Study: Hannity's probably a killer

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Researchers looked at viewers of different media, and how they responded to Covid-19. Rather than some standard MSM-vs-Right Wing model, they compared Hannity to Tucker, two hosts on the same network who are very pro-Trump, but differed widely on their early Covid reporting. They found that Hannity viewers were much slower in responding to calls for disease prevention, and are associated with a 30% higher chance of catching the disease and 21% more deaths because of it.

There are some very severe limitations to this study, and the researchers were clear not to draw too much from it, but it does illustrate pretty clearly that the news we choose to ingest certainly has an effect on how we respond to real-time events - possibly to our own detriment.

https://www.npr.org/local/309/2020/...r_gdfecN3PR0lIYMmILyMe94nA-X_J0w6iPvDZDCJT-nQ

 

[Standard Issue]

Researchers looked at viewers of different media, and how they responded to Covid-19. Rather than some standard MSM-vs-Right Wing model, they compared Hannity to Tucker, two hosts on the same network who are very pro-Trump, but differed widely on their early Covid reporting. They found that Hannity viewers were much slower in responding to calls for disease prevention, and are associated with a 30% higher chance of catching the disease and 21% more deaths because of it.

There are some very severe limitations to this study, and the researchers were clear not to draw too much from it, but it does illustrate pretty clearly that the news we choose to ingest certainly has an effect on how we respond to real-time events - possibly to our own detriment.

https://www.npr.org/local/309/2020/...r_gdfecN3PR0lIYMmILyMe94nA-X_J0w6iPvDZDCJT-nQ

Good?

Trump's a fan correct?

 

[ribbont]

Researchers looked at viewers of different media, and how they responded to Covid-19. Rather than some standard MSM-vs-Right Wing model, they compared Hannity to Tucker, two hosts on the same network who are very pro-Trump, but differed widely on their early Covid reporting. They found that Hannity viewers were much slower in responding to calls for disease prevention, and are associated with a 30% higher chance of catching the disease and 21% more deaths because of it.

There are some very severe limitations to this study, and the researchers were clear not to draw too much from it, but it does illustrate pretty clearly that the news we choose to ingest certainly has an effect on how we respond to real-time events - possibly to our own detriment.

https://www.npr.org/local/309/2020/...r_gdfecN3PR0lIYMmILyMe94nA-X_J0w6iPvDZDCJT-nQ

Quite the hypocrite aren't you? Call me out for using inflammatory language on Biden thread and here you are doing the same. Not surprised.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Quite the hypocrite aren't you? Call me out for using inflammatory language on Biden thread and here you are doing the same. Not surprised.

Huh?

 

[Standard Issue]

Huh?

Maybe it's me.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Quite the hypocrite aren't you? Call me out for using inflammatory language on Biden thread and here you are doing the same. Not surprised.

I don’t think you know what that adjective means

 

[ribbont]

Quite the hypocrite aren't you? Call me out for using inflammatory language on Biden thread and here you are doing the same. Not surprised.

Admonish would be a better term.

Goat - "She didn't claim rape. Not that the accusation isn't serious - it is (and we have, in fact, talked about it here) - but you show your hackery by starting off with incorrect, inflammatory language."

The study nor story claimed Hannity was a killer, but you show your hackett by starting off with incorrect, inflammatory language. I corrected mine, will you?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Admonish would be a better term.

Goat - "She didn't claim rape. Not that the accusation isn't serious - it is (and we have, in fact, talked about it here) - but you show your hackery by starting off with incorrect, inflammatory language."

The study nor story claimed Hannity was a killer, but you show your hackett by starting off with incorrect, inflammatory language. I corrected mine, will you?

Calling Hannity a likely killer may be inflammatory, but it's not incorrect.

 

[ribbont]

Calling Hannity a likely killer may be inflammatory, but it's not incorrect.

Okey dokey! You are a warped individual. Can't wait to see the studies on all the media outlets and how many they "killed", since many downplayed the virus as well.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Researchers looked at viewers of different media, and how they responded to Covid-19. Rather than some standard MSM-vs-Right Wing model, they compared Hannity to Tucker, two hosts on the same network who are very pro-Trump, but differed widely on their early Covid reporting. They found that Hannity viewers were much slower in responding to calls for disease prevention, and are associated with a 30% higher chance of catching the disease and 21% more deaths because of it.

