4 ms·

Reuters is twisting the truth. We should rather listen to the scientists who actually worked at the WHO. https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/136055110856599

Reuters is twisting the truth. We should rather listen to the scientists who actually worked at the WHO. https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1360551108565999619 https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1360551108565999619 https://twitter.com/TheaKFischer/status/1360590441817772034 https://twitter.com/TheaKFischer/status/1360590441817772034 https://twitter.com/LiuXininBeijing/status/1360741600507269121 https://twitter.com/LiuXininBeijing/status/13607416005072691... And people wonder why I complain about propaganda in the western world :/

tremon 6y ago
GTFO. The article is about the US government's stance, not about the WHO, so quoting random people that have no affiliation with the White House is completely missing the point, and I think intentionally.
- berdario 6y ago
  From the article: "China refused to give raw data on early COVID-19 cases to the WHO-led team probing the origins of the pandemic, according to one of the team’s investigators, potentially complicating efforts to understand how the outbreak began." The powerful people in our governments are reading the same propaganda that you and I are reading, and they can thus end up believing it. The reason why the US government is pushing this issue, is exactly because of what the NYT, Reuters, etc are peddling. You should also refrain from attacking others ("GTFO", "intentionally missing the point") if you want to have a discussion in good faith
  - tremon 6y ago
    A discussion in good faith does not begin with "[TFA] is twisting the truth."
    - berdario 6y ago
      If the agency that published the article is twisting the truth, shouldn't that be called out?
      - tremon 6y ago
        It's your presumption to already know the "truth" that can never lead to a discussion in good faith, not your opinion on the article itself. But as to your point, are you asserting that none of the team’s investigators ever said anything like "China refused to give raw data on early COVID-19 cases to the WHO-led team probing the origins of the pandemic"? Where is your proof that the statement you quoted is false?
        berdario 6y ago
        Propaganda doesn't work like you are implying it does. It's part "bullshit asymmetry principle", but it's mostly repetition of the same talking points. I.e. find something true but inconsequential (Dominic Dwyer said that they weren't necessarily given enough to do all of the analises that they would do), and that's then blown out of proportion: - what are the actual facts? What was Dwyer's role? Was he working with the same people that Daszak and Fischer worked (i.e. their chinese counterparts)? Why don't we hear testimony from their side? - one scientist became several members of their team - one statement became just part of a narrative (repeated headlines) about Chinese negligence in sharing information - the supposed neglicence then justified "deep concern" from the WH That works thanks to the fact that, even if people read the articles, and realize that there's no smoking gun.. All they remember is the newspaper headline, and people will uncritically trust authorities like NYT or Reuters... So even when there's no smoking gun, them referring to each others as source is enough to make their narrative seem legitimate
  - tim333 6y ago
    As far as I can tell Reuters and the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-he...) are telling the truth. I'm not that convinced it's propaganda. What's in it for them to lie over this stuff?

tremon 6y ago

GTFO. The article is about the US government's stance, not about the WHO, so quoting random people that have no affiliation with the White House is completely missing the point, and I think intentionally.

berdario 6y ago
From the article: "China refused to give raw data on early COVID-19 cases to the WHO-led team probing the origins of the pandemic, according to one of the team’s investigators, potentially complicating efforts to understand how the outbreak began." The powerful people in our governments are reading the same propaganda that you and I are reading, and they can thus end up believing it. The reason why the US government is pushing this issue, is exactly because of what the NYT, Reuters, etc are peddling. You should also refrain from attacking others ("GTFO", "intentionally missing the point") if you want to have a discussion in good faith
- tremon 6y ago
  A discussion in good faith does not begin with "[TFA] is twisting the truth."
  - berdario 6y ago
    If the agency that published the article is twisting the truth, shouldn't that be called out?
    - tremon 6y ago
      It's your presumption to already know the "truth" that can never lead to a discussion in good faith, not your opinion on the article itself. But as to your point, are you asserting that none of the team’s investigators ever said anything like "China refused to give raw data on early COVID-19 cases to the WHO-led team probing the origins of the pandemic"? Where is your proof that the statement you quoted is false?
      - berdario 6y ago
        Propaganda doesn't work like you are implying it does. It's part "bullshit asymmetry principle", but it's mostly repetition of the same talking points. I.e. find something true but inconsequential (Dominic Dwyer said that they weren't necessarily given enough to do all of the analises that they would do), and that's then blown out of proportion: - what are the actual facts? What was Dwyer's role? Was he working with the same people that Daszak and Fischer worked (i.e. their chinese counterparts)? Why don't we hear testimony from their side? - one scientist became several members of their team - one statement became just part of a narrative (repeated headlines) about Chinese negligence in sharing information - the supposed neglicence then justified "deep concern" from the WH That works thanks to the fact that, even if people read the articles, and realize that there's no smoking gun.. All they remember is the newspaper headline, and people will uncritically trust authorities like NYT or Reuters... So even when there's no smoking gun, them referring to each others as source is enough to make their narrative seem legitimate
- tim333 6y ago
  As far as I can tell Reuters and the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-he...) are telling the truth. I'm not that convinced it's propaganda. What's in it for them to lie over this stuff?