Early this Monday, US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle struck down the Biden administration's mask mandate for airplanes and other public transport.
A Twitter user called Jared Rabel posted the following
https://twitter.com/JradRabel/status/1516208012976918537
https://twitter.com/JradRabel/status/1516251205114241025
Anybody with a moderately functioning brain would be able to deduce that the tweets were comic hyperbole. But deep-rooted bias often impairs the rational thinking such that one cannot distinguish between fact and exaggerations
New York Times journalist Victoria Kim is one such individual who has been deeply immersed in an ocean of bias known as the New York Times
Kim swung into action contacting Jared via direct message wanting to speak to him over the phone about what happened on his flight this evening.
Rabel publicly posted his reply where he inform the journalist he was “pretty upset about the whole thing”, but it was satire that only someone at the NYT would believe.
Rebel concluded, “In my time of contemplation, I was wondering how your team deals with the multitude of false stories that you peddle out daily to use as political propaganda,”.
He also sought advice on how to take his “satire how to the
next level.”
https://twitter.com/JradRabel/status/1516260569124323333
Victoria Kim wrote her piece anyway, making a passenger called Brooke Tansley the protagonist of her story.
Tanlsey was on a flight from Atlanta to Los Angeles on Monday night, with her two children, a 4-year-old and an 8-month-old. Kim reminds the readers that the 4-year-old was "too young to be vaccinated, the baby too young for a mask."
Halfway through the flight, the pilot announced that masks were “no longer requiring masks on planes, and passengers were free to take them off if they’d like.” The announcement was met with a smattering of claps and some jubilant cheers, and about a third of the people aboard immediately removed their masks.
Kim writes that Tansley apparently “felt a
jolt of fear and alarm”. She was on her way to a work meeting involving a
colleague with a rare autoimmune disease, and her family had undergone P.C.R.
tests because they were worried about potentially infecting him.
Tansley said her family hadn’t been on a flight since Christmas 2019 out of concern about the virus. She has asthma and said she wasn’t sure whether she would proceed with her work meetings, or what her family would do about their return flight home on April 25.
Kim quotes Tansley saying “It’s not that the mask mandate has changed that upset me, it’s that we boarded the plane under one set of rules and made a decision as a family and as a workgroup. The decision was made for us midflight.”
Of all the people flying that day, it is quite amazing that Kim
managed to find a passenger who is an asthmatic patient with two young children beyond masking and vaccine age, on her way to meet an individual with a compromised immune system. Tansley seems
like a character in a pro-mask activist short film.
Could Tansley be a figment of
Kim’s imagination?
Not likely, Tansley has a Twitter account
and a website that describes
her as “a founder, co-founder, or early employee of six arts & media
startups and has a track record for growth.”
Tansley also tweeted the
story, which means that the claims Kim made are authentic.
https://twitter.com/BrookeTansley/status/1516481285899792391
But Kim,
Tansley, and mask fanatics must understand the following:
Firstly,
removal of mandates means the choice to mask up per the wishes of the
individual. Those who want can opt to make their entire head or body.
Secondly,
it has been proven that masks don’t necessarily work. A recent Danish
study found no evidence that wearing a face mask minimizes people’s
risk of contracting Covid19. Also found no statistically significant difference
in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers.
Thirdly,
the WHO states that prolonged usage of
masks could have short-term issues such as headaches, rashes, and
nausea and long-term adverse effects such as respiratory disorders and impaired
cognition and social skills.
Most importantly, what did people such as Tansley do prior to the outbreak of Covid-19 when they had to meet someone with a compromised immune system.
They consulted with the patient’s doctors and followed instructions assiduously.
Back to Kim, she is obviously pro-mask. Judging by the way she fell for the satire proves that she was desperately
looking for a way to peddle another anti-Trump narrative
The inference she expects her readers to draw is that disaster has struck since anti-intellectual and anti-science MAGA ignoramuses have taken
over. A Trump-appointed judge removed the mask mandates. A Trump-supporting pilot gleefully announces it. A Trump-supporting air hostess sneezes into her hand and celebrates with other Trump-supporting halfwits.
It is meant to scare
people from voting Republican in November and for Trump in 2024 by making people wonder if
they can do this now, imagine what happens when they get power.
This isn't journalism, it is propaganda.
A journalist must always attempt to look at a story objectively and then arrive at a conclusion. Since a single
human cannot be objective, it takes a diverse group to look at a story from
myriad perspectives. Alas, the likes of the NYT only believe in the superficial
diversity of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. They ignore the most
important aspect of diversity i.e. the diversity of perspectives.
Any responsible editor would
have asked Kim to broaden her story by consulting those who suffered due to the
mask mandates who welcome the repeal of the mandate. He would have also asked Kim to state scientific facts about the
masks not being foolproof.
But nothing of the kind occurred.
The NYT and KIM already have an agenda i.e. the Democrat agenda. They have drawn their conclusion.
When they see even satire, they are so overcome by the desire for it to be true that all skepticism is abandoned.
When reading any story, they edit out the inconvenient facts and present a story to suit their narrative. It is almost like fiction.
They have also developed a loyal readership who read the paper just to have their biases confirmed.
They also know if caught,
they will not receive much punishment. The NYT even has a column that claims that Trump is testing
the
norms of journalistic objectivity
So what do you the consumer do?
You assume that all that you
read is false until proven true.
You consume a myriad media outlets and do your own fact-checking before arriving at your
conclusions
Staying away together may
not be a bad idea, if you do not have the time, no information is better than misinformation.
A very sad state of affairs.
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment