To Tell the Truth is a Human Events News’ press analysis series. These stories will focus on “news” being reported by either The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, NBC News, or CBS News. Despite 24-hour cable broadcasts, and an untold number of internet sources, these established, mainstream platforms continue to influence the […]
To Tell the Truth is a Human Events News’ press analysis series. These stories will focus on “news” being reported by either The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, NBC News, or CBS News. Despite 24-hour cable broadcasts, and an untold number of internet sources, these established, mainstream platforms continue to influence the majority of American citizens and their political opinions.
The “news” generated by these press is better regarded as “opinion” crafted in a way designed to discourage skepticism and critical thought on the part of the audience. To Tell the Truth will be Human Events News’ periodic effort to help address this bias, and restore the skepticism necessary on the part of all Americans to maintain a free society.
On Jan. 15, Newsweek reported on a groundbreaking study published ten days prior in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. The study, conducted by Stanford researchers, found that mandatory lockdowns in response to COVID-19 "did not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures."
Five days after Newsweek's report, news of the study remains absent from the websites of major American news outlets, including the New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, ABC, and CBS.
"The study compared cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. – all countries that implemented mandatory lockdown orders and business closures – to South Korea and Sweden, which instituted less severe, voluntary responses. It aimed to analyze the effect that less restrictive or more restrictive measures had on changing individual behavior and curbing the transmission of the virus," Newsweek reports.
"We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures," wrote the researchers.
The named outlets have continued to cover coronavirus-related news and even research studies, especially those having to do with the severity of the virus and the importance of a vaccine. The New York Times has covered several studies in the days since the Stanford research was released, including the following:
6 Months After Leaving the Hospital, Covid Survivors Still Face Lingering Health Issues
"A large study of patients from a Wuhan, China, hospital showed that a half-year later, three-quarters were struggling with problems like fatigue, depression and diminished lung function."
How to (Literally) Drive the Coronavirus Away
"What’s the transmission risk inside a car? An airflow study offers some insight for passengers and drivers alike."
Blood Plasma Reduces Risk of Severe Covid-19 if Given Early
"Thousands of people received convalescent plasma as an experimental treatment for Covid. A new study shows that it works — but only when given within a few days of the onset of illness."
One 18-Hour Flight, Four Coronavirus Infections
"An outbreak aboard a September flight from Dubai to New Zealand offers researchers, and airlines, an opportunity to study in-transit contagion."
"The study of a largely empty flight last fall suggests that airlines will need to further tighten precautions on flights."
Coronavirus headlines from the Washington Post in the days following the Stanford study release include a warning that lockdowns have record gun sales, and a report that "The Trump administration bailed out prominent anti-vaccine groups during a pandemic."
Among the scholarly research that the Post did choose to cover following the release of the one in question include one concluding that "minorities should be designated vulnerable to COVID."
ABC chose to cover a separate lockdown-related study concluding that the mandates did not improve air quality due to lower pollution rates as much as originally thought.
"The study's authors found that reductions in automobile traffic led to an immediate decline in nitrogen oxide levels across all cities. However, less than 30% of the shift could be attributed to lockdown effects in most cases, in part due to continued emissions from other sources," ABC reported.
The study in question is one of the first to credibly call into question the validity of mandatory lockdown and stay-at home orders. Such a revelation is of certain importance to a nation which has spent the large part of the past year with many states under some form of government mandated shutdown.
To tell the truth, by refusing to publish the findings of this particular study, the MSM has once again demonstrated that coverage choices are dictated by preferred narrative, rather than information relevance. To admit to the public that there is scientific evidence against the case for lockdowns would mean America's favorite "news" publications would have to eat crow.
