Connect with us


Analyzing Trump's illness is humbling for media's med teams – EverythingGP



A second or third opinion is only a click away. The question of whether Trump developed COVID 19-related pneumonia is one example of how media experts have differed despite access to the same information.

All would like to see images of Trump’s lungs, but they haven’t been made available. Dr. Vin Gupta (no relation to Sanjay), a pulmonologist who treats coronavirus patients and reports for NBC News, is confident that Trump has pneumonia because the president has had shortness of breath, low oxygen levels in his blood and has COVID-19.

CBS News’ Dr. John LaPook is less definitive, but believes that’s the case “because if he had a chest x-ray and it was normal, they would be shouting it from the rooftops.”

But Dr. Jen Ashton, ABC News’ chief medical correspondent, said that would be “quintessential speculation” because the president’s medical team hasn’t made that diagnosis publicly. His doctors said there were some pulmonary findings on imaging tests, but there are other things that could mean besides pneumonia.

“We don’t know what the findings were, and that is precisely why I didn’t jump to conclusions,” Ashton said.

For Vin Gupta, however, “this is my wheelhouse.

“What might be speculative for another journalist, for me there’s a level of concreteness that I feel exists that I try to pass along,” he said.

Ashton also objects to how some in the media have pinned percentages on Trump’s likely survival. Dr. Martin Makary said on Fox News Channel that Trump had a 99.4 per cent chance of surviving COVID-19; CNN’s Gupta said it’s “90 to 95 per cent” that he’ll get through.

“This has been very, very challenging,” Ashton said. “The way that I’ve handled this is that I do not speculate. And one of my pet peeves in this story, as it is in all medical media, is when everyone with an ‘MD’ after their name thinks that they can offer inside baseball.”

Imagine the confusion visitors to newsstands in Massachusetts might have felt on Monday. “Trump is improving, doctors say,” was the banner headline on the Wall Street Journal. “Fresh concerns on Trump’s health,” headlined the Boston Globe.

The New York Times, in a Monday story by Katherine J. Wu and Jonathan Corum, noted that while it’s too soon to tell whether Trump’s illness will follow a typical course, used it as a teachable moment to outline in detail what doctors have learned about its progression.

In The Washington Post on Tuesday, Dr. Kavita Patel, who has treated COVID-19 patients in Washington’s St. Mary’s Hospital, wrote a column suggesting Trump’s case made no sense.

“Is he strong and invincible, as his words and actions attempt to show?” Patel wrote. “Is he in need of experimental treatments reserved for severely ill patients, as his medical charts would indicate? Or are his doctors simply throwing everything at him to see what works? Five days into Trump’s illness, we don’t know.”

CNN’s Gupta has been particularly critical of Trump’s team for not releasing more medical information, and is a translator after medical briefings to outline what has and hasn’t been said and what it all means.

Yet after Gupta suggested at one point that he thought Trump was sicker than his doctors were letting on, a media critic hit back at him. “What is the point of this fact-free nonsense?” tweeted Steve Krakauer, who writes the Fourth Watch newsletter.

“It’s a lot harder than if they were just straightforward about it,” Gupta said in an interview. “I think about it a lot when I try to put these things together, and I don’t think I’m speculating when I do that. After all, we look at his age and risk factors. I’ve said from the start, the odds are very much in his favour.”

When Trump climbed an outdoor staircase upon his return to the White House and exhibited shortness of breath, that was pointed to by several commentators as a sign of his illness.

Then again, as Gupta noted, the president is 74 years old, clinically obese and just climbed a flight of stairs. That alone could make him breathe heavily.

It’s why, more often than not, the media medical reports have been dominated by careful couching. Doctors would explain, for example, what drugs like the antiviral remdesivir or the steroid dexamethasone that had been prescribed to Trump typically mean in clinical settings without being definitive on what it said about the president.

“Medicine is eternally humbling,” LaPook said. “If you have any hubris left and you have been a doctor for five years, you are in the wrong profession. I think that’s why you hear a lot of us say ‘probably’ and ‘it makes sense’ and ‘it could be.’ We’re not the president’s doctors.”

