What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

And Your "Fact-Checkers," Too... (1 Viewer)

rockaction

Footballguy
"At the same time, the “fact check” complex started taking an increasingly hard line against laboratory origin theories that it claimed had been debunked by scientists.

Among actual scientists, it is much less clear to me what the conventional wisdom ever actually ways. Politifact’s now-retracted fact check deeming lab leak theorists to have their “pants on fire” ran in September 2020. Also in September of 2020, Boston magazine ran a profile of Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Harvard-MIT Broad Institute, who believes the virus escaped from the biolab in Wuhan. It’s clear from the article that while Chan perhaps had a minority viewpoint, this was the kind of thing that was the subject of ongoing disagreement among researchers. And the main thing about it, as best I can tell, is that we just have a long history of viruses crossing from animals to humans so virologists’ baseline belief about a new virus is going to be that it came from animals. - Matt Yglesias, on the Wuhan virus and the fact-cehckers"

https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The lab leak theory was discredited by a few scientists, and there weren’t enough opposing voices with sufficient virology expertise to make a strong counter argument. On top of that, it’s a pretty inflammatory statement to accuse China of malfeasance, so the burden of proof for a lab altered virus escaping was higher than the alternative explanations. Moreover, recent precedent favored coronaviruses jumping species the old fashioned way.

Given more time and findings such as lack of an intermediary host, earlier covid cases (potentially including lab workers) and hard to explain molecular findings as detailed in @ekbeatslinks, clearly there may be a lot more to this story. It will interesting to see how it unfolds, but I don’t think making it more political will help.

 
The lab leak theory was discredited by a few scientists, and there weren’t enough opposing voices with sufficient virology expertise to make a strong counter argument. On top of that, it’s a pretty inflammatory statement to accuse China of malfeasance, so the burden of proof for a lab altered virus escaping was higher than the alternative explanations. Moreover, recent precedent favored coronaviruses jumping species the old fashioned way.

Given more time and findings such as lack of an intermediary host, earlier covid cases (potentially including lab workers) and hard to explain molecular findings as detailed in @ekbeatslinks, clearly there may be a lot more to this story. It will interesting to see how it unfolds, but I don’t think making it more political will help.
Who made it political again?  I’d direct you to the fact checkers for that answer, but we know how that works out...

Nobody is saying that the lab leak theory should have been accepted as fact back in early 2020. But it was dismissed out of hand as a conspiracy theory.  And yes, the people who did that need to be called out.

 
Here’s a hefty serving of crow casserole served up by Jim Geraghty:

On the menu today: Sorry folks, I really tried, but I can’t contain my internal tsunami of “I told you so.” The crowd of prominent figures who are open to the lab-leak theory now includes Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra! And on a lighter note, let’s contemplate if Marvel Studios is about to hit a wall.

No, Really, Last April, I Really Did Tell You So!

WHAT THE HECK: “Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told an annual ministerial meeting of the World Health Organization that international experts should be given ‘the independence to fully assess the source of the virus and the early days of the outbreak.’”

Oh, now the Biden administration is willing to openly state that this whole pandemic might trace back to someone not being careful in a Chinese state-run lab working on dangerous viruses.

Okay, I didn’t want today’s newsletter to be all about the lab-leak theory again, when I wrote about it Monday, and last Tuesday, and before that, I wrote that Corner post about the evidence of the Chinese government’s secret bioweapons-research programs, and the NR editorial board welcomed Dr. Fauci to those open to the theory, and Charlie wrote about how the skeptics have been guessing this whole time, and Michael wrote about the ramifications, and I’m sure I’m forgetting other recent pieces. Oh, and I’ve got another long examination of the evidence on the editor’s desk that will probably be before your eyes sometime this week. Maybe you’re sick of hearing about the lab-leak theory, and if so, skip down a little further to read about Marvel movies.

But it is so weird that it seems like every day, another allegedly respectable, even-tempered, non-lunatic government official or public-health expert or writer who had absolutely nothing to say about the lab-leak theory for almost any day of the past 17 months, now publicly states some version of, “Sure, this virus’s origin is still unknown, a lab leak can’t be ruled out, and a much more thorough investigation is needed.”

Jonathan Chait wrote a piece titled, “How the Liberal Media Dismissed the Lab-Leak Theory and Smeared Its Supporters.” Matt Yglesias’s most recent newsletter is titled, “The media’s lab leak fiasco.” The Washington Post’s chief fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, wrote that “the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible.” (Suddenly!) CNN’s Zachary Wolf writes “scientists are suddenly more interested in the lab-leak theory of Covid’s origin.” (Suddenly, again!)

Where the hell were all of you guys last April?

Where the hell was all of this when The New Republic wrote that I was “peddling an outlandish theory,” that I was the “media personality who jumped farthest down this rabbit hole,” and “when mainstream news outlets reported that most experts considered the Wuhan facility to be secure”?

You morons. Idiots. Schmucks. You all sat there, so smug and confident that you guys were the smart ones, and that knuckle-dragging little old me, with my YouTube video from an expat, Google Translate versions of Chinese-state health agency websites, and old medical-research papers, had to be chasing Bigfoot and Elvis and UFOs. Set up the buffet table of crow, because I want to watch all of you eat a lot of it.

All I did was take three incontrovertible forces in human life seriously: the capacity for human error in a laboratory, the universal temptation to try to cover up a consequential mistake once it’s made, and the far-reaching power of a totalitarian government when attempting to enact that cover-up.

The only reason the Soviet Union admitted what happened at Chernobyl to the worldwas because radiation detectors 700 miles away in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway were going off. For decades, the Soviets successfully covered up an anthrax spill from a biological-weapons facility that killed 64 people. Modern Chinese society is full of allegations of official screw-ups with deadly consequences and attempted cover-ups: the worst space-launch accident in history at Xichang in 1996, a high-speed train crash in 2011, the coverup of flood deaths in 2012.

Authoritarian governments, and those who work within them, are terrified of ever admitting a mistake. Authoritarian governments need to look all-powerful and always-competent, lest the citizenry get ideas about changing who’s in charge.

If I had a quarter for every time I was told I wasn’t a scientist, I could play Pac-Man at the arcade for the rest of my days. I never claimed to be a scientist, nor that I played one on TV. You know what I have spent a good chunk of my adult life studying? Government bureaucracies. This is a story of viruses, yes, but it’s also a story of what human beings do when they make a mistake.

The first time a person is given a complicated and detailed series of instructions for handing a dangerous and contagious virus, they’re going to be exceptionally careful and follow every step to the letter. They’re justifiably terrified of the consequences of failure. They’ll be really careful the first ten times. Maybe even the first hundred.

But the 500th time? Or the 1,000th time? Or the 2,000th time? Familiarity breeds complacency. People shift into mental autopilot. We see this phenomenon in fields far from laboratories handling dangerous pathogens: “Accidents on the job or in the home occur when people get too comfortable in doing their tasks and they no longer fear the hazards around them. This is why 52 percent of all car accidents are within five miles of the home — drivers are less focused and more lackadaisical as they get closer to their house and comfort zone area.”

The dumbest argument I encountered in the past year and a half was the insistence that the researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Centers for Disease Control were too careful, too diligent, and simply too professional to ever have an accidental leak. A statement like that was a clear, flashing neon sign that I was dealing with someone who didn’t really know what they were talking about.

The best laboratories in the world, with the most respected scientists and researchers in the world, still have accidents. In June 2014, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that it had unintentionally exposed personnel to potentially viable anthrax. A month later the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found samples of smallpox, dengue, and spotted fever just sitting in a storage room. If our guys can make mistakes, their guys can make mistakes.

And as I laid out back on March 23, 2020, as this pandemic started, the Chinese government lied, and lied, and lied some more. It is less plausible to contend that the Chinese government would not try to cover something like this up than to contend it would.

I’ve got a theory about the sudden shift on thinking about the theory: A lot of these folks placed an early bet on skepticism, assuming that at some point, researchers would find bats in nature that had SARS-CoV-2. Or pangolins. Or a group of animal smugglers who suffered from intense respiratory infections in November 2019. Or some other evidence to support the theory that this virus came into the city of Wuhan through some path unconnected to the labs. That evidence hasn’t emerged, 18 months into the pandemic, suggesting that maybe it never will.

If the argument is, “President Trump floated the theory, thus it had to be false . . .” well, that’s stupid. Broken clocks are right twice a day.

If the argument is, “Discussion of the lab-leak theory seemed like an attempt to get the Trump administration off the hook for their mistakes and bad decisions during the early months of the pandemic,” here’s the beautiful thing about blame: It’s a renewable natural resource! We’re never going to run out of it. Being mad at the Chinese government over its decisions leading up to and during this pandemic is not an endorsement of every U.S. government decision!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who made it political again?  I’d direct you to the fact checkers for that answer, but we know how that works out...

Nobody is saying that the lab leak theory should have been accepted as fact back in early 2020. But it was dismissed out of hand as a conspiracy theory.  And yes, the people who did that need to be called out.
It was political by nature - not D vs. R, but US/World vs. China. It’s fine to call out the scientists who were dismissive of the possible link to the WIV, with the caveat that some of them were lumping in accidental viral escape with more nutty conspiratorial extremes (China releasing a bioweapon on its population). Also, I think some allowance should be made for updated findings, which can lead scientists and laypeople alike to revise their initial impressions.

I don’t think it’s helpful to pile on the media for listening to the virologists, or generalize the issue to “lib sheeple” falling for “mainstream” science. No one is above criticism, but our country is better served by not further eroding trust in “experts” in all disciplines, or marrying partisan ideology to institutional credibility.

 
It was political by nature - not D vs. R, but US/World vs. China. It’s fine to call out the scientists who were dismissive of the possible link to the WIV, with the caveat that some of them were lumping in accidental viral escape with more nutty conspiratorial extremes (China releasing a bioweapon on its population). Also, I think some allowance should be made for updated findings, which can lead scientists and laypeople alike to revise their initial impressions.

I don’t think it’s helpful to pile on the media for listening to the virologists, or generalize the issue to “lib sheeple” falling for “mainstream” science. No one is above criticism, but our country is better served by not further eroding trust in “experts” in all disciplines, or marrying partisan ideology to institutional credibility.
Read the Matt Yglesias article linked in the covid thread.  They didn’t go wrong listening to virologists, they went wrong building on their little make a Republicans look bad circle jerk.  

 
When you go into the end zone, act like you've been there before.” - Vince Lombardi
It's not that we've never been in the end zone before, it's just like we keep pointing at our seventy-two - nothing lead and people are still pretending mass media isn't biased and reprehensible these days. - me

 
Or if we're getting clever and posting bits of passages, why not the whole thing? Enough crow to go around for all sides, I'd say.

Winston’s diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard — a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality. Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party — an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed — and all this in rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life…

Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room. The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides, the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. … But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were — in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State…

In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O’Brien’s heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out ‘Swine! Swine! Swine!’ and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein’s nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston’s hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies. And yet the very next instant he was at one with the people about him, and all that was said of Goldstein seemed to him to be true. At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock…

…The Hate rose to its climax. The voice of Goldstein had become an actual sheep’s bleat, and for an instant the face changed into that of a sheep. Then the sheep-face melted into the figure of a Eurasian soldier who seemed to be advancing, huge and terrible, his sub-machine gun roaring, and seeming to spring out of the surface of the screen, so that some of the people in the front row actually flinched backwards in their seats. But in the same moment, drawing a deep sigh of relief from everybody, the hostile figure melted into the face of Big Brother, black-haired, black-moustachio’d, full of power and mysterious calm, and so vast that it almost filled up the screen. Nobody heard what Big Brother was saying. It was merely a few words of encouragement, the sort of words that are uttered in the din of battle, not distinguishable individually but restoring confidence by the fact of being spoken. Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 
Thinking more of writers like Jim Geraghty posted above. If the guy wants to dance in the batters box while watching his ground-rule double, he better bat 1.000 the rest of his journalistic career.

