This is one of the most laughable ‘outrages’ I’ve seen in a while. It’s not a new story. It comes up a few times a year but the answer to the problem is always the same.
First, let me, as a member of the media, highlight why some stories get covered and others don’t. Newsflash, it almost never has anything to do with skin color.
People who just vanish and there’s no additional information or evidence available, tend to not get covered all that much. It’s horrible for the families of the victims but it’s a reality in the news business. There needs to be a ‘hook’ to use to suck the audience into the story.
Those ‘hooks’ could be an unusual set of events, surveillance video showing something that might be relevant to the case, a photograph, text, or cryptic phone call. Sometimes there might even be witnesses. It could also be a small piece of evidence in the case. The media, often at the request of the authorities, puts this info out there to the public so the public can view the evidence and maybe help with the case. If there’s no evidence, the coverage rarely moves beyond the initial few stories for headline news. People like to feel like they can help a case and then become invested in it emotionally.
Crimes that happen in areas that aren’t crime-ridden do tend to get covered more because they are atypical. Is this fair to the victim’s family in those other cases, no. It is a reality though. Most local news outlets that I’ve seen in my career do a great job of highlighting tragic cases involving children even in high crime areas. They don’t often make national news because they aren’t of national interest.
Gabbi Petito’s case had all of the ‘hooks’ that make a compelling news story and then some. She was likely the victim of domestic battery, she was an aspiring social media influencer with fans who followed her travels, her public social media posts provided more evidence in the case, and she was traveling the country when the crime happened which means there’s more need for authorities to get the story on national media to gather evidence. Most stories don’t have most of these components. The fact that Gabby was young, white, and attractive are all secondary factors in the news coverage but people like Joy Reid want you to think those are the primary reasons her story was so widely covered. I’ve covered countless cases like this and the looks or race of the victim are rarely the central dynamics in coverage. The facts and evidence of the case are almost always the driving force. I’ve covered stories with all sorts of races and conventional standards of beauty throughout my career. The only demographic that I’ve ever seen get cast aside and not really given meaningful attention are boys and men who disappear. There are exceptions to that rule but, generally speaking, we cover the missing girl or woman much more readily than for boys or men.
This has never stopped the news media from screaming foul every time a case gets the attention that Gabby’s did when the victim is a white woman.
The media's focus on the Gabby Petito case has been frustrating for some people — who point out that the epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women doesn't get nearly the same media attention.https://t.co/CAEI82oXrL
“In the same area that Gabby Petito disappeared, 710 indigenous people— mostly girls—disappeared between the years of 2011 and 2020 but their stories didn’t lead news cycles …” https://t.co/HJ01B6CsRK
Eugene Scott is with the Washington Post. Eugene Scott didn’t know about those other missing people until Gabby went missing. He never bothered to look before so save us the sanctimony.
These hysterics are wonderfully ironic.
The news media is OVERWHELMINGLY liberal. Every survey of the media shows a vast majority are liberal. It’s been that way for decades. Some estimates have the media being around 85% Democrat/liberal. Analysis of the media’s political donations are well over 90% to Democrats. In some election cycles, the media donates to Democrats by as much as 96-97% over Republicans.
The media’s political ideology is only relevant because that same news media tells you constantly that the left is anti-racist and the right is racist.
So, the media says it’s racism that leads to missing white women getting more coverage than minority women but it’s the media who chooses what stories get covered and that media overwhelmingly identifies as being politically left?
If the news media thinks racism is what’s driving missing white women to get more coverage than non-white missing persons then the media should probably stop being so racist in their choice of what they cover, don’t you think?
It’s like the athlete gender pay gap nonsense. If women really cared about women athletes being paid as much as men, women would start watching women’s sports and support those athletes, but they don’t.
All the media has to do to change what stories get the most attention is to … change what stories get the most attention. They are the only ones to blame for this. No one else controls what stories get covered. Maybe stop constantly trying to demonize middle America and Trump for 5 minutes and focus on all of those non-white missing person cases you didn’t know about before lamenting the coverage of Gabby Petito. May she rest in peace and her family get justice.
Most of you know I’ve been covering the actual science on COVID since December of 2019 with daily coverage starting January 14, 2020. My goal was to ensure my audience was informed of the latest on the virus so they could survive. That goal hasn’t changed.
Just as we had in December of 2019, we still have politicians, activists and the media either straight-up lying to you, or at the very least, peddling unverified information that isn’t true. As I’ve always said, the biggest problem with the media isn’t that they are sinister, it’s that they are lazy.
For 15+ years I’ve covered the news media getting scientific stories and studies wrong. Sometimes this was to push a narrative. Other times it was simply that they didn’t understand the study’s conclusions or they went for the ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ strategy for clickbait.
The good news is that he feels great. The story should be ‘Joe Rogan gets COVID, feels great after treatment.’ That isn’t the story though. He must be sacrificed to the mask God Karen for the Cult of Mask. We must have his blood!
