3 ms·

The New York Times was complicit in the cover up. Its COVID reporter was caught recently still pushing the narrative that lab leak theory was "racist". [1] You

by 0xy 5y ago

The New York Times was complicit in the cover up. Its COVID reporter was caught recently still pushing the narrative that lab leak theory was "racist". [1] YouTube mass deleted videos about it. Facebook censored discussion. Now the entire orthodoxy is facing reckoning for their sloppy and censorious actions. [1] https://www.thewrap.com/new-york-times-covid-lab-leak-apoorva-mandavilli/ https://www.thewrap.com/new-york-times-covid-lab-leak-apoorv...

forgingahead 5y ago
Now the entire orthodoxy is facing reckoning for their sloppy and censorious actions. Hardly - I do wish you were correct in this, but the same culprits in covering it up have root access to the minds of millions of people. They can just do what they're doing right now, present the lab-leak theory as new "news" and congratulate themselves for being the ones to educate and inform us unwashed masses. There is no reckoning. The emperor has no clothes but many people just don't care.
- infamouscow 5y ago
  The American public isn't stupid despite what politicians and media reporters believe.
  - forgingahead 5y ago
    Unfortunately I don't think it's a case of "stupid" or "clever". Human beings are inherently susceptible to being influenced, and the levers are well-known in some circles already (see marketing, media orgs, and spy agencies). We're all programmable, "moist robots" as Scott Adams calls it, and even if we think we're too smart to fall for it, we can still be manipulated by motivated actors. The first defence is of course to be aware of it, but others include firewalling ourselves from information we consume. Being super judicious with consuming in the first place is the best defense.
bryanwb 5y ago
surprising you were downvoted for saying what virtually everyone is thinking.
- underseacables 5y ago
  I think there’s a lot of knee-jerk voting here. I.e. if contrary to my ideology then downvote.
delecti 5y ago
It seems far more likely that it's a "boy who cried wolf" situation. The people strongly pushing the lab leak possibility at the beginning were not doing it for honorable reasons, or they would have released any evidence they had for it. Given that, it was reasonable for media outlets to characterize those claims as disingenuous. It's not impossible that they could end up being right, but I'd bet that it won't be because they knew they were right at the time.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  But the flip side is true, too. The people dismissing the possibility at the begging were also not doing so for honorable reasons, or even because they knew they were right at the time.
  - delecti 5y ago
    Naturally evolved strains have happened before, many times (within a rounding error of 100% of pandemics), so that's the default reasonable assumption. It wasn't dishonorable for the villagers to say "there's that boy, crying wolf again, he's probably lying this time too", it was pragmatic.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      But that's not why they rejected it, or at least not why they rejected it so hard. They rejected it as hard as they did because doing so let them paint Trump as an idiot.

by 0xy 5y ago

forgingahead 5y ago

Now the entire orthodoxy is facing reckoning for their sloppy and censorious actions. Hardly - I do wish you were correct in this, but the same culprits in covering it up have root access to the minds of millions of people. They can just do what they're doing right now, present the lab-leak theory as new "news" and congratulate themselves for being the ones to educate and inform us unwashed masses. There is no reckoning. The emperor has no clothes but many people just don't care.

infamouscow 5y ago
The American public isn't stupid despite what politicians and media reporters believe.
- forgingahead 5y ago
  Unfortunately I don't think it's a case of "stupid" or "clever". Human beings are inherently susceptible to being influenced, and the levers are well-known in some circles already (see marketing, media orgs, and spy agencies). We're all programmable, "moist robots" as Scott Adams calls it, and even if we think we're too smart to fall for it, we can still be manipulated by motivated actors. The first defence is of course to be aware of it, but others include firewalling ourselves from information we consume. Being super judicious with consuming in the first place is the best defense.

bryanwb 5y ago

surprising you were downvoted for saying what virtually everyone is thinking.

underseacables 5y ago
I think there’s a lot of knee-jerk voting here. I.e. if contrary to my ideology then downvote.

delecti 5y ago

It seems far more likely that it's a "boy who cried wolf" situation. The people strongly pushing the lab leak possibility at the beginning were not doing it for honorable reasons, or they would have released any evidence they had for it. Given that, it was reasonable for media outlets to characterize those claims as disingenuous. It's not impossible that they could end up being right, but I'd bet that it won't be because they knew they were right at the time.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
But the flip side is true, too. The people dismissing the possibility at the begging were also not doing so for honorable reasons, or even because they knew they were right at the time.
- delecti 5y ago
  Naturally evolved strains have happened before, many times (within a rounding error of 100% of pandemics), so that's the default reasonable assumption. It wasn't dishonorable for the villagers to say "there's that boy, crying wolf again, he's probably lying this time too", it was pragmatic.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    But that's not why they rejected it, or at least not why they rejected it so hard. They rejected it as hard as they did because doing so let them paint Trump as an idiot.