Study: Hannity's probably a killer

[ribbont]

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.

I guess it would be hard to find any liberal footage considering all CNN talked about was impeachment.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I guess it would be hard to find any liberal footage considering all CNN talked about was impeachment.

Shame on me for taking the time to respond to your objections in good faith.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

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

Haha, is that asshole triggered by my thread? Isn't there a discussion about black thugs somewhere to keep him occupied?

 

[Lucy01]

Haha, is that asshole triggered by my thread? Isn't there a discussion about black thugs somewhere to keep him occupied?

Black thugs isn’t that the same as Obamagate?

 

[thezinfan1]

Haha, is that asshole triggered by my thread? Isn't there a discussion about black thugs somewhere to keep him occupied?

LOL'ing that you knew who I was talking about.

 

[ribbont]

Shame on me for taking the time to respond to your objections in good faith.

Half my reply got cut off (dang phone). At work now but will fully reply later.

 

[ribbont]

Shame on me for taking the time to respond to your objections in good faith.

Ok. Now, let me address.

You stated: 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...

I was a little TIC with the CNN comment, but according to MRC, CNN spent very little time from Jan 17 to Feb 11 discussing CV, about 40 sec per hour. ( I may be off a little on the dates). So, if one considers lack of coverage as downplaying, then CNN is guilty.

And did you check the linked Fox counter in the npr article? Looks like Hannity did downplay it, and then upplayed it (if that is a word), but at least discussed it quite a bit even to include a Fauci interview early on.

So, again, if you want to call Hannity a killer (inflammatory and incorrect), then we need to call CNN killers for their total lack of coverage. (which would also be incorrect)

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Ok. Now, let me address.

You stated: 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...

I was a little TIC with the CNN comment, but according to MRC, CNN spent very little time from Jan 17 to Feb 11 discussing CV, about 40 sec per hour. ( I may be off a little on the dates). So, if one considers lack of coverage as downplaying, then CNN is guilty.

And did you check the linked Fox counter in the npr article? Looks like Hannity did downplay it, and then upplayed it (if that is a word), but at least discussed it quite a bit even to include a Fauci interview early on.

So, again, if you want to call Hannity a killer (inflammatory and incorrect), then we need to call CNN killers for their total lack of coverage. (which would also be incorrect)

Again, you seem to be having difficulty understanding exactly what my argument was, and you are now (again) criticizing a much broader version of it that I never said.

The study demonstrates a correlation between Hannity viewership and bad Covid health outcomes. Although the study cannot prove that Hannity's early skepticism is the cause of those negative outcomes, I am arguing that it is reasonable to make such a connection, and therefore Hannity bears some moral culpability.

I never once argued that being skeptical makes someone a killer. I certainly never argued that failure to cover the virus adequately makes anyone anything.