6 ms·

I think the media successfully conflated four separate questions: a) Did it form in nature or in a lab? b) Did it become more communicable via nature or via t

I think the media successfully conflated four separate questions: a) Did it form in nature or in a lab? b) Did it become more communicable via nature or via the lab? c) Did it make it to humans through nature (or wet market) or via the lab? d) If it came from the lab was it on purpose or an accident? as simply "OMG IT CAME FROM A LAB" and then claimed it's all a conspiracy theory. The media as a whole shot themselves in the foot on this one and we'll all be worse off for it.

teachingassist 5y ago
I also think 'wet market' is still a conflation here - the first or earliest location that a cluster of the virus was identified, and the site of a significant evolutionary event, are not and were never likely to be the same. We only are led to think that because the media repeated it so often. Human-to-human transmission started (almost certainly) with one human, not one animal transmitting to multiple humans.
thomascgalvin 5y ago
> The media as a whole shot themselves in the foot on this one and we'll all be worse off for it. Science reporters don't generally understand science, and nuanced takes don't generate clicks. The "media" is the absolute worst place for this discussion to take place.
maybelsyrup 5y ago
> The media as a whole shot themselves in the foot on this one I don't have any evidence of this, but I don't think it was as accidental as shooting yourself in the foot. Media people know what they're doing.
tnzm 5y ago
It's less "shot themselves in the foot" and more "broke our legs". Mass media's entire function has been reduced to hobbling public discourse.
pbourke 5y ago
The article refers to two letters from leading researchers arguing against the lab escape hypothesis, one published in a Nature journal. It’s not like the media were spinning this story out of whole cloth. The whole thing was unfortunately hyper politicized from the start.
ravenstine 5y ago
It's really interesting to see this shift in sentiment that HN users have towards the media and journalism. A couple of years ago this comment wouldn't have made it to the top of the page, and it may have even been grayed out. This isn't something I'm celebrating, though. It's not a sign of a successful state when everyone is losing confidence in the press.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  It would serve us well to distinguish between different types of media critiques. One the one hand, there's the critique that media institutions are becoming more commercialized, dumbed-down, and turned in to infotainment, where serious discussion and inquiry is thrown out the window in favor of shouting matches and sensationalism. There's another critique that media is in service or left-wing, right-wing, capitalist, or corporate special interests and parrots the party line. Yet another critique is that the media doesn't give marginalized voices enough air time. So when you say "everyone is losing confidence in the press" that may be true in general, but different people are doing so for very different reasons. The grandparent comment seems to be a critique of the third category, where they seem to want the mainstream media to give more air time to conspiracy theories in direct contravention to the consensus of the scientific community: which is that SARS-CoV-2 came from nature, not from a lab.
  - caseysoftware 5y ago
    > The grandparent comment seems to be a critique of the third category, where they seem to want the mainstream media to give more air time to conspiracy theories in direct contravention to the consensus of the scientific community: which is that SARS-CoV-2 came from nature, not from a lab. My actual criticism was closer to your first category: "where serious discussion and inquiry is thrown out the window in favor of shouting matches and sensationalism" But thank you for demonstrating my point by re-collapsing all four questions into one.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      What's more sensationalistic: that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin or that it was lab made? Sensationlism is squarely on the side of the conspiracy theores.
himinlomax 5y ago
The media can be expected to fuck up a science story, even a high profile one, because they do that as a matter of course, even for simple, basic technical stuff that would be obvious to a first year college student with the relevant major. The true problem is those professional scientists who jumped on the "lol conspiratard" bandwagon and probably ended up carrying water for the CCP, albeit unwittingly. I'm talking about the government who cried "racism" when other countries started closing their borders to China — the first one to do that was of course Taiwan AKA Republic of China, who are by that token racist against Chinese people, I guess.

teachingassist 5y ago

I also think 'wet market' is still a conflation here - the first or earliest location that a cluster of the virus was identified, and the site of a significant evolutionary event, are not and were never likely to be the same. We only are led to think that because the media repeated it so often. Human-to-human transmission started (almost certainly) with one human, not one animal transmitting to multiple humans.

thomascgalvin 5y ago

> The media as a whole shot themselves in the foot on this one and we'll all be worse off for it. Science reporters don't generally understand science, and nuanced takes don't generate clicks. The "media" is the absolute worst place for this discussion to take place.

maybelsyrup 5y ago

> The media as a whole shot themselves in the foot on this one I don't have any evidence of this, but I don't think it was as accidental as shooting yourself in the foot. Media people know what they're doing.

tnzm 5y ago

It's less "shot themselves in the foot" and more "broke our legs". Mass media's entire function has been reduced to hobbling public discourse.

pbourke 5y ago

The article refers to two letters from leading researchers arguing against the lab escape hypothesis, one published in a Nature journal. It’s not like the media were spinning this story out of whole cloth. The whole thing was unfortunately hyper politicized from the start.

ravenstine 5y ago

It's really interesting to see this shift in sentiment that HN users have towards the media and journalism. A couple of years ago this comment wouldn't have made it to the top of the page, and it may have even been grayed out. This isn't something I'm celebrating, though. It's not a sign of a successful state when everyone is losing confidence in the press.

pmoriarty 5y ago
It would serve us well to distinguish between different types of media critiques. One the one hand, there's the critique that media institutions are becoming more commercialized, dumbed-down, and turned in to infotainment, where serious discussion and inquiry is thrown out the window in favor of shouting matches and sensationalism. There's another critique that media is in service or left-wing, right-wing, capitalist, or corporate special interests and parrots the party line. Yet another critique is that the media doesn't give marginalized voices enough air time. So when you say "everyone is losing confidence in the press" that may be true in general, but different people are doing so for very different reasons. The grandparent comment seems to be a critique of the third category, where they seem to want the mainstream media to give more air time to conspiracy theories in direct contravention to the consensus of the scientific community: which is that SARS-CoV-2 came from nature, not from a lab.
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  > The grandparent comment seems to be a critique of the third category, where they seem to want the mainstream media to give more air time to conspiracy theories in direct contravention to the consensus of the scientific community: which is that SARS-CoV-2 came from nature, not from a lab. My actual criticism was closer to your first category: "where serious discussion and inquiry is thrown out the window in favor of shouting matches and sensationalism" But thank you for demonstrating my point by re-collapsing all four questions into one.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    What's more sensationalistic: that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin or that it was lab made? Sensationlism is squarely on the side of the conspiracy theores.

himinlomax 5y ago

The media can be expected to fuck up a science story, even a high profile one, because they do that as a matter of course, even for simple, basic technical stuff that would be obvious to a first year college student with the relevant major. The true problem is those professional scientists who jumped on the "lol conspiratard" bandwagon and probably ended up carrying water for the CCP, albeit unwittingly. I'm talking about the government who cried "racism" when other countries started closing their borders to China — the first one to do that was of course Taiwan AKA Republic of China, who are by that token racist against Chinese people, I guess.