|
|
Reply
| |
QUOTE: Popular media coverage of infectious diseases greatly influences how people perceive those diseases, making them seem more dangerous, according to a new study from McMaster University...
"The media tend to focus on rare and dramatic events," says Meredith Young, one of the study's lead authors and a graduate student in the Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour. "When a certain disease receives repeated coverage in the press, people tend to focus on it and perceive it as a real threat. This raises concerns regarding how people view their own health, how they truly understand disease and how they treat themselves..." UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081029121818.htm
What's interesting is that even when the media gets something totally wrong, for example, all the reports about how "HIV/AIDS" was going to kill millions of Americans, "crossing over" into the heterosexual population, they don't question claims that can't possibly be correct (though of course there are a few notable exceptions, such as Celia Farber). |
|
First
Previous
2-3 of 3
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
I see that we long ago lost the habit of using the terms "mass media" and "popular literature." The mass media influences things a certain way. People who go through the more technical literature learn an entirely different picture. All of this material about AIDS has always been readily available through the media, to those who chose media that appealed to more intelligent people. AIDS dissidents always got our information from mainstream sources, sometimes indirectly, but it was from mainstream medicine. |
|
Reply
| |
There's actually a book that shows how the claims about "HIV" and "AIDS" changed over the years, from the tentative initial reports to possessing a sense of definitiveness, within the space of several years, despite no additional evidence of importance being published. I know I cited it somewhere. It was written by a woman who was a historian but then became a journalist. If I remember, I'll post back here with the citation. That one section about how "HIV/AIDS" reporting changed was certainly worth reading, in the context of this thread. |
|
|