I have not specifically said to refrain from speculation. If I have implied that, my apologies.
But I'm not referring to just "speculation". I'm referring to snarky, nasty comments about a person's vaccination status if they get sick or die, including comments that blame that person for getting sick or dying because they got vaccinated. Again, if you want examples, I will provide many.
Try putting yourself in the shoes of the typical FReeper, trying desperately to interpret the soggy tea-leaves which the mainstream media feed us!
I do it every day. And guess what - I find new sources of information and viewpoints to try and determine what is what and the best way to get from point A to point B. An example - the magazine The Economist. It gets criticized as a leftist mag, but I doubt those people have even read articles from The Economist. You would be surprised how many issues that FReepers and The Economist seem to have commonality.
Another source is Defense One. Wall Street Journal. Reason Magazine. City Journal. National Review. The problem is - many people have on objection with one or many of these publications, ergo NOTHING they print can be trusted. I find that intellectually lazy, and which demonstrates an ability to discern useful information from sources which someone personally objects to.
Sorry, Fury - and I mean that sincerely, without any hint of sarcasm - but you are holding us FReepers to an impossibly high standard.
Most of us are too busy earning a living, etc. to browse liberally various different nat'l and internat'l publications.
I, myself, used to be an avid reader of the "Frankfurther Allgemeine Zeitung," as well as "Die Zeit." But reading them - or the periodicals you list - will not help the typical FReeper to "fill in the blanks" when he stumbles across an article here about some LPGA member with a sore arm.
By your standards, all we could do is say, "Yup, she might be suffering vaxx after-effects. But then again, she might not!"
Yes, a lot of us have, indeed, become biased - or, more accurately, we have developed an "anti-bias" to offset the permanent slanted portrayal of reality we are subjected to when we consume mass media. And that can sometimes express itself as "smugness" when making assumptions like, "I bet she was triple vaxxed! Serves her right!"
I, myself, have recently taken to again watching tv news reports - and find that, by the end of most segments concerning COVID, I am left staring impotently at the tv screen, mentally scrolling through at three or four MAJOR pertinent points which I can discern the broadcaster has assiduously AVOIDED (for reasons of P.C., or to serve the established narrative).
"Funny how the tv reporter doing the 'Man on the Street' interviews 'happened' to interview only people who are scared stiff of Covid, and worship at the feet of the govt. masters who are offering mandating additional shots!"
I cited, in one of my earlier replies, the example of news articles dealing with racial urban violence which deliberately omit the race of the perp, etc. I'm sure that, for you folks there in the States, that's typical of the sort of selective and skewed reporting I'm talking about.
We - who know better and/or have not yet been totally brainwashed - feel that the media are insulting our intelligence on a daily basis.
"Do they really think that they can broadcast a story about 'violence against Asians triggered by Trump' when the attack is a year and a half after Trump left office, and the perp's own race is conveniently omitted from the report!? This is East Oakland, after all!"
Again: Given the large number - and variety - of articles appearing here at FR every day, and in view of the topicality and actuality of those articles, it is ridiculous to expect typical FReepers to 1) withhold judgement and not speculate (or CLEARLY label any such statements as speculation) or 2) attempt to first verify their speculations by, e.g., contacting the Press Agent of the downed golfer - that's simply silly, and you can't have meant it in earnest.
Regards,