So it looks like he’s right in retrospect. Congratulations. Dude didn’t have the goods a year ago, and it’s disingenuous to act as if he did.

And every article coming out now — including the venerable Nicholas Wade — hedges like a MF and explicit writes “we can’t prove anything “. Understandable, since China won’t ever cooperate. But still.

 
It was political by nature - not D vs. R, but US/World vs. China. It’s fine to call out the scientists who were dismissive of the possible link to the WIV, with the caveat that some of them were lumping in accidental viral escape with more nutty conspiratorial extremes (China releasing a bioweapon on its population). Also, I think some allowance should be made for updated findings, which can lead scientists and laypeople alike to revise their initial impressions.

I don’t think it’s helpful to pile on the media for listening to the virologists, or generalize the issue to “lib sheeple” falling for “mainstream” science. No one is above criticism, but our country is better served by not further eroding trust in “experts” in all disciplines, or marrying partisan ideology to institutional credibility.
Why are you tip-toeing around the Chinese?  They obfuscated and covered up the truth from day 1.  And very very few people were saying it was intentionally released as a bio weapon.  There was easily accessible evidence pointing to a lab leak from day 1.  Suspected patient zero - the lab worker Huang Yanling - disappeared in November 2019.  Word on the street was that she died and her body was cremated.  Her profile was scrubbed from the WIV website.  Nobody has heard from her since.  The Government addressed the rumors saying she hadn’t worked at the lab since 2015.  Next day an American YouTube sleuth finds a picture of all the lab workers from 2018 with her pictured in it.  All sorts of other red flags and circumstantial evidence that should have been investigated, but our media is lazy and had one m.o. back then - take the opposite side of whatever Trump says.  So yeah, they need to eat a crapload of crow.  They may have missed the biggest story of the last 75 years.

 
Thinking more of writers like Jim Geraghty posted above. If the guy wants to dance in the batters box while watching his ground-rule double, he better bat 1.000 the rest of his journalistic career.

So it looks like he’s right in retrospect. Congratulations. Dude didn’t have the goods a year ago, and it’s disingenuous to act as if he did.

And every article coming out now — including the venerable Nicholas Wade — hedges like a MF and explicit writes “we can’t prove anything “. Understandable, since China won’t ever cooperate. But still.
Ignorant.  Have you read his work?  He friggin nailed it last year.  You don’t know what you are talking about.

 
I just want to point out that our acrimony should be directed at "fact-checkers" that were so assured of what they were doing that they were essentially digitally tarring and feathering anybody who didn't toe the company line, so to speak.

That's really who my problem is with. I have no idea how the virus started. But circling the wagons and firing in a circle at those that were promoting this idea was just wrong. It's not dancing in the end zone. It's "STOP SHOOTING AT US ALL THE TIME!"

 
Willful and wanton ignorance.  People today don’t want the truth.  What a strange time and place in human history.  

 
Why are you tip-toeing around the Chinese?  They obfuscated and covered up the truth from day 1.  And very very few people were saying it was intentionally released as a bio weapon.  There was easily accessible evidence pointing to a lab leak from day 1.  Suspected patient zero - the lab worker Huang Yanling - disappeared in November 2019.  Word on the street was that she died and her body was cremated.  Her profile was scrubbed from the WIV website.  Nobody has heard from her since.  The Government addressed the rumors saying she hadn’t worked at the lab since 2015.  Next day an American YouTube sleuth finds a picture of all the lab workers from 2018 with her pictured in it.  All sorts of other red flags and circumstantial evidence that should have been investigated, but our media is lazy and had one m.o. back then - take the opposite side of whatever Trump says.  So yeah, they need to eat a crapload of crow.  They may have missed the biggest story of the last 75 years.
Oh, sorry. I just assumed everyone distrusted the Chinese from day 1.