Enter Stuart Varney on Fox Business:
Fox Business segment slams Joe Rogan for taking ivermectin after Tucker Carlson pushed the horse dewormer
Ok, Dr. Bob Lahita now has no credibility to discuss this pandemic. None.
Dr. Lahita downplaying Ivermectin as a drug for cattle shows he isn’t in the loop about Ivermectin research over the past several years, even before the pandemic.
Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits.
Further down the line:
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
Wow! Fauci’s NIH has research on their site showing ivermectin works against COVID. Oh, the scandal!
COVID isn’t the first virus ivermectin has been studied to use as a treatment.
Also in the NIH article:
Since 2012, a growing number of cellular studies have demonstrated that ivermectin has antiviral properties against an increasing number of RNA viruses, including influenza, Zika, HIV, Dengue, and most importantly, SARS-CoV-2.9–17 Insights into the mechanisms of action by which ivermectin both interferes with the entrance and replication of SARS-CoV-2 within human cells are mounting.
We’ve been studying ivermectin to treat the flu, Zika, HIV Dengue Fever, etc. since 2012. The idea that using ivermectin to treat a virus is, to quote Dr. Bob Lahita, “ridiculous” is … well … ridiculous. Ivermectin is also approved for use in humans for parasitic worms and diseases and has been established as safe for humans in the right dosage. He’s not only wrong, but he’s also, at least, 9 years behind the science.
So, how does ivermectin work against certain viruses, like COVID?
For the SARS-CoV-2 virus to make you sick, it has to first infect your cells.
Then while inside the cell, the virus makes heaps of copies of itself, so it can spread around your body.
The virus also has ways of reducing the way your body fights the infection.
During the infection of the cell, some viral proteins go into the cell nucleus, and from here they can decrease the body’s ability to fight the virus, which means the infection can get worse.
To get into the nucleus the viral proteins need to bind a cargo transporter which lets them in.
Ivermectin can block the cargo transporter, so the viral proteins can’t get into the nucleus. This is how the scientists believe Ivermectin works against SARS-CoV-2 virus.
By taking Ivermectin, it means the body can fight the infection like normal, because its antiviral response hasn’t been reduced by the viral proteins.
Keep in mind, that’s Drugs.com, not some guy named Kyle with a blog. The article goes on to cite several studies where ivermectin saves lives fighting COVID.
This Stuart Varney segment reminded me of when Neil Cavuto, also of Fox Business, LIED to his audience about Hydroxychloroquine. Falsely claiming ‘you will die‘ if you took it. The Stuart Varney segment may not be as unhinged as the Cavuto nonsense but it was equally inaccurate. HCQ, like all medications, isn’t perfect and some patients shouldn’t take it depending on other health issues. Again, like every other medication on the planet. HCQ has only claimed the lives of 8 people from overdosing since the 1950s. It’s a safe drug as long as you don’t have any health issues that would suffer from taking it.
You have to ask why everywhere else in the world shows overwhelmingly positive results with HCQ but we don’t. Of course, the answer is most studies done in North America only use HCQ by itself in the late stages of COVID. In those circumstances, it’s only about 21% effective. For reference, the golden child, and very expensive, Remdesivir is only about 22% effective but is universally praised by the media, politicians, and medical community. Of course, Remdesivir’s maker, Gilead, has a lot of people in their pockets and was responsible for a lot of anti-HCQ propaganda. When I took the HCQ stack, my symptoms disappeared in 2 hours. Countless others have similar stories. Did it save my life? Probably not. It did make my recovery faster.
With the constant droning on about hospitalizations overwhelming communities, should we be focusing on inexpensive and effective treatments that keep people out of the hospital?
Just because a lab shows a result, doesn’t mean it works in the real world. However, we know HCQ worked in the real world because we had thousands of doctors who treated COVID patients daily attest to how well HCQ worked. The political class in the US chose to ignore those medical professionals, with more experience treating COVID than our own doctors, and instead ostracized them as quacks. At a time when we had nothing else, taking HCQ with azithromycin and zinc would have saved countless lives. The media, activists, politicians, and ill-informed public health officials needlessly let people die.
Are there better options than HCQ now? Yes. Ivermectin is one of them. Yet the media and ‘doctors’ who are way out of their depths are smearing it again in the middle of a surge in Delta variant COVID. They are repeating their mistakes and people will die because of their hubris.
Every news channel is ablaze this week with the FBI threat assessment about the inauguration of Joe Biden. Headline after headling about extremist group plots, etc. However, the actual threat assessment report says the exact opposite. There are no identified credible threats. No threats from extremists, no cyber threats, no threats using drones … none. Had any ‘journalist’ taken a few minutes to actually read the report they’d know that and stop spreading panic porn all over the country.
Mixed in with the stories of some previous incidents, many that left out many contexts, are the actual threat assessments. They are found on pages 2 and 6.
Basically, it’s a standard threat assessment. There are no identified credible threats but authorities must be on the lookout for threats missed leading up to the event. This is a vanilla and routine threat assessment. They warn about the usual suspects, including Islamic terrorists. This isn’t stopping the media from distorting what the report actually says.
