Ponderings over my morning coffee

[GeauxHomeLittleD]

I'll be interested in what he finds, as it was always a puzzle to myself for that pushed change.


Here's a classic example of the internet-promoted media's propaganda.
First the statement -the Headline.
Second, an opposing set of sentences to the headline.

Covid-19: Vaccines to be compulsory for frontline NHS staff in England

'Frontline NHS England staff will have to be fully vaccinated against Covid, the government is expected to announce later.
A deadline will be set for next spring to give unvaccinated staff time to get both doses, Whitehall sources told the BBC...'

Then the switch-around from the words 'Care-workers' and 'Hospital-staff'.

'...Last month, Health Secretary Sajid Javid said he was leaning towards compulsory vaccination for NHS staff
in England, saying it was the right thing to do to protect staff and patients.

He told the BBC that he did not want the NHS to lose any staff, but said the experience in the social care sector
was that the numbers taking up the vaccine "absolutely surged" after it was made compulsory...'

BBC:

It never stops.

I will check in on that un-archived source later to see if the wording as been changed and like many articles,
it might be. So is this merely a Press Release from the UK Government via an agreement between the Trade
Unions and those who are elected to serve the needs of the public...?
Or just another chunk of fear-porn in the hopes of boosting internet-clicks?

Infotainment, the ethical-stance of today's Journalism.

I think we need a new term to use for all of this "double speak". Too much is contradictory, often in the same sentence!

I feel like it it similar to the Mandela Effect in some ways. First they say shots wont be mandatory, then they are mandatory for everyone but us, then we will pretend it is mandatory for us but it really isn't, followed by "We never said that- you're making things up!" 

I think we should name it the Jumbo Shrimp Effect. Yes, it sounds ridiculous- but so do they!