There are some very severe limitations to this study, and the researchers were clear not to draw too much from it, but it does illustrate pretty clearly that the news we choose to ingest certainly has an effect on how we respond to real-time events - possibly to our own detriment.

https://www.npr.org/local/309/2020/...r_gdfecN3PR0lIYMmILyMe94nA-X_J0w6iPvDZDCJT-nQ

how many lives per year will Comcast, AT&T, and News Corp/Fox, cause by using all their might to defeat Medicare for all.

fact is, the media and their name hosts/pundits do have power, use it, and it can cost lives or save them, depending on how they use it.

that said, not Hannity nor Tucker nor Anderson nor Cuomo nor Joe and Mika nor Madow have the power to buck the line their corporate employers want towed, very often.

their employers set the talking points, they follow them.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Researchers looked at viewers of different media, and how they responded to Covid-19. Rather than some standard MSM-vs-Right Wing model, they compared Hannity to Tucker, two hosts on the same network who are very pro-Trump, but differed widely on their early Covid reporting. They found that Hannity viewers were much slower in responding to calls for disease prevention, and are associated with a 30% higher chance of catching the disease and 21% more deaths because of it.

There are some very severe limitations to this study, and the researchers were clear not to draw too much from it, but it does illustrate pretty clearly that the news we choose to ingest certainly has an effect on how we respond to real-time events - possibly to our own detriment.

https://www.npr.org/local/309/2020/...r_gdfecN3PR0lIYMmILyMe94nA-X_J0w6iPvDZDCJT-nQ

One of the top economics programs in the world. Given the limitations I'm surprised to see this study from them.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Just to be clear, it was me calling Hannity a killer, not the researchers. Their study shows something that really should be common sense: people are influenced by the people they get their news from. In this case, there are notable differences in health care outcomes between Hannity viewers and Carlson viewers.

I'm saying that it's easy to make a case that Hannity is at least somewhat morally responsible for some of these deaths.

 

[ribbont]

Lol. Way to cop out. So I guess anyone who downplayed the virus is somewhat morally responsible and are "killers" - Washington Post, Vox, CNN, Biden, Sanders, Fauci - all are morally responsible.

 

[StelioKantos]

Just to be clear, it was me calling Hannity a killer, not the researchers. Their study shows something that really should be common sense: people are influenced by the people they get their news from. In this case, there are notable differences in health care outcomes between Hannity viewers and Carlson viewers.

I'm saying that it's easy to make a case that Hannity is at least somewhat morally responsible for some of these deaths.

So you agree the media as a whole are directly responsible for the hysteria in this country then?

 

[wiede]

Lol. Way to cop out. So I guess anyone who downplayed the virus is somewhat morally responsible and are "killers" - Washington Post, Vox, CNN, Biden, Sanders, Fauci - all are morally responsible.

Those outlets/folks you named didn’t downplay the virus. Fox certainly did. And they also promoted a medication that turned out to be really bad for your heart.

There’s two realities right now. There’s the one guided by science. And then there’s the reality guided by whatever the hell fox says is true (and most likely, isn’t).

Having two very different takes on the pandemic is a VERY dangerous thing. Especially to those that have bought into all the lies generated from the right. This is one thing that Trump can’t declare to be his reality, and get away with it.

There’s a reason why a bunch of rural communities are going to get hammered by the spread. And, also many cities will start to see many more cases.

Folks that get their news from the right bought the narrative that the virus isn’t that bad, and placing profit over people’s lives is correct.

I foresee another round of stay at home orders after it’s clear we opened this chit up way too quickly. At a minimum, you have to have declining cases for a few weeks- and that’s per the CDC. A division of... the federal government.

I hope I’m wrong about the future- but I don’t see this going any other way. When you place hopes and wishes above science, you’re going to lose.

 

[ribbont]

Those outlets/folks you named didn’t downplay the virus. Fox certainly did. And they also promoted a medication that turned out to be really bad for your heart.

There’s two realities right now. There’s the one guided by science. And then there’s the reality guided by whatever the hell fox says is true (and most likely, isn’t).

Having two very different takes on the pandemic is a VERY dangerous thing. Especially to those that have bought into all the lies generated from the right. This is one thing that Trump can’t declare to be his reality, and get away with it.

There’s a reason why a bunch of rural communities are going to get hammered by the spread. And, also many cities will start to see many more cases.

Folks that get their news from the right bought the narrative that the virus isn’t that bad, and placing profit over people’s lives is correct.

I foresee another round of stay at home orders after it’s clear we opened this chit up way too quickly. At a minimum, you have to have declining cases for a few weeks- and that’s per the CDC. A division of... the federal government.

I hope I’m wrong about the future- but I don’t see this going any other way. When you place hopes and wishes above science, you’re going to lose.

Here is a link of articles/tweets downplaying the virus.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/2...hen-critiques-fox-news-for-shifting-rhetoric/

And did you read the npr article and the Fox link showing Hannity's discussions on the virus dating back to Jan 27?

I am not trying to defend Hannity or Fox. I am saying if Goat is going to assign moral responsibility to Hannity, then it needs to be assigned to all.

Wonder if there will be a study on the possible magnitude of the virus if the US had followed Bernie's plan to open the borders? Or a study if Cuomo had shut down NYC subways much earlier? Or if the NY MTA had cleaned the subways daily instead of every 3 days?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here is a link of articles/tweets downplaying the virus.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/2...hen-critiques-fox-news-for-shifting-rhetoric/

And did you read the npr article and the Fox link showing Hannity's discussions on the virus dating back to Jan 27?

I am not trying to defend Hannity or Fox. I am saying if Goat is going to assign moral responsibility to Hannity, then it needs to be assigned to all.

Wonder if there will be a study on the possible magnitude of the virus if the US had followed Bernie's plan to open the borders? Or a study if Cuomo had shut down NYC subways much earlier? Or if the NY MTA had cleaned the subways daily instead of every 3 days?

You obviously didn't follow at all what I was saying.

 

[ribbont]

You obviously didn't follow at all what I was saying.

Maybe you need to communicate better. Try again and keep it simple for us uneducated types.

 

[T.M.P.]

Those outlets/folks you named didn’t downplay the virus. Fox certainly did. And they also promoted a medication that turned out to be really bad for your heart.

There’s two realities right now. There’s the one guided by science. And then there’s the reality guided by whatever the hell fox says is true (and most likely, isn’t).

Having two very different takes on the pandemic is a VERY dangerous thing. Especially to those that have bought into all the lies generated from the right. This is one thing that Trump can’t declare to be his reality, and get away with it.

There’s a reason why a bunch of rural communities are going to get hammered by the spread. And, also many cities will start to see many more cases.

Folks that get their news from the right bought the narrative that the virus isn’t that bad, and placing profit over people’s lives is correct.

I foresee another round of stay at home orders after it’s clear we opened this chit up way too quickly. At a minimum, you have to have declining cases for a few weeks- and that’s per the CDC. A division of... the federal government.

I hope I’m wrong about the future- but I don’t see this going any other way. When you place hopes and wishes above science, you’re going to lose.

Schrodinger's Media ..

Simultaneously downplayed the virus and sensationalized it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Maybe you need to communicate better. Try again and keep it simple for us uneducated types.

Very well. As I said, the study compared the audiences of two TV hosts: Sean Hannity and Tucker Carslon. These two hosts happen to have very similar audiences, but these two groups of people had at least one difference: Hannity's audience has had worse health outcomes during the time of coronavirus.

Correlation does not prove causation, of course, but the fact that Hannity was very skeptical early of the coronavirus, while Tucker was not, combined with the fact that the two audiences are demographically nearly identical, suggests that Hannity's early take on the virus may very well be related to why his audience died more.

That's not remotely the same as arguing "Hannity's to blame, because he was skeptical!"

 

[UncleMark]

Very well. As I said, the study compared the audiences of two TV hosts: Sean Hannity and Tucker Carslon. These two hosts happen to have very similar audiences, but these two groups of people had at least one difference: Hannity's audience has had worse health outcomes during the time of coronavirus.