David Bauder, The Associated Press

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


InvestorChannel's Media Watchlist Update for Tuesday, October 20, 2020, 16:30 EST – InvestorIntel




InvestorChannel’s Media Stocks Watchlist Update video includes the Top 5 Performers of the Day, and a performance review of the companies InvestorChannel is following in the sector.
Sources Include: Yahoo Finance, AlphaVantage FinnHub & CSE.
For more information, visit us at or email us at

Watchlist Companies:
– Quizam Media Corporation (QQ.CN) CAD 0.50 (16.28%)
– Moovly Media Inc. (MVY.V) CAD 0.07 (7.69%)
– WOW! Unlimited Media Inc. (WOW.V) CAD 0.38 (7.04%)
– Thunderbird Entertainment Group Inc. (TBRD.V) CAD 2.13 (0.47%)
– Ltd. (WIX) USD 278.65 (0.13%)
– Glacier Media Inc. (GVC.TO) CAD 0.22 (0.0%)
– GVIC Communications Corp. (GCT.TO) CAD 0.14 (0.0%)
– Media Central Corporation Inc. (FLYY.CN) CAD 0.01 (0.0%)
– Postmedia Network Canada Corp. (PNC-A.TO) CAD 1.60 (0.0%)
– QYOU Media Inc. (QYOU.V) CAD 0.07 (0.0%)
– Adobe Inc. (ADBE) USD 494.58 (-0.13%)
– Corus Entertainment Inc. (CJR-B.TO) CAD 2.95 (-0.34%)
– HubSpot, Inc. (HUBS) USD 309.79 (-0.59%)
– MediaValet Inc. (MVP.V) CAD 2.50 (-1.19%)
– Stingray Group Inc. (RAY-A.TO) CAD 5.50 (-2.65%)
– Slack Technologies Inc. (WORK) USD 30.81 (-4.47%)
– Zoom Video Communications Inc. (ZM) USD 537.02 (-5.51%)
– Network Media Group Inc. (NTE.V) CAD 0.14 (-6.67%)
– Lingo Media Corporation (LM.V) CAD 0.09 (-10.53%)
– ZoomerMedia Limited (ZUM.V) CAD 0.06 (-21.43%)


Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


MAGA world, GOP unite on social-media bias after Hunter Biden story – POLITICO




MAGA world is uniting with mainstream conservatives to whip up a frenzy over social-media bias in the final weeks of the election, convinced that the handling of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden has presented a validating example of years-old MAGA complaints.

Twitter and Facebook’s attempts to limit sharing of the Post story, citing policies meant to throttle the distribution of hacked materials and fact-challenged articles, is being used as proof positive in MAGA world that social media firms have a liberal agenda, and are using whatever means necessary to censor conservatives and protect liberals. And Republicans across the ideological spectrum are agreeing.

The incident has fueled Republican plans to vote on subpoenas that would force testimony from the CEOs of both Twitter and Facebook on the issue. That hearing would come on top of another one already planned for next Wednesday, when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will face a grilling over liability protections the tech industry enjoys for content posted on their platforms. Other Republican lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, have signaled shifts in how they wanted to regulate social-media platforms. And at the White House, chief of staff Mark Meadows has threatened to sue the two companies over the issue.

The flurry of activity caps a summer of anti-Big Tech maneuvering among conservatives, from anger over Twitter’s decision to post disclaimers on President Donald Trump’s tweets, to Attorney General Bill Barr’s rush to file an antitrust case against Google just two weeks before the election.

But now, in a matter of days, the handling of a single New York Post story has pushed long-simmering MAGA complaints about social-media bias to the top of Republicans’ talking points.

“They proved that all the lunatic ravings of the right were correct, and that there’s no objectivity [on social media platforms] whatsoever,” said Ron Coleman, a prominent conservative lawyer known for his work on tech censorship and free speech issues.

