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. f

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