4 ms·
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 p
by 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 agoReporters 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.