I still have to conclude, these were concepts mentioned however should not have been discussed during a live briefing.
1 Like
WOW. Are you serious someone flagged it? I didn’t see anything wrong with it.
4 Likes
Yes. I had to make some sort of simple edit to have be available again. And no, nothing was wrong with it. To some, you apparently cannot have an opposing view.
6 Likes
I think if something gets flagged for review and there is nothing wrong with it then the person flagging it “just because” needs to get disciplined in some way.
3 Likes
I didn’t agree with everything you said, but I saw nothing flaggable in your comments.
4 Likes
We’re in doodoo up to our knees with politics these days 
1 Like
That’s a bunch of doodoo - apparently we have some sensitive folks here as I saw nothing wrong with your post
1 Like
Very fair point! The Darwin principle at work
Ditto.
And demean those who don’t agree. Case in point:
I will give $100 to your favorite charity if you can produce the video of President Trump saying that.
1 Like
2 Likes
Well, There is this article:
There is a bit more to what he said, and he also clarified things immediately afterwards (at the same conference)… That part gets left out…
And, I have heard about a medical procedure to flush out the lungs with a rinse (if needed) - that does exist.
Now, at face value, what he said was silly. But, he did clarify it right after. So, when everyone left that conference, there was no misunderstanding from the reporters who covered it. But that doesn’t matter to them…
The guy is a walking hazard! His trying to spin it the next day didn’t do much for his credibility either:
“I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters just like you, just to see what would happen. I was asking a sarcastic and a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside. But it does kill it and it would kill it on the hands, and it would make things much better.”
I’m sorry, he wasn’t. I’ve watched his press conference, that wasn’t asking the reporters a question. And, in any case, he is supposed to be the President of the USA, or as previous presidents have been promoted, the “Leader of the free World”.
He has one job at a press conference, to provide clear, concise and accurate information to the citizens of the USA and to the world; not pranking the press, which is clearly what he didn’t do.
Yes, but he shouldn’t have had to clarify such an obviously stupid statement. Every child knows that ingesting cleaning products is, at best, dangerous to the health, if not lethal, because their parents drum it into them from the moment they can grab hold of things.
I would have sympathy for him, if he had admitted, that in the heat of the moment, he got carried away… But he tries to blame the press for his own mistake.
3 Likes
Thank you for bringing this up! I think you are right: this stuff is off topic for a show with a technically very narrow scope. In the given context, it may be somewhat understandable.
To me (and I believe you might agree), the real problem is the tone in some cases - both on air and in discussions. We can probably all learn to be a bit more considerate in how we express thoughts and try and keep frustrations from picking our vocabulary for us. (For me, e.g., I can tell that I am lost-for-words-frustrated if I start cursing and talk cras. Does not help one bit, but it’s hard to change that habit.) In my mind, this goes for everyone from DT on down. Those who choose to act as role models, go further. There are still many people who do this well and consistently. Call it contenance, stiff upper lip, Haltung, it appears to be a threatened craft.
Sure, “here comes the thought and speech police, screw that, snowflake, end all political correctness, say it like it is!”, some will yell. But then: we are all social beings and if we don’t try to make a point that others can digest, we are not interested in collaboration but collapse thereof.
It seems to me, many societies have a challenging time getting back to having broad shares of their populace being able to discuss for the sake of collaboration and not competition. Much of it may have to do with being part of a (perceived as) strenuous system that wrings curiosity for other standpoints right out of you. From my point of view, the solution is not to abstain from but to train that skill. But certainly not in a PodCast called MacBreak Weekly.
I have watched his clumsy response (given the need to filter every utterance being picked apart and used to at slightly espouse a different meaning) more than once. Sure, he could have said it differently but I still think he was asking his team if there was a way to ingest some kind of disinfectant to help or use some kind of radiation treatment. These are questions many have and he was voicing them. It is clear he wasn’t thinking about bleach or xrays. Interesting how there are some treatments that actually use those methods. Sure given that there are many waiting to pounce on such utterances to maybe bend them into a political misstatement, he should not have said them in that way…he certainly is not a typical politician. He makes many cringe-worthy utterances, kind of amazing how many end up not being quite as outrageous as originally thought.
I would rather he stick to an overview of the situation and then let the professionals deal with the details but guess he isn’t going to do that. I am astounded that he tried to pass off this particular utterance as being sarcastic, but then he has been a politician for 3+ years…
Big D, I still don’t see that he specifically suggested ingesting typical cleaning products but questioned if there is a possibility of an indigestible anti viral, which there is. It is sad that there are so many panicked people they would resort to such extreme things.
