The Media, the Virus and the "Lab Leak" Hypothesis

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Isn't this really about Right-Wingers wanting protection for their ongoing, increasingly-hostile demeaning comments about blacks, ethics, women and the poor?

No, this is about my original post and Yglesias's observations about the lab leak theory. And then secondarily about the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

In both instances, much of the news media and the social media suppressed the stories. Or forbid people from even discussing it. Facebook banned people from even discussing the lab leak theory.

That's a problem. Just because it's the "bad guys" being targeted doesn't mean it's right. You guys on the left, not all (Jon sees the problem) but too many, are way too cavalier about this because it's not happening to your side. Just give it time; it will. And how will you oppose it after defending it now?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

A good little rule for people to consider when you propose suppressing the speech (or other liberties) of others: Would you want the "other side" to have the same ability or power to suppress the speech and liberties that you're espousing? That is, if you get to do "A" then the other side gets to do "A" too?

If the answer is, "Heck no!", then it's probably a wise choice to abandon the idea.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Josh Rogin, a reporter (correction) columnist for the Washington Post and someone who has been, almost by himself, covering/reporting the "lab leak" theory from the beginning - from early 2020 - has a very tough twitter thread about the failure of his fellow reporters journalists on this story. He's not going to very popular with them.

Rogin:
#1: "All these reporters scrambling to defend their own records on the lab leak theory are exposing their own hypocrisy & ignoring their basic error. Just report the facts. Don’t act like its your job to tell us whats ok to think or talk about. Own up to it when you fail your readers."

#2: "Also, the lab leak theory didn’t change. It didn’t suddenly become credible. It didn’t jump from crazy to reasonable. The theory has always been the same. The people who got it wrong changed their minds. They are writing about themselves, with zero self awareness."

#3: "Most MSM reporters didn’t “ignore” the lab leak theory, they actively crapped all over it for over a year while pretending to be objective out of a toxic mix of confirmation bias, source bias (their scientist sources lied to them), group think, TDS and general incompetence."

I think this is a bit overly harsh especially #2. The evidence for this has changed, we have learned much more from last year. About the wet markets in particular. So this is, I think, not completely fair or accurate.

Link here: https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1398661632193089536

 

[Jon Banks]

The group that looks the worst in my opinion are the Fact-Checkers.

There were several Fact-checking articles that completely dismissed the Lab Leak theory.

Obviously, Facts can and do change but in this instance, the Facts didn’t change. It was a change in the political circumstances are what changed over the course of the last few months…

[Jon Banks]

Josh Rogin, a reporter for the Washington Post and someone who has been, almost by himself, covering/reporting the "lab leak" theory from the beginning - from early 2020 - has a very tough twitter thread about the failure of his fellow reporters on this story. He's not going to very popular with them.

Rogin:
#1: "All these reporters scrambling to defend their own records on the lab leak theory are exposing their own hypocrisy & ignoring their basic error. Just report the facts. Don’t act like its your job to tell us whats ok to think or talk about. Own up to it when you fail your readers."

#2: "Also, the lab leak theory didn’t change. It didn’t suddenly become credible. It didn’t jump from crazy to reasonable. The theory has always been the same. The people who got it wrong changed their minds. They are writing about themselves, with zero self awareness."

#3: "Most MSM reporters didn’t “ignore” the lab leak theory, they actively crapped all over it for over a year while pretending to be objective out of a toxic mix of confirmation bias, source bias (their scientist sources lied to them), group think, TDS and general incompetence."

I think this is a bit overly harsh especially #2. The evidence for this has changed, we have learned much more from last year. About the wet markets in particular. So this is, I think, not completely fair or accurate.

Link here: https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1398661632193089536

#3 seems harsh to me.

I don’t recall any scientists saying a Lab Leak origin is impossible. Maybe a few did. Most scientists just think it’s unlikely because the virus doesn’t appear to be man-made.

The head of the Wuhan Virology Lab admitted early in 2020 that she feared that the virus came from her lab although she says after an investigation, she was relieved that it didn’t match virus samples that they were studying. It’s understandable why her statement shouldn’t be accepted at face value (she lives in an authoritarian country afterall) but I don’t recall many articles referencing that outside of some of the scientific articles that I’ve read.

Her statement alone is proof that a Lab accident is possible. Obviously she initially wasn’t confident that the virus didn’t come from her Lab (and still may not be).

[Jon Banks]

If anyone has time to watch a lengthy video, this conversation in the video below gives a good summary of the reasons why Virologists believe a natural origin for Covid is most likely what happened (and why they think a Lab leak is less likely). Could the scientists be wrong? Of course. However, they have more experience in studying viruses than 99% of us so we can't dismiss their opinions:

[Rick Plant]

A lot of folks in the Mainstream Media disliked Trump so much that they weren’t able to report on his Presidency objectively.

I say this as someone who didn’t vote for Trump and thought he was a lousy President.

Reporting Criminal Donald's crimes and scandals is objective reporting. The right wing media covered up everything.   

[Rick Plant]

Yep, the story was that the mainstream media - the major outlets - refused to cover the story. And social media banned people from linking to the NY Post story. And the NY Post was banned by Twitter and Facebook from linking to their story. This nonsense that it wasn't "proven" and therefore couldn't be mentioned is absurd. By that standard half of the stories we discuss wouldn't be allowed to be mentioned. JFK assassination anyone?

The Russian collusion story wasn't proven, especially the Steele Dossier part of it. The Russian bounty story wasn't proven. And yet those weren't banned. Just until two days ago Facebook banned people from mentioning the "lab leak" theory behind the pandemic.

Something seriously wrong is going on here but it appears that if the "right" people are being silenced it's okay. It's not. Today it's them, tomorrow it's you.

Corrupt criminal Bill Barr covered up the Russian collusion that the criminal Trump campaign was involved in. Paul Manafort gave polling data to the Russians and the Senate Intelligence Committee already confirmed the Russian collusion from their bipartisan investigation....that is clear collusion.

US says Russia was given Trump campaign polling data in 2016
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia-campaigns-konstantin-kilimnik-d2fdefdb37077e28eba135e21fce6ebf

U.S. Senate report goes beyond Mueller to lay bare Trump campaign's Russia links
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/18/donald-trump-us-senate-report-russia-campaign