5 ms·

Why is that a justification for heavy-handed censorship of a topic? Do you think that's right?

MisterBastahrd 4y ago
Well, let's see. First, reporters are incapable of discovering this information on their own. They just don't have the tools. Investigatory bodies do, and reporters would have to wait. Secondly, there were multiple plausible ideas about what could have happened. The drum was beaten on only one of them. Trump got caught with his pants down because as with everything else he's ever been a part of, he was woefully unprepared and out of his depth. Third, and tying in with the first point, the more important story to virtually everyone was not how the first people were infected, but what the response and fallout of the infections were. So again, you had a bunch of clueless, embarrassed political partisans who got caught with their pants down, and their base ate up the blame-shifting because of their xenophobic tendencies.
- dpbriggs 4y ago
  That isn't justification for the censorship. Reporters do report on things they don't understand all the time. The point was to make it possible for qualified people to investigate, but that wasn't politically popular at the time. Should the scientific community rally to the opposition of the current unpopular president? That doesn't seem like a good idea. And this last point is a fascinating common non sequitor. That's not even what happened; we had the media clamoring that it came from that market and any talk of the lab is racist and/or xenophobic. Do you think any investigation of the lab would have jeopardized the public? Worse than the visceral eating bats (i.e. selling bats for consumption)?
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    Reporters aren't going to report on what ifs for years. That's what talking heads do. How often are they reporting on the wet market hypothesis again? Oh right, they aren't. They got the information that they could find, reported on it, and there's nothing else to report. That isn't censorship, that's due diligence. Maybe you could learn the difference.

Well, let's see. First, reporters are incapable of discovering this information on their own. They just don't have the tools. Investigatory bodies do, and reporters would have to wait. Secondly, there were multiple plausible ideas about what could have happened. The drum was beaten on only one of them. Trump got caught with his pants down because as with everything else he's ever been a part of, he was woefully unprepared and out of his depth. Third, and tying in with the first point, the more important story to virtually everyone was not how the first people were infected, but what the response and fallout of the infections were. So again, you had a bunch of clueless, embarrassed political partisans who got caught with their pants down, and their base ate up the blame-shifting because of their xenophobic tendencies.

dpbriggs 4y ago
That isn't justification for the censorship. Reporters do report on things they don't understand all the time. The point was to make it possible for qualified people to investigate, but that wasn't politically popular at the time. Should the scientific community rally to the opposition of the current unpopular president? That doesn't seem like a good idea. And this last point is a fascinating common non sequitor. That's not even what happened; we had the media clamoring that it came from that market and any talk of the lab is racist and/or xenophobic. Do you think any investigation of the lab would have jeopardized the public? Worse than the visceral eating bats (i.e. selling bats for consumption)?
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  Reporters aren't going to report on what ifs for years. That's what talking heads do. How often are they reporting on the wet market hypothesis again? Oh right, they aren't. They got the information that they could find, reported on it, and there's nothing else to report. That isn't censorship, that's due diligence. Maybe you could learn the difference.