3 ms·

> It's rather incredible that X was investigated first, given that bin Laden's "Letter to America" recently went viral on TikTok ...and then TikTok removed it.

by tzs 3y ago

> It's rather incredible that X was investigated first, given that bin Laden's "Letter to America" recently went viral on TikTok ...and then TikTok removed it. > It was not that long ago that saying Covid came from a lab leak was "misinformation" Just saying it might have been a lab leak didn't get it labeled that way, at least in all the media I read. Saying it was almost certainly a lab leak and presenting scientific evidence to support that argument also didn't get it labeled. What got it labeled was things like saying it was proven to be a lab leak and proven to have been deliberate, with no evidence presented for it being a leak and no evidence presented that it was deliberate, and accusations that everyone presenting evidence that it might not be a lab leak being accused to being secret agents of the CCP.

TMWNN 3y ago
>Just saying it might have been a lab leak didn't get it labeled that way, at least in all the media I read. Then you weren't paying attention. See the Washington Post's 2021 recap of its own and other media outlets' actions. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/the-media-called-the-lab-leak-story-a-conspiracy-theory-now-its-prompted-corrections--and-serious-new-reporting/2021/06/10/c93972e6-c7b2-11eb-a11b-6c6191ccd599_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/the-media-cal...> >Other articles and headlines characterized the theory as “false” or “debunked.” >But many of those news organizations have begun to amend their approach in light of a shifting consensus. >The Post originally described Cotton’s remarks as “debunked” and a “conspiracy theory” in a February 2020 article. But last week, The Post rewrote the article’s headline, softening “conspiracy theory” to “fringe theory” and noting that scientists have “disputed” it rather than “debunked” it. A correction said the article had “inaccurately characterized” Cotton’s comments “because, then as now, there was no determination about the origins of the virus.” Post managing editor Cameron Barr said “questions from readers and others” prompted a reexamination of the story.

by tzs 3y ago

TMWNN 3y ago

>Just saying it might have been a lab leak didn't get it labeled that way, at least in all the media I read. Then you weren't paying attention. See the Washington Post's 2021 recap of its own and other media outlets' actions. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/the-media-called-the-lab-leak-story-a-conspiracy-theory-now-its-prompted-corrections--and-serious-new-reporting/2021/06/10/c93972e6-c7b2-11eb-a11b-6c6191ccd599_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/the-media-cal...> >Other articles and headlines characterized the theory as “false” or “debunked.” >But many of those news organizations have begun to amend their approach in light of a shifting consensus. >The Post originally described Cotton’s remarks as “debunked” and a “conspiracy theory” in a February 2020 article. But last week, The Post rewrote the article’s headline, softening “conspiracy theory” to “fringe theory” and noting that scientists have “disputed” it rather than “debunked” it. A correction said the article had “inaccurately characterized” Cotton’s comments “because, then as now, there was no determination about the origins of the virus.” Post managing editor Cameron Barr said “questions from readers and others” prompted a reexamination of the story.