eh...it's a crabwalk. We knew what most of Asia was doing, we knew most people early on were after n95s. His early statements were misleading at best, bordering on negligent: Not a fan of rising, but they got the clip where the previous quote came from:
All the Rand report said is that ZH "frequently echoes the Kremlin line." It didn't give any examples. See p. 13. Not a great source to prove what you want to prove. The Sputnik website was mentioned. This is a Russian tabloid that has stories that can be quite interesting, many of which aren't reported here. The Eurekalert report averred: Wilbur (a visiting scholar in the UTSA Department of Communication) analyzed over 600 articles and found a strong, positive correlation between Sputnik, Russia’s state-owned media, and popular alternative media sites that are thought to provide favorable coverage in the U.S. of Russia and its allies. All these sites have a strategy of reporting things that can't be found in the MSM, and most of them have nothing to do with national security. It's no surprise that they have similar referral networks or rely on each other for information. It seems like all of this is based on the work of a visiting professor at UT San Antonio.
I doubt whether you took a good sampling of their posts before you wrote that. A lot of them are next day's stories in conservative MSM like Fox or the Washington Examiner. They scoop the MSM quite a bit.
I can't entirely disagree with this. It is possible some of the misleading was a result of the press not quoting him in entirety, possibly with a particular agenda in mind. As you know, I am not one to put any trust in the Trump administration, and I see Fauci as a victim of an evil administration that was using him until he said "enough," or as the Italians would say, "basta!" Fauci is an Italian name, right?
I'm not accusing you of it, but the press has been putting non-Trumpies on a unwarranted pedestal. Actions should stand on their own, not merely be a comparison of the muck pit surrounding them. The Fauci's character assassination was taken too far by the admin but he had stumbles that aren't above scrutiny.
But these are not reports, these are either opinion pieces or blatant conspiracy theories, ofcourse MSM can't report such things without getting sued or mocked for bullshit. I mean, there is absolute nonsense being posted by morons on facebook, those are things not to be found in MSM, should we start believing that based on your logic of going unreported?
I have read enough to determine I don't want to waste my time with them. They quite often intermingle facts with conclusions that reflect a particular political slant. But that's not the worst. The worst is the outright mis-statement of fact and conspiracy promotion. Their standards fall into the mold left by William Randolph Hearst, the creator of "yellow" journalism, and carried forward by Rupert Murdoch using the same tactics to sell trash as news. Hearst succeeded in starting a war, Will Murdoch try the same?
He has a tough job. My only point in the OP was what he said at any particular moment had as much to do with crowd control as the truth. He also probably knew boosters would be required long before they were officially recommended.
You're just wrong. Go read the stories. How about the Lincoln Project story that's there now, exGOPer? That's been picked up by real newspapers.