For nearly a decade, conservatives have accused social media companies of deliberately silencing them through a variety of subtle means — claiming their videos don’t always show up on their subscribers’ Facebook feeds, or that their accounts don’t show up in searches or that the platforms inappropriately label their content as promoting violence or misinformation. Researchers say such claims have never proven any intentional discrimination and note that some of the most widely shared content on social media platforms comes from conservative voices and outlets.

And notably, efforts to limit distribution of the Post story have not prevented the piece from circulating broadly on social media. The report generated 2.59 million interactions on Facebook and Twitter last week, more than double the next biggest story about Trump or Biden, even as national security specialists warned the information bore the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.

Still, anti-social media conservatives felt the handling of the story offered them a concrete, game-changing example of the type of silencing they have long claimed.

“The Rubicon was crossed [last] week, for sure,” said Rachel Bovard, a senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute, who focuses on social media and free speech issues.

Years ago, the issue of internet free speech was popular among the more populist wing of the conservative movement — specifically, people and publications that drew influence from an online presence, and that were more likely to be targeted for violating platforms’ terms of service by sharing inflammatory content.

Throughout Trump’s presidency, Republicans have increasingly paid lip service to this constituency, echoing the complaints in hearings.

And Trump himself has repeatedly used his presidential platform to bemoan social-media companies’ behavior, hosting events about conservative censorship at the White House and signing a legally toothless executive order. As the November election neared, the White House pressured key Senate Republicans to hold hearings on alleged bias.

On Capitol Hill, competing Republican bills have appeared that would drastically revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which stipulated that digital platforms were not legally liable for content others had uploaded.

“The objection for some on the right always was, ‘Well, these platforms don’t engage in viewpoint censorship, they’re not politically biased, this all a crock of crap,’” Bovard said.

But now, the handling of the Post story — which offered unverified emails claiming Hunter Biden had arranged a meeting between his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, and a Ukrainian business contact — has pushed more of the GOP into MAGA’s anti-social media camp. The timing (days before the election) and subject (Biden’s alleged corruption) likely helped. Some Republicans, such as McCarthy, started calling for the repeal of Section 230, while others wondered whether Twitter had taken on even more responsibilities other than simple bias.

“Is Twitter an ‘in kind donor’ to the Biden campaign? A ‘publisher?’” tweeted Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie last Thursday.

Trump was more insistent.

“If Big Tech persists, in coordination with the mainstream media, we must immediately strip them of their Section 230 protections,” he tweeted Friday. “When government granted these protections, they created a monster!”

Shoshana Weissmann, a fellow at the free market-oriented R Street Institute focused on Section 230 and licensing reform, sees the current outrage on Capitol Hill as far more political than policy focused. She argued that there are valid reasons for Section 230 to exist, saying digital platforms aren’t capable of policing all posts.

“If I threaten the president online, then Twitter’s not liable for that,” she said. “It would be me liable for that, or whoever made the threat or did something illegal online is liable for it. And it makes sense because there’s billions and billions of posts.”

And repealing Section 230 wouldn’t actually assuage conservative complaints, Weissmann insisted.

“It wouldn’t fix the partisan moderating,” she said. “These things are totally unrelated. It’s just kind of punishing them, because they’re there.”

Regardless of the policy implications, however, the handling of the Post story has played right into the hands of MAGA’s political arguments. Coleman, a prominent legal voice in the anti-social media world, said he was surprised at how Twitter and Facebook handled the story.

“For the people who control so much of the media complex now, and who understand so well what virality is about, they completely failed to make any accounting whatsoever for the Streisand effect,” he said, referencing the phenomenon where an attempt to hide something actually draws it greater attention.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Duke Basketball Preseason Media Coverage – Duke University –



DURHAM, N.C. — The Duke men’s basketball program will continue to have players and coaches meeting with the media virtually over the next month, in place of the Blue Devils holding their traditional media day on campus due to COVID-19 protocols.

As players and coaches take questions from the media via video conference, will post the transcripts and video of those sessions. The sessions have been held Tuesdays, and will increase in frequency as the season approaches.

Click here to view the press conferences. Each link includes the transcript of selected questions and a video of the entire press conference.



Print Friendly Version

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading