> It's to demonstrate that there are more than one way to handle a crisis that nobody knows how to deal with This the article doesn't succeed in doing. It's so

> It's to demonstrate that there are more than one way to handle a crisis that nobody knows how to deal with This the article doesn't succeed in doing. It's so focussed on the rhetorical aspects of rubbing the nose of MSM in the failure of their claims, which in and of itself is OK, that it doesn't invest enough to succeed in its attempts to argue for its claims beyond that. While I narrowly agree with many of the criticisms, I don't think the article justifies any wider conclusions beyond "be skeptical of media narratives". I'm not upvoting this story.