4 ms·

Consider the source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/ Excerpt from the link: Bias Rating: RIGH

Consider the source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/ Excerpt from the link: Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: United Kingdom (34/180 Press Freedom) Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY They want you to read their paper, not to inform you. Should be no supprise they are posting polarizing statements with little to no proof. Personally, I believe the lab leak is plausible. Doesn't make the paper a good source of info.

rcpt 5y ago
Just read the Twitter they're citing https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1491297779855278082?t=jQeAhG4EWufraCrRIhtxCg&s=19 https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1491297779855278082?t=... probably the url should be replaced with that anyway
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ImaCake 5y ago
  Thanks, that twitter thread actually makes sense, unlike the telegraph article. The conclusion seems to be that we need a timestamp on when these samples were sequenced. If in Jan 2020 it is fine, if its in 2019 it catches the Chinese Gov in a lie. The sequences themselves are not unusual for early COVID and have been seen before, but the context of human cell lines suggests they were being cultured. So, no conclusive evidence of lab leak without a known timestamp we don‘t have. The telegraph is editorialising for clicks.
CountDrewku 5y ago
adriancr 5y ago
You can find the research being reported on, just a quick google away. Here you go: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1330800/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1330800/v1
dang 5y ago
On HN, we go by article quality, not site quality [1]. Most major sites produce a lot of bad articles and a few good ones. Because we're trying to optimize for intellectual curiosity [2], it's important to let the good ones through while weeding out the bad ones (or at least try to). It's also increasingly the case that certain classes of article are limited to certain classes of publication—because each publication excludes what doesn't match its ideological coloring. This isn't a great development—it would be better to have more neutral sources—but that's increasingly where we find ourselves. Since intellectual curiosity is (almost by definition) not primarily an ideological emotion, it follows that we should try to stay open regardless of the coloring of the source. That doesn't mean trusting it, of course—only considering it. One of the criteria we apply in cases like this, especially when it's a major ongoing topic like this one, is whether the article contains significant new information [3]. That's generally a better lens to look at these things through. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Your patience, Dang, is admirable. You might be the only force that prevents HN from going feral, Reddit-style.
  - dang 5y ago
    That's flattering! but by far the strongest force is that most of the community wants HN to remain a site for intellectual curiosity. If that weren't true, it would be a lost cause; but because it is true, I feel empowered to make posts that represent that point of view.
- tragictrash 5y ago
  Woah! I didn't expect a response from dang! I think this article is light on facts and high on sensationalism, making it a poor quality article that does more harm than good. Re reading my comment, I see how I failed to communicate that and focused more on the source than the paper. I will keep this in mind in the future, thank you.
inglor_cz 5y ago
What makes "mediabiasfactcheck" a more credible source of info than the outlets it is labeling, judging and sorting into categories? Is the founder Dave Van Zandt a famously reliable, neutral, fair person? If the Daily Telegraph says that "mediabiasfactcheck" has a mostly Clown bias with Medium Rare Credibility, will you consider such ranking equally reliable?

rcpt 5y ago

Just read the Twitter they're citing https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1491297779855278082?t=jQeAhG4EWufraCrRIhtxCg&s=19 https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1491297779855278082?t=... probably the url should be replaced with that anyway

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ImaCake 5y ago
Thanks, that twitter thread actually makes sense, unlike the telegraph article. The conclusion seems to be that we need a timestamp on when these samples were sequenced. If in Jan 2020 it is fine, if its in 2019 it catches the Chinese Gov in a lie. The sequences themselves are not unusual for early COVID and have been seen before, but the context of human cell lines suggests they were being cultured. So, no conclusive evidence of lab leak without a known timestamp we don‘t have. The telegraph is editorialising for clicks.

CountDrewku 5y ago

adriancr 5y ago

You can find the research being reported on, just a quick google away. Here you go: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1330800/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1330800/v1

dang 5y ago

On HN, we go by article quality, not site quality [1]. Most major sites produce a lot of bad articles and a few good ones. Because we're trying to optimize for intellectual curiosity [2], it's important to let the good ones through while weeding out the bad ones (or at least try to). It's also increasingly the case that certain classes of article are limited to certain classes of publication—because each publication excludes what doesn't match its ideological coloring. This isn't a great development—it would be better to have more neutral sources—but that's increasingly where we find ourselves. Since intellectual curiosity is (almost by definition) not primarily an ideological emotion, it follows that we should try to stay open regardless of the coloring of the source. That doesn't mean trusting it, of course—only considering it. One of the criteria we apply in cases like this, especially when it's a major ongoing topic like this one, is whether the article contains significant new information [3]. That's generally a better lens to look at these things through. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

inglor_cz 5y ago
Your patience, Dang, is admirable. You might be the only force that prevents HN from going feral, Reddit-style.
- dang 5y ago
  That's flattering! but by far the strongest force is that most of the community wants HN to remain a site for intellectual curiosity. If that weren't true, it would be a lost cause; but because it is true, I feel empowered to make posts that represent that point of view.
tragictrash 5y ago
Woah! I didn't expect a response from dang! I think this article is light on facts and high on sensationalism, making it a poor quality article that does more harm than good. Re reading my comment, I see how I failed to communicate that and focused more on the source than the paper. I will keep this in mind in the future, thank you.

inglor_cz 5y ago

What makes "mediabiasfactcheck" a more credible source of info than the outlets it is labeling, judging and sorting into categories? Is the founder Dave Van Zandt a famously reliable, neutral, fair person? If the Daily Telegraph says that "mediabiasfactcheck" has a mostly Clown bias with Medium Rare Credibility, will you consider such ranking equally reliable?