Just to muddy the waters, does the study address any overlap between the two audiences? How exclusive were they, Carlson viewers vs. Hannity viewers? My gut tells me the Venn diagram would not be two separate circles.

 

[StelioKantos]

Those outlets/folks you named didn’t downplay the virus. Fox certainly did. And they also promoted a medication that turned out to be really bad for your heart.

There’s two realities right now. There’s the one guided by science. And then there’s the reality guided by whatever the hell fox says is true (and most likely, isn’t).

Having two very different takes on the pandemic is a VERY dangerous thing. Especially to those that have bought into all the lies generated from the right. This is one thing that Trump can’t declare to be his reality, and get away with it.

There’s a reason why a bunch of rural communities are going to get hammered by the spread. And, also many cities will start to see many more cases.

Folks that get their news from the right bought the narrative that the virus isn’t that bad, and placing profit over people’s lives is correct.

I foresee another round of stay at home orders after it’s clear we opened this chit up way too quickly. At a minimum, you have to have declining cases for a few weeks- and that’s per the CDC. A division of... the federal government.

I hope I’m wrong about the future- but I don’t see this going any other way. When you place hopes and wishes above science, you’re going to lose.

The scientists used to say it was about flattening the curve. I guess not anymore

 

[UncleMark]

I foresee another round of stay at home orders after it’s clear we opened this chit up way too quickly. At a minimum, you have to have declining cases for a few weeks- and that’s per the CDC. A division of... the federal government.

I doubt it. I don't think there's going to be any pulling back once the reins are loosened. Some states or localities might try, but I don't think you'll get much compliance. People are over this shit. Infections will go up; the hope has to be they can keep a lid on the deaths.

 

[wiede]

The scientists used to say it was about flattening the curve. I guess not anymore

What I’m saying is that I think we’ll get to that place again. In about 4 weeks, give or take 2 weeks. When large swaths of the country are flat out failing to wear masks and social distance, you’re going to see a large surge in cases. And in turn, a large number of hospitalizations. Until there’s a vaccine, there’s a new normal. Or at least there SHOULD be a new normal. And that includes social distancing and masks, at a minimum.

And, many of these rural areas simply don’t have the infrastructure that bigger places have. So, the effect is going to be even worse in the rural areas. It’ll be like northern Italy in some parts of the country- choosing which patients get resources, and which ones you should stop trying to treat.

None of this gives me any pleasure to say. Quite the opposite. But, if you fail to learn from history, it tends to repeat itself.

I hope I’m wrong about all of this.

 

[StelioKantos]

What I’m saying is that I think we’ll get to that place again. In about 4 weeks, give or take 2 weeks. When large swaths of the country are flat out failing to wear masks and social distance, you’re going to see a large surge in cases. And in turn, a large number of hospitalizations. Until there’s a vaccine, there’s a new normal. Or at least there SHOULD be a new normal. And that includes social distancing and masks, at a minimum.

And, many of these rural areas simply don’t have the infrastructure that bigger places have. So, the effect is going to be even worse in the rural areas. It’ll be like northern Italy in some parts of the country- choosing which patients get resources, and which ones you should stop trying to treat.

None of this gives me any pleasure to say. Quite the opposite. But, if you fail to learn from history, it tends to repeat itself.

I hope I’m wrong about all of this.

Big difference between Italy and USA

 

[Lucy01]

Jared Kushner will be on Hannity tonight at 9 pm, should be very informative!

 

[ribbont]

Very well. As I said, the study compared the audiences of two TV hosts: Sean Hannity and Tucker Carslon. These two hosts happen to have very similar audiences, but these two groups of people had at least one difference: Hannity's audience has had worse health outcomes during the time of coronavirus.

Correlation does not prove causation, of course, but the fact that Hannity was very skeptical early of the coronavirus, while Tucker was not, combined with the fact that the two audiences are demographically nearly identical, suggests that Hannity's early take on the virus may very well be related to why his audience died more.

That's not remotely the same as arguing "Hannity's to blame, because he was skeptical!"

