4 ms·

Washington Post Corrects Year-Old Article Calling Lab-Leak Theory ‘Debunked’

33 points by RickJWagner 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
infamouscow 5y ago
I'm not sure how you can claim something is debunked when the source say it was unlikely. It would be nice if journalists used words by their common understanding rather than as a way to silencing ideas they dislike.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Yeah, this pandemic shows me how widespread unscientific/illogical thinking is. I've seen HN commenters write "The Chinese government lies and hides stuff, therefore they must be hiding the truth that the virus is lab-made.". No! That's not how logic works!
  - slver 5y ago
    Groupthink and tribalism > logic
  - mam3 5y ago
    Theres a lab in the city where it started, they killed their own scientist when he tried to warn people and they mess with inspection agency but its "unlikely" it comes from a lab ? Thats not how logic works either..
    - Koiwai 5y ago
      That's how intuition works, logic, on the other hand, works about like that, with a few details you are missing.
      - mam3 5y ago
        The only "logical" thing to say is "we dont know" and "china is suspiscious". Anyrhing else is partisan
underseacables 5y ago
The revisionist practices of the media; they are never wrong.
totalZero 5y ago
I never thought I would see the day where the National Review produces more responsible journalism than the mighty Washington Post, but here we are. The right thing for WaPo to do would be to annotate the articles without alteration. Their prior positions on the Wuhan Lab theories are part of the discussion. Correcting them now is akin to wiping a conference room blackboard during a bathroom break because you're worried that it shows information that damages your credibility.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > Correcting them now is akin to wiping a conference room blackboard during a bathroom break because you're worried that it shows information that damages your credibility. That's exactly what they're doing. Why wouldn't they? What are you going to do about it? What is anyone going to do about it? With the rise of constant, feed-based media sources and polarization of politics, there's hardly any incentive for media outlets to hold themselves to any standards. Hence why most journalism is garbage nowadays. The loss of objectivity and reason is one of the most tragic things about the modern world, imo. Question the media, question science, question conspiracy theories, question everything and stay skeptical. We have more than enough evidence now that groups with power and influence are interested in convincing you of things, not of helping you find your way to the truth.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- refurb 5y ago
  Maybe this will get me downvoted, but I never had much issue with National Review. They write from a conservative perspective, but they aren’t hiding it - that’s literally the purpose of their publication. They also tend to write (not 100% of the time but 95%) in a pretty responsible way - quoting and referencing, trying to explain the other side’s position and then argue why it’s wrong or why the conservative opinion differs. They do occasionally have some less than stellar articles, but if you’re looking for opinions from the conservative side, it’s not a bad a source. Not a ton of hysteria or dogma. A handful of their writers have strong conservative beliefs from a Catholic perspective, but some are agnostic libertarians as well. Compared to other conservative media it’s pretty tame when it comes to sensationalism.
marbu 5y ago
Why don't they link the article in question? Without that, I can't go a see the article myself.
exogeny 5y ago
The amount of bad-faith conservative junk in OP’s posting history doesn’t really help the cause here.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

33 points by RickJWagner 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

I'm not sure how you can claim something is debunked when the source say it was unlikely. It would be nice if journalists used words by their common understanding rather than as a way to silencing ideas they dislike.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Yeah, this pandemic shows me how widespread unscientific/illogical thinking is. I've seen HN commenters write "The Chinese government lies and hides stuff, therefore they must be hiding the truth that the virus is lab-made.". No! That's not how logic works!
- slver 5y ago
  Groupthink and tribalism > logic
- mam3 5y ago
  Theres a lab in the city where it started, they killed their own scientist when he tried to warn people and they mess with inspection agency but its "unlikely" it comes from a lab ? Thats not how logic works either..
  - Koiwai 5y ago
    That's how intuition works, logic, on the other hand, works about like that, with a few details you are missing.
    - mam3 5y ago
      The only "logical" thing to say is "we dont know" and "china is suspiscious". Anyrhing else is partisan

underseacables 5y ago

The revisionist practices of the media; they are never wrong.

totalZero 5y ago

I never thought I would see the day where the National Review produces more responsible journalism than the mighty Washington Post, but here we are. The right thing for WaPo to do would be to annotate the articles without alteration. Their prior positions on the Wuhan Lab theories are part of the discussion. Correcting them now is akin to wiping a conference room blackboard during a bathroom break because you're worried that it shows information that damages your credibility.

silicon2401 5y ago
> Correcting them now is akin to wiping a conference room blackboard during a bathroom break because you're worried that it shows information that damages your credibility. That's exactly what they're doing. Why wouldn't they? What are you going to do about it? What is anyone going to do about it? With the rise of constant, feed-based media sources and polarization of politics, there's hardly any incentive for media outlets to hold themselves to any standards. Hence why most journalism is garbage nowadays. The loss of objectivity and reason is one of the most tragic things about the modern world, imo. Question the media, question science, question conspiracy theories, question everything and stay skeptical. We have more than enough evidence now that groups with power and influence are interested in convincing you of things, not of helping you find your way to the truth.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
refurb 5y ago
Maybe this will get me downvoted, but I never had much issue with National Review. They write from a conservative perspective, but they aren’t hiding it - that’s literally the purpose of their publication. They also tend to write (not 100% of the time but 95%) in a pretty responsible way - quoting and referencing, trying to explain the other side’s position and then argue why it’s wrong or why the conservative opinion differs. They do occasionally have some less than stellar articles, but if you’re looking for opinions from the conservative side, it’s not a bad a source. Not a ton of hysteria or dogma. A handful of their writers have strong conservative beliefs from a Catholic perspective, but some are agnostic libertarians as well. Compared to other conservative media it’s pretty tame when it comes to sensationalism.

marbu 5y ago

Why don't they link the article in question? Without that, I can't go a see the article myself.

exogeny 5y ago

The amount of bad-faith conservative junk in OP’s posting history doesn’t really help the cause here.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]