I also think “orange man bad” rhetoric isn’t helpful. Whether Trump said anything or not, blaming a competing superpower for releasing a pandemic requires a high level of evidence.

 
[Geraghty] friggin nailed it last year.
There’s no “nailing it” without China doing a 180 and offering unfettered cooperation.

Geraghty’s suspicions will almost certainly be borne out. But even he would admit he didn’t have hard proof of anything in spring 2020. Note that I’m not saying he’s wrong.

 
Thinking more of writers like Jim Geraghty posted above. If the guy wants to dance in the batters box while watching his ground-rule double, he better bat 1.000 the rest of his journalistic career.

So it looks like he’s right in retrospect. Congratulations. Dude didn’t have the goods a year ago, and it’s disingenuous to act as if he did.

And every article coming out now — including the venerable Nicholas Wade — hedges like a MF and explicit writes “we can’t prove anything “. Understandable, since China won’t ever cooperate. But still.
I'd love for journalists to bat 1.000 but it doesn't appear that any of them do, and that's probably an unrealistic expectation.   

 
Willful and wanton ignorance.  People today don’t want the truth.  What a strange time and place in human history.  
Its not that we don't want the truth its just that we can't handle the dirty details and the consequences that will come from them.

- Captain obvious

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd love for journalists to bat 1.000 but it doesn't appear that any of them do, and that's probably an unrealistic expectation.   
I think that is the point...there sure do seem to be a lot of people living in glass houses that are throwing stones at others at the moment.

 
It was clearly opinion passed off as "fact." Otherwise, there would be no need to retract.

Stupid is as stupid retracts.

 
Anybody who "fact-checked" this was wrong from the jump.
Fact checking is just a lame attempt to try to make their spin appear as fact and try to turn the opponents spin into lies under some guise that it is being performed by some unbiased authoritarian truth seeker.   

 
Fact checking is just a lame attempt to try to make their spin appear as fact and try to turn the opponents spin into lies under some guise that it is being performed by some unbiased authoritarian truth seeker.   
hence the thread

 
I'd love for journalists to bat 1.000 but it doesn't appear that any of them do, and that's probably an unrealistic expectation.   
Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, me included.  It's part of being human.  That's not a big deal.

The problem is when people don't even try to get it right.  There are a very large number of people out there who are lot more interested in reaching conclusions that make them feel good, confirm their priors, or support their tribe than they are in being correct.  This isn't actually a left-versus-right thing.  The media and academia are overwhelmingly leftist, so examples drawn from those corners of the world will tend to make it look like that all the craziness is on the left hand side of the political spectrum, but it would be trivially easy to find examples of similarly motivated reasoning and similar misbehavior on the right.  

I've found that I'm increasingly intolerant of this sort of thing.  Motivated reasoning and tribalism have always been around, but it seems like it got dialed up to 11 during the Trump years.  I could handle that, because Trump was a really weird president.  I honestly don't know how a mainstream outlet like CNN was supposed to cover the Trump administration without sounding totally unhinged, because Trump just wasn't comparable to an Obama or a Bush or a Clinton or a Reagan.  If Biden turns out to be a bad president, he'll be bad within the normal parameters.  Trump ripped up the parameters, peed on them, and injected them with bleach.  Journalists had their work cut out for them during that time, and I'm okay with giving most them a pass.

But I was hoping that things would return to normal now that we have a normal president again, and that isn't happening.  It's almost as if our attachment to rational thought is getting worse, not better.  If somebody wants to say "Hey, I originally thought X and now I realize that it was probably Y.  I was wrong, because Z." that's great.  I respect that.  Instead, you have a bunch of people whose first response response is to double down, whose second response is to delete the Tweet in question or stealth edit the story in question, and whose third response is to play the victim and resort to cry-bullying.  There's never any accountability, honest reflection, or self-awareness.  It's just tribalism.      

