within a week, the plebes will all go to work, the Cheesecake Factory reopens, and Our Lord and Savior Donald Trump will be a hero for saving the world, and will win the Presidency by 99% with all of the electoral votes. He will be a king, and give his fans everything they want. No immigrants! Soft theocracy! It'll be the 1950s all over again!

Making the opinion illegal, or someone (maybe someone who legitimately needed the drug for Lupus and wasn't able to get it because of the Trump-caused run) being able to sue over it is something I don't know.

So here's an example of a false and misleading OPINION just posted by Sean Hannity at FoxNews.com:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sean-hannity-gov-cuomo-stop-denying-new-yorkers-hydroxychloroquine



The truth is two weeks ago, the governor stopped prescriptions of drugs that weren't FDA approved. Seems fair, right? Since then, the Governor has encouraged the experimental use of the drug in NY hospitals. The governor is doing as much as he can without the FDA. The opinion is false and misleading. Should Hannity be sued? Why would a celebrity TV host write an opinion that is obviously misleading? Because it furthers the narrative that the Governor isn't a hero. That he's a bad guy causing the people of New York pain and even death. So this is an example of the game that's being played. The article was clearly marked as OPINION. Is it illegal? Should the FCC step in? At what point is having false opinions illegal?

 

[boombox4]

It's very sad how the poison of politics (my own opinion of politics, BTW, is that it is poison) is coloring the nation's response to a dangerous contagion. Oh well.

 

[The New Chico]

I hear a lot of people on this board (and elsewhere) saying things like "The FCC needs to crack down on Fox News (or CNN or MSNBC or whatever.)" The FCC is largely and mainly concerned about the public airwaves. You know, stuff that gets broadcast over the airwaves that we all in theory own, through some form or another of modulation? Cable networks are NOT broadcast networks.

 

[davideduardo]

The celebrity would write the opinion because he, and many Trump cult members are convinced, with no real evidence, that the malaria drug cocktail (#TrumpPills) is the miracle cure...

There is sufficient evidence that the two-drug combination may reduce the effect of the Coronavirus, particularly on older patients with any of the conditions that seem to otherwise have the effect of an increased mortality rate. While further testing is needed, were I to get the virus I'd definitely request those medications be added to my treatment just in case.

I already use one drug that was created for one condition but which works well for another. This is a very common occurrence in medical science.

The part I don't believe is that some doctors in Latin America believe that patients treated with that medication in the past for malaria will be immune to the new disease. Were that the case, I'd be home free...

 

[davideduardo]

The truth is two weeks ago, the governor stopped prescriptions of drugs that weren't FDA approved. Seems fair, right? Since then, the Governor has encouraged the experimental use of the drug in NY hospitals. The governor is doing as much as he can without the FDA. The opinion is false and misleading. Should Hannity be sued? Why would a celebrity TV host write an opinion that is obviously misleading? Because it furthers the narrative that the Governor isn't a hero. That he's a bad guy causing the people of New York pain and even death. So this is an example of the game that's being played. The article was clearly marked as OPINION. Is it illegal? Should the FCC step in? At what point is having false opinions illegal?

But the combination of the malaria drug with another is approved. Just not for this use.

And there is some initial testing of this off use with positive results. Maybe not totally definitive, but encouraging for those in high risk age and condition situations. Heck, even the New York Times has written favorably about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-malaria.html

Off-use of drugs is a common occurrence. I am on one instance right now, in fact. All that was required for insurance payment was a specific recommendation from the doctor based on having tried other meds and getting poor results.

I am really even more glad now that i don't live in New York; were I to get symptoms my physician here could have me pick that up at the drug store and use until I could get tested. And I am really glad that Cuomo is not my governor. I'll take Gavin any day!