Posted by Curt on 12 June, 2019 at 10:18 am. 3 comments already!


The Daily Beast is worried about Fox News Channel speculating baselessly about the health of former Vice President and current senior citizen Joe Biden, who is running for the highest office in the land and, for the moment, leading the pack.

On Twitter, Daily Beast editor Sam Stein tweeted about it, sharing the article from his website, as editors are wont to do.

That article tweet was, in turn, retweeted by CNN’s Brian Stelter, with a comment from Biden’s team.

The article in question says this:

In the news business, it is considered irresponsible to spread baseless, potentially damaging rumors about public figures. Even Fox News briefly suspended Judge Andrew Napolitano in early 2017 after he made the unfounded claim on-air that British officials helped President Obama spy on the Trump campaign. Beyond news personalities, the American Medical Association considers it wholly unethical for physicians to speculate on public officials’ health without having personally examined them.

Look at that last line. Now look at this tweet and article which indulges such “wholly unethical” behavior from physicians as they “speculate on public officials’ health without having personally examined them.”

Or better yet, this one, which is a sort of follow-up to that one:

It’s spooky how pertinent this is. Check out this line:

Our question: Will the president approach a psychiatric breakdown before, or after, he fires Mueller?

Kind of speaks for itself. And this is also from Stein’s The Daily Beast. It not only indulges mental health professionals speculating on the president’s mental health, it extensively and favorably presents their argument against the existence of the very professional standards which they used on Monday to denigrate Fox.

It presents the ethical standard with a dismissive air, even putting “rule” in scare quotes and implying it is old and out-dated and complaining that it was created by “a trade organization” – the least medical sounding way to put it – forever ago “before the internet even existed.”

The writer, from the same Daily Beast which Monday intoned about the rules, in the March article induced a doctor and former head of the association to simply ignore them: “Notwithstanding the above, when asked if he had ever seen or heard a candidate for the presidency who was as grandiose in stating his unique self-importance, he said: ‘Not [in] an American candidate.’”

They even got that doctor to say Trump is medically and manically a match for Mussolini. Wasn’t there just a big freak-out about comparing people to Mussolini?

The article goes on to favorably present, at length, the case against preventing medical professionals diagnosing Trump through the TV rather than in person, positing it as a violation of free speech, calling it a “gag” order, scare-mongering about nuclear codes. Seriously, go read it, it does that.

Remember, on Monday, we are citing these ethical standards to bash Fox. In March, we’re bashing those ethical standards to permit diagnosing and speculating about Trump. And that’s not the only example of the switch. Check it out.


Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x