 
It was political by nature - not D vs. R, but US/World vs. China. It’s fine to call out the scientists who were dismissive of the possible link to the WIV, with the caveat that some of them were lumping in accidental viral escape with more nutty conspiratorial extremes (China releasing a bioweapon on its population). Also, I think some allowance should be made for updated findings, which can lead scientists and laypeople alike to revise their initial impressions.

I don’t think it’s helpful to pile on the media for listening to the virologists, or generalize the issue to “lib sheeple” falling for “mainstream” science. No one is above criticism, but our country is better served by not further eroding trust in “experts” in all disciplines, or marrying partisan ideology to institutional credibility.
The media showed zero skepticism, zero curiosity in what many felt was an obvious possibility.  They did so because Trump said it loudest.  I have no proof of that of course, but it seems pretty clear to me that if the story was told from someone other than Trump, the media would have been more curious about it.  I mean, that IS supposed to be their job.  Its extremely helpful to pile on them.  It was a dereliction of duty in an effort to oppose Trump, period.  They should be called out for it.  

 
:cry: "I dont think its helpful to pile on the media."

JFC, is that real?  
No kidding.  Some have been trying to tell others exactly what the media has become.  Now that it's all  playing out, let's not pile onto those guys that continue to lie and mislead.  LOL

 
I don’t think it’s helpful to pile on the media for listening to the virologists
I think it's fair to ask whether, in retrospect, it was the best idea to trust virologists to be impartial judges as to whether virology could have caused the worst tragedy in decades.

 
I think it's fair to ask whether, in retrospect, it was the best idea to trust virologists to be impartial judges as to whether virology could have caused the worst tragedy in decades.
If somebody had posted this six months ago, I would have thought it was at best uncharitable and at worst a little paranoid.  But it turned out in fact that some virologists were acting in extremely bad faith from the beginning.  In hindsight, I don't know why that should have been surprising.  I can point to dishonest grifters in my own discipline easily enough, so I should have been very open to the idea that virology has its own share of bad actors too.  I was insufficiently skeptical on that point.

I really don't understand how journalists fell victim to this though.  I mean, journalists are essentially professional skeptics.  "If your mom says she loves you, check it out," etc.  It's a different era now obviously.  

 
I think it's fair to ask whether, in retrospect, it was the best idea to trust virologists to be impartial judges as to whether virology could have caused the worst tragedy in decades.
This is a much better point than all the orange man bad + leftist fact checker nonsense. But who else should the media asked/trusted?

 
This is a much better point than all the orange man bad + leftist fact checker nonsense. But who else should the media asked/trusted?
I don't have a specific answer to the question of who they should have asked. But from what I can tell most mainstream outlets didn't really feel like finding out. That's the problem.

 
Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, me included.  It's part of being human.  That's not a big deal.

The problem is when people don't even try to get it right.  There are a very large number of people out there who are lot more interested in reaching conclusions that make them feel good, confirm their priors, or support their tribe than they are in being correct.  This isn't actually a left-versus-right thing.  The media and academia are overwhelmingly leftist, so examples drawn from those corners of the world will tend to make it look like that all the craziness is on the left hand side of the political spectrum, but it would be trivially easy to find examples of similarly motivated reasoning and similar misbehavior on the right.  

I've found that I'm increasingly intolerant of this sort of thing.  Motivated reasoning and tribalism have always been around, but it seems like it got dialed up to 11 during the Trump years.  I could handle that, because Trump was a really weird president.  I honestly don't know how a mainstream outlet like CNN was supposed to cover the Trump administration without sounding totally unhinged, because Trump just wasn't comparable to an Obama or a Bush or a Clinton or a Reagan.  If Biden turns out to be a bad president, he'll be bad within the normal parameters.  Trump ripped up the parameters, peed on them, and injected them with bleach.  Journalists had their work cut out for them during that time, and I'm okay with giving most them a pass.