You said he was probably a killer, and I assume you said that based on this media study by an economics school. So if his so-called downplaying had some role in the deaths of his audience, then the Post, Vox, and others should also be labeled as killers if their audience died at a higher rate relative to other media.

I cannot wait to see the Lemon and Cuomo comparison. Post vs Times. Maddow vs whoever else works at that network.

The whole study is just stupid and there is no reason for it except to smear Fox and Hannity. I don't watch Hannity and could care less about what he says. But who in the heck decides to do this study and I hope no tax dollars were spent on this crap.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Researchers looked at viewers of different media, and how they responded to Covid-19. Rather than some standard MSM-vs-Right Wing model, they compared Hannity to Tucker, two hosts on the same network who are very pro-Trump, but differed widely on their early Covid reporting. They found that Hannity viewers were much slower in responding to calls for disease prevention, and are associated with a 30% higher chance of catching the disease and 21% more deaths because of it.

There are some very severe limitations to this study, and the researchers were clear not to draw too much from it, but it does illustrate pretty clearly that the news we choose to ingest certainly has an effect on how we respond to real-time events - possibly to our own detriment.

https://www.npr.org/local/309/2020/...r_gdfecN3PR0lIYMmILyMe94nA-X_J0w6iPvDZDCJT-nQ

yet you have absolutely zero concern that lack of a Medicare for all type universal healthcare system in the US costs an estimated 60,000 deaths PER YEAR in the US, and we're not talking nursing home patients either, since they all have Medicare.

in fact, not only are you unconcerned, but you and most others here, as well as all corporate media hosts, have actively fought MFA with all your might, regardless of the disastrous health impact that goes way beyond just deaths, but to quality of life as well.

and with many left without any health insurance at all.

and the terrible ramifications of the lack of a MFA type system on hiring, firing, and staffing, decisions by the nation's employers,

the negative impact on US industries' global competitiveness and contribution to the offshoring of our manufacturing base, including almost all our pharmaceuticals and their base components.

the absolutely devastating impact on millions of US families with crushing healthcare related debt or even bankruptcy from the absence of adopting an already proven much better and much cheaper healthcare system, that the rest of the industrialized world has already adopted and wouldn't think of trading for our system.

and have done so for no other reason than to placate Wall St's funding of your parties of choice, who are profiting from preserving a proven far worse and far more expensive healthcare system.

i won't expect a response other than possibly 5 yr old level insulting the messenger, as you and others stay away from debating anything you can't credibly defend, like you avoid the plague.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

yet you have absolutely zero concern that lack of a Medicare for all type universal healthcare system in the US costs an estimated 60,000 deaths PER YEAR in the US, and we're not talking nursing home patients either, since they all have Medicare.

in fact, not only are you unconcerned, but you and most others here, as well as all corporate media hosts, have actively fought MFA with all your might, regardless of the disastrous health impact that goes way beyond just deaths, but to quality of life as well.

and with many left without any health insurance at all.

and the terrible ramifications of the lack of a MFA type system on hiring, firing, and staffing, decisions by the nation's employers,

the negative impact on US industries' global competitiveness and contribution to the offshoring of our manufacturing base, including almost all our pharmaceuticals and their base components.

the absolutely devastating impact on millions of US families with crushing healthcare related debt or even bankruptcy from the absence of adopting an already proven much better and much cheaper healthcare system, that the rest of the industrialized world has already adopted and wouldn't think of trading for our system.

and have done so for no other reason than to placate Wall St's funding of your parties of choice, who are profiting from preserving a proven far worse and far more expensive healthcare system.

i won't expect a response other than possibly 5 yr old level insulting the messenger, as you and others stay away from debating anything you can't credibly defend, like you avoid the plague.

You're a farking idiot.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You said he was probably a killer, and I assume you said that based on this media study by an economics school. So if his so-called downplaying had some role in the deaths of his audience, then the Post, Vox, and others should also be labeled as killers if their audience died at a higher rate relative to other media.

I cannot wait to see the Lemon and Cuomo comparison. Post vs Times. Maddow vs whoever else works at that network.