1 Like
Yes, which wasn’t him being sarcastic to the press or “pranking” the press, as he stated the next day. And it was ultraviolet light, not radiation and injection, not necessarily ingestion.
But “everybody” already knows that disinfectants range from poisonous to lethal, heck it says so on the packaging!
Yes, it is amazing watching the difference between our Chancellor and Trump. One is a role-model for handling a crisis in front of the camera, keeping calm, talking clearly and methodically about the situation, leaving all statements about the actual disease and procedures to virologists or epidemiologists, the other one, not so much.
He spoke from injection, as opposed to oral and using UV light either through the skin or in the body. Again, why do you wear sunscreen? Because UV light is harmful to the human body.
Both disinfectants and UV light destroy or damage biological material, which includes the human body.
So, during the conference, he backtracks on his initial statement.
And, again, the next day:
Again, where above was he being sarcastic or pranking the reporters? When he was asking those questions, he was talking directly to his medical advisor. Looking at her facial expression, I was really waiting for her to do a Jean Luc Face-Palm.
As I said above. If he’d said he got carried away and he apologized, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It is taking his mistake and trying to blame that on the press that is unconscionable.
2 Likes
Yes, and it is happening on this forum sometimes too, unfortunately.
5 Likes
I don’t think we disagree that much, he annoyingly does prank the press, especially when they utter ridiculous trap questions rather than trying to get answers for us…one of the reasons their days may be numbers as far as viability goes. UV is radiation, just not ionizing and is used for disinfectant purposes whether cell phones or barbershop tools. You wear sunscreen because the benefits out way the risk. I had the same thought after cringing over the sarcastic explanation, if he would have been clarified that he was putting out thoughts and asking questions would have been a better response…probably even better if he had not gone there.
Apparently the press in your country is far more trusted than in the US where journalism sometimes seems to not be the primary objective.
I agree with you for the most part.
Yes, our press is still highly regarded by most and there doesn’t seem to be the same Democrat/Republican divide in their reporting. They are usually fairly neutral, reporting the facts with some comment, but in the mainstream TV news there is less bias, even “opposing” sides generally report pretty much the same thing in the same light.
Likewise, they seem to be pulling in the same direction, where it comes to the crisis. They report the official line first and then point out where they think this is good or bad - and they always get the relevant experts in.
If it is a medical story, they get a respected doctor from that discipline to talk about it. For example all the stations get epedimiologists or virologists in to talk about the latest breaking news in finding a cure or stemming the spread. Likewise, if there is a story about air travel, they have an air travel expert. Legal case? They pull in a qualified lawyer to talk about it.
They don’t tend to rant, they don’t try and push a political agenda (at least not overtly), they don’t try and poke fun at politicians for the “fun of it”. If a politician makes a real gaff, they will point it out, but I’ve rarely seen them try and put words in people’s mouths.
The paper press is a different matter, there are the conservative equivalents of the Financial Times or Times and there are the populist Bild, which is like The Sun in the UK, nude photos and whacko takes on stories, trying to rile up the population. Unfortunately they are still fairly popular. But the “normal” press is like the TV news, fairly neutral and balanced reporting.
I’m totally gobsmacked about how non-journalistic a lot of reporting is in the USA.
1 Like
Well, you cannot believe ANYTHING here in the US media. Most of the press puts out propaganda. Hell, the NY Times will sometimes sorta print the truth, then they go back and edit their own story (within a few hours) and take out stuff that would make the democrats look bad. They just did it with a Joe Biden story in the last week or so, because his campaign called and complained. Can’t have any negative things out there about their guy ya know…
Or, they ignore a story they don’t want to cover… Sometimes, for as long as possible, and sometimes forever. Many times they are VERY important stories, but as they do not fit the narrative, the main stream media pretends like it does not exist.
Other times, they 100% make up a story. A story about a specific person or event - and come to find out… The person does not even exist, or the event never even happened. That is why you cannot believe anything. When they make up the entire event, what can you do?
They have been making up their own “sources” for Trump stories since before he took office. They even gave themselves pulitzer prizes for their fake stories that we now know was 100% false (Trump/Russia collusion and all the supposed events)
The agenda of the main stream media is so pathetically obvious, I hope more and more people wake up to it. Unfortunately, I know some people who believe it all…
2 Likes