The Media vs. The Administration: Mixed Messaging, Deliberate Confusion, or Distrust?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I tried this thread in OT about 10 days ago and it got one response, then was quickly buried. Unfortunately, the question still seems to be valid.

We all know 'spin' is a fact of life in today's... 'journalism.' We all know that 'spin' is an everyday routine for politicians. But, during emergencies, sometimes you wish they'd get together on the necessary messaging. For instance, several media outlets now have some variant on this story...



Meanwhile, the cable channels are playing this PSA from Dr. Fauci...



Huh? If you feel 'sick,' DO NOT go to the emergency room? Phone it in instead? Maintaining social distancing is THE priority and you feeling 'sick' is... secondary?

So... On the one hand, the "Government" is seemingly advising you NOT to go to the emergency room (or even the doctor's office) and on the other, the media is trying to tell you that doctors are saying you need to be going to emergency rooms to make sure you don't have a problem and creating a bigger one by staying away?!?!

I get it. Too many people go to the emergency room for the sniffles or other 'minor' problems which don't require a doctor's oversight. It's something health insurance companies have been lamenting, talking about, and discouraging for years; especially given the exorbitant costs. (Which is another angle, in that some health care facilities want, even 'need,' those fees coming in the door.) That is what Fauci appears to be getting at. During the emergency, don't waste the resources.

Unfortunately, that's not necessarily the way it comes across to many. Add in the fear of COVID-19 (where the nightly news pronounces each new set of cases as if they were automatic 'death sentences'), the potential of quarantine measures, all the 'horror' stories in the media about being isolated by the medical profession and you have a near perfect storm for: "I'm not going to no hospital or seeing a doctor."

Today, The New York Times is on it... Amid the Coronavirus Crisis, Heart and Stroke Patients Go Missing

If you read the comments, it seems pretty clear that the people envision this as the norm for hospitals right now...







Oh... Wait... (My second grade teacher had spent time in an iron lung during the polio epidemic.)

The reality is the comments are saying: "I'd rather die at home." So, the mindset seems to be that if I'm infected and have to go to the hospital, I'm gonna die.

In fact, last night, I got into a bit of discussion with a Walmart employee over the idea that we'd had over 900,000 DEATHS in the U.S. from COVID-19. I told her that was the number of confirmed cases and the number of deaths was around 40,000 - 50,000. I was informed that I didn't know what I was talking about as she'd heard the 900,000 deaths in the U.S. on the news and I should go home and watch the news to discover she was right because SHE watches the news. (All this with her face mask pulled down, not covering her nose/mouth; presumably, because it was 'inconvenient' to try talking through the mask. But, SHE was risking her life to make sure we had access to essential goods. Other employees were complaining because the mask was hot or made it tougher to breath as they hustled to put out product.)

So, as I usually do, I watched the local news last night. The count? 982,000 confirmed cases 55,070 deaths in the U.S. (1,651 deaths in California.)

The question arises: Is this a media vs. the Administration battle, mixed messaging, deliberate confusion being created, or our own distrust of a system which doesn't always seem to have our individual interests at heart? Is it people not fully paying attention, spinning their own scenario, drawing their own conclusions, and demanding the rest of us comply to what they feel is right based on those conclusions?

If people aren't even willing to go to the hospital in the face of potential heart attack or stroke, how are we going to come to an agreement over when to open things up and push back against Government overreach?

[LBDamned]

"Right" thinking people know the honest answer = agenda driven...

Easily "persuaded" seem to have a different opinion.

You'll never get a consensus - and almost every thread on the subject these days ultimately addresses the differences of opinions... a new thread wont clarify anything.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

"Right" thinking people know the honest answer = agenda driven...

Easily "persuaded" seem to have a different opinion.

You'll never get a consensus - and almost every thread on the subject these days ultimately addresses the differences of opinions... a new thread wont clarify anything.

I see?

I guess I'll just shut-up, bury myself in a bunker, ignore what's going on, and let 'everyone else' settle things then.

Whew. That's a load off my shoulders.

Thanks.

[LBDamned]

I see?

I guess I'll just shut-up, bury myself in a bunker, ignore what's going on, and let 'everyone else' settle things then.

Whew. That's a load off my shoulders.

Thanks.

lol - you thought your thread was going to "settle things"?

[tundraboomer]

The more people that die during this crisis, the better it will be for the Dems. Pretty simple. All agenda driven.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

lol - you thought your thread was going to "settle things"?

You're the one who suggested a new thread wouldn't 'clarify' things. Settle... clarify... somewhat synonymous in this context.

Either way, it's tough to come to any consensus without discussion. In this case, it doesn't matter whether the consensus is spoken or something a bit more ethereal. One way or the other, we're going to have to get past the fear, the loathing, the divisiveness, and the "taking advantage."

Otherwise, we're going to end up where the "right thinking" is more akin to George Orwell's meaning than the one you intended; with all that goes along with it.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The more people that die during this crisis, the better it will be for the Dems. Pretty simple. All agenda driven.

I don't know if it's ALL agenda driven; at least in the beginning. I suppose you could say that, to start, it was driven by specific points of view. Unfortunately, none of that seemed to include civil rights.

Now? Absolutely. There are agendas at play and everyone wants a piece of the action.

[LBDamned]

You're the one who suggested a new thread wouldn't 'clarify' things. Settle... clarify... somewhat synonymous in this context.

Either way, it's tough to come to any consensus without discussion. In this case, it doesn't matter whether the consensus is spoken or something a bit more ethereal. One way or the other, we're going to have to get past the fear, the loathing, the divisiveness, and the "taking advantage."

Otherwise, we're going to end up where the "right thinking" is more akin to George Orwell's meaning than the one you intended; with all that goes along with it.

Every thread on the covid topic - indicates members views on the social events.

I dont think there will a general consensus here or anywhere else.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Every thread on the covid topic - indicates members views on the social events.

Yes and no. Some have tried to convey a certain level of science, while largely ignoring the social implications. In some instances, that does allude to a 'view' on the social issues; but, not universally. Conversely, others have maintained a stance on what are perceived as social issues, demonstrating a disdain for the scientific aspects and/or how they are portrayed. Unfortunately, their perceptions are often... inaccurate and more aligned with conspiracy theories, personal prejudices, and/or talking points from various actors with an agenda.

I dont think there will a general consensus here or anywhere else.

I agree, to a point.

However, society IS going to have to arrive at some form of general consensus or we will simply cease to exist as a society. Whatever that consensus is, we're not going to get there if we don't begin to reconcile the pieces; be that proper utilization of medical resources, guns (and other civil rights) being 'essential business,' tracking of individuals who may or may not be infected, travel restrictions, quarantines, et al. In that context, a general consensus is not going to be IMMEDIATE, here or anywhere else; but, you have to start somewhere.

That seems to be precisely what this subforum is allowing for; a discussion of various aspects of the COVID crisis. There is going to be some 'agreement' among people; though not always a total alignment. There is going to be some 'disagreement' on what are supposed to be 'facts.' There is going to be a certain redundancy, regardless of topic. There is going to be 'unique' perspectives; i.e., topics previously not discussed or ignored. Right on down the list.

Remember, however, that 'consensus' is not necessarily synonymous with 'group think' and 'right thinking' is greatly dependent on the truths we cling to, which is not necessarily the same as being based on fact.