The whole study is just stupid and there is no reason for it except to smear Fox and Hannity. I don't watch Hannity and could care less about what he says. But who in the heck decides to do this study and I hope no tax dollars were spent on this crap.

You seem to be having difficulty limiting both the study and my post to what was actually said, instead of expanding it to broader statements. That's what leads you to conclude the study is some sort of attack piece of Hannity/Fox, which is just silly.

That said, if you re-narrow the issue, then yes, if it could be shown that some liberal talking head took an especially skeptical view of Coronavirus, and that viewers of said talking head suffered negative consequences related to Coronavirus as compared to similar groups of media consumers, it would stand to reason that an argument could be made that said talking head bore some moral culpability.

It will be tough to make that argument, however. I'm guessing the real reason these researchers looked at Hannity is that he was an extreme outlier. Nobody displayed Covid skepticism, on either the right or the left, to the extent he did (at least among widely watched folks; I'm sure there are some lesser known extremists out there). So it might not be possible to find anyone similarly situated on the left, and it's quite possible that the closest the left comes isn't enough to lead to the kinds of effects that we see with Hannity. He could simply be a one-off, on account of how out there he was early on.

Plus, as I said above correlation does not prove causation. It's certainly possible that Hannity's viewers' poor performance with the virus is an artifact, and it's just dumb bad luck that it happened to them.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Just to muddy the waters, does the study address any overlap between the two audiences? How exclusive were they, Carlson viewers vs. Hannity viewers? My gut tells me the Venn diagram would not be two separate circles.

Good question. As I understand it, they used a survey combined with county-level death data to build models of the Hannity viewership and the Carlson viewership. As such, there will obviously be some overlap, and the divergent health outcomes are within a margin of error.

 

[UncleMark]

Plus, as I said above correlation does not prove causation. It's certainly possible that Hannity's viewers' poor performance with the virus is an artifact, and it's just dumb bad luck that it happened to them.

Of course. It could be that they're just old and fat and stoopid. The kind of people JDB thinks should do the honorable thing and die already.

 

[UncleMark]

Good question. As I understand it, they used a survey combined with county-level death data to build models of the Hannity viewership and the Carlson viewership. As such, there will obviously be some overlap, and the divergent health outcomes are within a margin of error.

Models??? Oh shit. Everyone knows you can't trust those things. They're why this thing got so overblown and Cuomo didn't need all those vents and shit.

 

[meridian]

Huh?

He is just saying that he doesn't like you.

 

[Lucy01]

He is just saying that he doesn't like you.

Wow, how could anyone not like Goat!

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Wow, how could anyone not like Goat!

Boggles the mind.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Researchers looked at viewers of different media, and how they responded to Covid-19. Rather than some standard MSM-vs-Right Wing model, they compared Hannity to Tucker, two hosts on the same network who are very pro-Trump, but differed widely on their early Covid reporting. They found that Hannity viewers were much slower in responding to calls for disease prevention, and are associated with a 30% higher chance of catching the disease and 21% more deaths because of it.

There are some very severe limitations to this study, and the researchers were clear not to draw too much from it, but it does illustrate pretty clearly that the news we choose to ingest certainly has an effect on how we respond to real-time events - possibly to our own detriment.

https://www.npr.org/local/309/2020/...r_gdfecN3PR0lIYMmILyMe94nA-X_J0w6iPvDZDCJT-nQ

Does anyone find it surprising that NPR put this out? You know the bastion of unbiased reporting that people like goat hold up high......... why this would be of interest to them is for only one reason.... and it isn’t informing the viewers

 

[thezinfan1]

Does anyone find it surprising that NPR put this out? You know the bastion of unbiased reporting that people like goat hold up high......... why this would be of interest to them is for only one reason.... and it isn’t informing the viewers

Shouldn't you be on the Prem board crying to have the water cooler shut down? Or are you over that?

 

[Lucy01]

Shouldn't you be on the Prem board crying to have the water cooler shut down? Or are you over that?

I don’t think they should shut the cooler down, but they should make it a premium board and charge for it!

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Shouldn't you be on the Prem board crying to have the water cooler shut down? Or are you over that?

Who exactly crying at this moment? If you really are curious, look through my feed. I addressed it more than once.