Comments on: Did Twitter make flu fears viral? http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/14/did-twitter-make-flu-fears-viral/ Sat, 18 May 2013 14:03:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Mad pete http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/14/did-twitter-make-flu-fears-viral/comment-page-1/#comment-14823 Mad pete Tue, 19 May 2009 01:12:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3492#comment-14823 I second that. I second that.

]]> By: Influentia http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/14/did-twitter-make-flu-fears-viral/comment-page-1/#comment-14820 Influentia Mon, 18 May 2009 23:46:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3492#comment-14820 I suggest the readers here listen to Luke. I suggest the readers here listen to Luke.

]]> By: Tina http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/14/did-twitter-make-flu-fears-viral/comment-page-1/#comment-14516 Tina Fri, 15 May 2009 03:55:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3492#comment-14516 This is ridiculous. Blaming Twitter for ANYTHING is like blaming the paper a story is written on. Twitter simply provides a traceable real-time way of tracking what we are all saying/doing anyway. It doesn't create our story, it simply provides a forum for it to be acknowledged. This is ridiculous. Blaming Twitter for ANYTHING is like blaming the paper a story is written on. Twitter simply provides a traceable real-time way of tracking what we are all saying/doing anyway. It doesn’t create our story, it simply provides a forum for it to be acknowledged.

]]> By: luke http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/14/did-twitter-make-flu-fears-viral/comment-page-1/#comment-14475 luke Thu, 14 May 2009 22:35:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3492#comment-14475 You speak as though the virus has somehow disappeared. It is still present, and as all virii is unaffected by media prominence. Humans have a strange notion that they are not subject to the laws of nature - they are. The virus is still present its spread is continuing, it does not seem to be a virulent strain, but non-virulent strains can rapidly mutate into more virulent strains incorporating genetic material from other viruses. Those who speak as though this was some media construct imagine that the media can somehow summon disease, the risk remains the same whether it is covered or not. Will this be the next pandemic, it looks to be so. Unfortunately virii don't conform to media timetables either, it could take months before the effects and mortality figures are truly known. Until then I suggest that people remain vigilant, because virii have no respect for the media or naysayers. You speak as though the virus has somehow disappeared.
It is still present, and as all virii is unaffected by media prominence.
Humans have a strange notion that they are not subject to the laws of nature – they are. The virus is still present its spread is continuing, it does not seem to be a virulent strain, but non-virulent strains can rapidly mutate into more virulent strains incorporating genetic material from other viruses. Those who speak as though this was some media construct imagine that the media can somehow summon disease, the risk remains the same whether it is covered or not. Will this be the next pandemic, it looks to be so. Unfortunately virii don’t conform to media timetables either, it could take months before the effects and mortality figures are truly known. Until then I suggest that people remain vigilant, because virii have no respect for the media or naysayers.

]]> By: Dan Dan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/05/14/did-twitter-make-flu-fears-viral/comment-page-1/#comment-14466 Dan Dan Thu, 14 May 2009 22:11:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3492#comment-14466 Twitter? Don't make me laugh, Reuters and all the rest of the corporate media engineered this charade of a swine flu. It is part of WHY the printed press is going down fast: instead of focusing on real news, real events and real people, it focuses instead on creating theatrical drama, make up stories and tell a biased account of a limited number of events [to suit a party line] and believes no-one in the general public wants to read the truth - or that the general public likes a muddled version of truth better. Once the news media realizes that they can't do online what they do in print and television, then maybe, they'll get some readers back. Accusing Twitter of exacerbating a non-story is shifting the blame where it currently lies and it's really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Twitter?
Don’t make me laugh, Reuters and all the rest of the corporate media engineered this charade of a swine flu.

It is part of WHY the printed press is going down fast: instead of focusing on real news, real events and real people, it focuses instead on creating theatrical drama, make up stories and tell a biased account of a limited number of events [to suit a party line] and believes no-one in the general public wants to read the truth – or that the general public likes a muddled version of truth better.

Once the news media realizes that they can’t do online what they do in print and television, then maybe, they’ll get some readers back.

Accusing Twitter of exacerbating a non-story is shifting the blame where it currently lies and it’s really a non-issue as far as I’m concerned.

]]>