4 ms·

I'm hearing contradictory theories in this thread. Either that the media initially reported on the train derailment and then was forced to stop following up. Or

I'm hearing contradictory theories in this thread. Either that the media initially reported on the train derailment and then was forced to stop following up. Or that the media initially tried to cover up the derailment and then gave up and started reporting on it. Do both of these competing theories have traction? If so, why?

Izkata 4y ago
> and then was forced to There is no contradiction in your two understandings, but a possible small misunderstanding in your second one. What seems to have happened was, media was slow on the uptake (there were some stories last week, but nothing like there is now), and also it is/was getting suppressed or the severity downplayed due to external factors (for example that reporter who was arrested).