346
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Doctors who treat Covid describe the ways the illness has gotten milder and shifted over time to mostly affect the upper respiratory tract.

Doctors say they're finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish Covid from allergies or the common cold, even as hospitalizations tick up.

The illness' past hallmarks, such as a dry cough or the loss of sense of taste or smell, have become less common. Instead, doctors are observing milder disease, mostly concentrated in the upper respiratory tract.

"It isn’t the same typical symptoms that we were seeing before. It’s a lot of congestion, sometimes sneezing, usually a mild sore throat," said Dr. Erick Eiting, vice chair of operations for emergency medicine at Mount Sinai Downtown in New York City.

The sore throat usually arrives first, he said, then congestion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] darq@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

This article is a bit of propaganda though. That doesn't mean it isn't true or anything. But running an article in the news about how much milder the disease is, is still going to have an effect on how people respond to it.

[-] Stuka@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think you might be using too broad a definition of propaganda. The result of influencing opinion does not make something propaganda. Propaganda needs some intent to persuade or push an agenda.

The article might be propaganda, largely that depends on the motivations for writing and publishing it. But the fact that the content of the article might change people's opinions does not make it propaganda.

[-] darq@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

I think you might be using too broad a definition of propaganda.

Nah.

The result of influencing opinion does not make something propaganda. Propaganda needs some intent to persuade or push an agenda.

A bar this article very easily clears. What to publish is a choice. A choice was made to publish this article, with obvious influence on opinion and action.

The article might be propaganda, largely that depends on the motivations for writing and publishing it. But the fact that the content of the article might change people’s opinions does not make it propaganda.

Nah. Intent a nonsense metric. We can bicker forever about intent. Because we cannot know anyone's mind.

Using intent as a metric gives a lot of propaganda a free pass. Because we can't prove intent.

[-] Stuka@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago

So you just don't know what propaganda is, got it.

[-] darq@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago
[-] Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago
[-] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

That wasn't directed at you. But I guess I said "dickhead" and you figured it fit you.

[-] cloaker@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

It's not a free pass. Something doesn't have to be propaganda to be bad.

[-] darq@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I didn't say it did? I didn't even say that propaganda is universally bad?

[-] cloaker@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Sure, but propaganda has to have intent. The article itself cannot be propaganda without it. It may advance a claim of COVID being trivial, but those who advance it must bend the article in some way. What they say then is the propaganda.

[-] darq@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

The choice of what to publish at all, is intent. News outlets are not just firehoses of all facts. They choose what to publish.

There is no need for the article to be "bent" in any way.

[-] Stuka@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

So to you propaganda is a synonym for news, and that is simply incorrect.

[-] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

No. Not a synonym. But the line between news and propaganda is not clear-cut. Especially in the case of a self-contained article. A news outlet may serve as a source of propaganda, based on the editorial decisions they make. The individual articles are still news, even as they serve as propaganda for their audience.

[-] Stuka@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You've kind of arrived at the point while ignoring it.

Propaganda requires intent. You are correct that we can't know their intent directly, therefore we can only use evidence to try to determine the authors intent.

Admittedly I did not pick the article a part, but I saw no tell-tale signs of propaganda. It was primarily interviews with doctors. I saw no signs of manipulative wording, attempts at persuasion, or unsupported opinions of the writer.

While I can't definitively say this article is not propaganda, it probably isn't.

So it's not propaganda until you can provide good evidence that it is.

[-] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Propaganda requires intent.

And editorial choice clears the bar for intent.

Admittedly I did not pick the article a part, but I saw no tell-tale signs of propaganda. It was primarily interviews with doctors. I saw no signs of manipulative wording, attempts at persuasion, or unsupported opinions of the writer.

You are ignoring what I'm saying. You are trying to look at a single article for evidence of propaganda. But that isn't the whole picture.

A news desk picks what articles that they publish. If they publish a whole bunch of articles saying "the average case of covid has become more mild" that is furthering a specific viewpoint. If they instead publish articles about "people are still suffering from long-covid", that is furthering a different viewpoint.

And crucially, both "the average case of covid has become more mild" and "people are still suffering from long-covid" can be true. Both types of articles can be written with absolutely zero bias, and still serve as propaganda.

[-] Stuka@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ok, but now you are assuming intent of the news desk still without evidence. I get where you're coming from, but without actual evidence showing a clear organizational bias for a certain narrative, making that assumption isn't anymore valid than assuming the actual reporters intent.

And again, furthering a viewpoint does not make propaganda. Virtually all news is going to further one viewpoint or another, even if the organization and writer are 100% unbiased. Facts usually don't maintain a neutral ground on a topic.

[-] Bipta@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I get where you’re coming from, but without actual evidence showing a clear organizational bias for a certain narrative

You mean like how they and others keep publishing articles saying, or intimating, that COVID is less severe now even though there's really no evidence for that?

It's the fact they keep doing it that makes it propaganda.

[-] Stuka@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

even though there's really no evidence for that

Ironic considering you've presented no evidence to support that.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

So your own comments here are propaganda? If everything published by choice is propaganda, then everything is propaganda, because everything is published by choice. Nobody just dumps a bunch of rocks on the keyboard and publishes whatever it types out.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No, they think propaganda influences opinion, but I don't think anything they've said has changed anyone's mind about anything.

this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
346 points (100.0% liked)

News

22916 readers
3277 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS