Another Example of MSM Covid-19 Fake News - Radio New Zealand (#2)
Following on from this earlier example of misleading, unbalanced, and omission-censorship in New Zealand's media, here is another example of omission-censorship. Same story - Auckland's impending second lockdown. Radio New Zealand again.
Remember, we are now in August and we know so much more (here, here, here, here) than in March when at least the covid-fear proponents could present an argument that was at least half-coherent to some people (enough not to cause a revolt). But now? Mid-August? Like all Radio New Zealand stories I've looked at, the angle they take is not relevant to the actual properties and behaviour of Covid-19. We now know:
The fatality rate is similar to seasonal influenza. It's deadly for the same cohort (e.g. elderly with co-morbidities). The vulnerable can easily be protected. We know lockdowns don't work and have terrible costs. We know elimination is impossible, and unnecessary. We know (from international studies) that Covid-19 has likely been through the population, though we would know for certain if the Government had not refused to allow the correct type of testing that would give us the necessary data to confirm prevalence (serology tests).
And finally, remember, Auckland was being locked down because four people in one family tested positive. No-one died. No-one came close to dying.
12 August 2020 - Aucklanders prepare for return to Covid-19 alert level 3 at noon
The story doesn't question the government lockdown narrative; there is no balance. We know there is credible opposition to lockdowns from the medical profession in New Zealand (omission). There is some discussion of "community transmission" (not relevant but causes anxiety) before moving on to reporting people's reactions.
No-one quoted thinks this new lockdown is the wrong move while we know there is plenty of opposition (omission censorship). Lockdown opponents who do penetrate the mono-media fog are treated as cranks, or are edited to make them appear as cranks, or maybe selected because they are cranks. It crowds out the serious debate. With this collection it's hard to know whether to start pulling your hair out, or just say "oh bless".
"One woman said she was shocked by the news. - "How? How did even happen? Who gave it to them? What else do we need to prepare for? Is it just a lockdown that's going to help us or do we need more?
Panic, incoherent, will this be enough to save us?
-----------
I feel real anxious. During the first lockdown, me and partner were living with my mother in law, so we felt kind of safe. Whereas now, we've got our own place in the city at the heart of Auckland. Everyone touches everything, spits everywhere.
Panic, incoherent, factually wrong but not corrected in the story.
-----------
I think it's the right move to make this decision, the right moment. Otherwise, let's say it increases then things may get out of hand. After the third day, we may know if we have it under control ... so I think it's better that way.
Reinforcing established fears; the correct government decision; feels safer; seemingly rational; no reference in the story to the facts of the virus which would help counter the irrational fear; what things is he talking about? It's leaves the reader to fill 'things' with their own worst 'things'.
-----------
For me, it's fine, because I shouldn't be selfish ... it's for everyone's safety so I'm fine with it. I'm worried about another outbreak but all we need to do is follow rules to be safe.
Reinforcing established fears; feels safer; seemingly rational; the correct government decision; no reference to the facts of the virus which would help counter the irrational fear. What's he worried about? His own safety? A quick look at the evidence would quickly dispel this fear.
-----------
I think a three-day lockdown is kind of absurd, if you're going to do it you should do it for at least a week or so to see where it's reached, who they've been in contact with to be able to do due diligence.
The is my favourite. You start off thinking 'great, not everyone has swallowed this Cool Aid' ("I think a three-day lockdown is kind of absurd...") then they go on to say the lockdown should be longer! Bless.
Sometimes, in deeply cynical moments, I picture the journalists sitting around the office having a few drinks and making this stuff up; I'm certain Ministerial press secretaries do.