Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ajtj's Post-Lobotomy Market Charts and Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (30306)	7/12/2021 6:09:34 PM
From: ajtj99	1 Recommendation Recommended By Jacob Snyder Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 97457

Media is a catch-all term. I do know that in a Federal District Court, NBC swore that Rachel Maddow's show was entertainment, not news. Fox also swore in a Federal District Court that Tucker Carlson's show was not stating actual facts, and we see in court documents that both of these entertainers are engaging in opinion, exaggeration, and non-literal commentary. I suspect both of these networks would argue that all of their on-air talent were doing the same if they were hauled into court one by one: npr.org Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' " Media lawyers note this is not the first time this sort of defense has been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion." The Fox team's legal briefs compared Carlson's show to radio talk-show programs hosted by ex-MSNBC and Fox Business star Don Imus, who won a case more than two decades ago because an appellate court ruled that "the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade."

To: yard_man who wrote (30306)	7/12/2021 6:36:33 PM
From: ajtj99	1 Recommendation Recommended By Jacob Snyder Respond to of 97457

I don't know where you are getting the data you speak of. There is data, and there is the interpretation of the data. If we just have the raw data and look at it without bias, there is an incredibly compelling case for vaccination. 98.9% of the people hospitalized with Covid-19 are not vaccinated. 99.1% of the deaths from Covid-19 are in people who are not vaccinated: apnews.com These mRNA vaccines are likely going to be quite common in the future. They appear headed towards future approval for hepatitis, cancer treatment, rabies, Zika, and many other diseases: mRNA is a 30-year old technology. It's not like it sprung up last week. Also, I think it is hard to make a case against vaccination when 0.2% of the population in the United States has been killed by this virus in the past 18-months. It was the 3rd leading cause of mortality in the US in 2020, and likely the #1 cause from Sept. 2020-March 2021. cdc.gov If you are about costs-effectiveness, the vaccines are an incredibly cheap form of protection as well.