But I was hoping that things would return to normal now that we have a normal president again, and that isn't happening.  It's almost as if our attachment to rational thought is getting worse, not better.  If somebody wants to say "Hey, I originally thought X and now I realize that it was probably Y.  I was wrong, because Z." that's great.  I respect that.  Instead, you have a bunch of people whose first response response is to double down, whose second response is to delete the Tweet in question or stealth edit the story in question, and whose third response is to play the victim and resort to cry-bullying.  There's never any accountability, honest reflection, or self-awareness.  It's just tribalism.      
I'm not sure I understand. Are there a ton of people continuing to downplay the lab-leak theory? It seems like it's getting MSM coverage, and the POTUS has requested a formal investigation over the next 6 weeks.

 
I don't have a specific answer to the question of who they should have asked. But from what I can tell most mainstream outlets didn't really feel like finding out. That's the problem.
It's hard to know how they prioritized their reporting, as there was a lot of crazy sh!t happening on pandemic scale.

 
This is a much better point than all the orange man bad + leftist fact checker nonsense. But who else should the media asked/trusted?
other virologists who were saying that it seemed clear that there was something awry.  Boots on the ground people in China that were saying the same thing.  There were plenty of people willing to talk about this back in the beginning stages of the pandemic.  The motivation for them to exclude those people as "conspiracy theorists" is the problem.  You can disagree with the orange man bad theory, but I'd ask what do you think their motivation was.  This is the same media that did deep dives into how many scoops of ice cream Trump allowed his guests to have, but when it came to the origins of a world altering virus, they took the word of a couple of people and ran with it, accusing Trump and others of racism for suggesting that it was possible that this thing came from a virology lab that happened to be located in the same town as where the pandemic started.  They had a clear narrative that they wanted pushed and any opposing information was deemed as misinformation.  It was ridiculous and they should all be called out for it.

 
I'm not sure I understand. Are there a ton of people continuing to downplay the lab-leak theory? It seems like it's getting MSM coverage, and the POTUS has requested a formal investigation over the next 6 weeks.
The issue is that nothing of import has really changed in the last 12 months.  The same facts from may 2020 are there, so what exactly has changed to make everyone do a 180?  

 
The issue is that nothing of import has really changed in the last 12 months.  The same facts from may 2020 are there, so what exactly has changed to make everyone do a 180?  
Leadership. 

Whereas before you had a leader that constantly tried to create an enemy to have a fight with.  Who disparaged China every chance he had and tried to set China (not Russia) up as the boogeyman.  Even before Covid-19.  He tried to get everyone to call it the 'China Virus' the 'Wuhan Virus'  and 'Kung Flu'.  When you have a leader that has extreme credibility issues on the world stage, and lies constantly, it's hard to take a China investigation as anything but an attempt to redirect focus.  

 
other virologists who were saying that it seemed clear that there was something awry.  Boots on the ground people in China that were saying the same thing.  There were plenty of people willing to talk about this back in the beginning stages of the pandemic.  The motivation for them to exclude those people as "conspiracy theorists" is the problem.  You can disagree with the orange man bad theory, but I'd ask what do you think their motivation was.  This is the same media that did deep dives into how many scoops of ice cream Trump allowed his guests to have, but when it came to the origins of a world altering virus, they took the word of a couple of people and ran with it, accusing Trump and others of racism for suggesting that it was possible that this thing came from a virology lab that happened to be located in the same town as where the pandemic started.  They had a clear narrative that they wanted pushed and any opposing information was deemed as misinformation.  It was ridiculous and they should all be called out for it.
I definitely read some early pieces questioning the origins of SARS-CoV-2, particularly as it related to the WIV. But once the gene sequencing guys suggested a natural origin, I didn't see any educated dissent. I'm not a virologist, but I know a bit about clinical virology, and certainly wasn't aware of the flaws in their reasoning. And I don't think there were boots-on-the-ground people who were knowledgeable enough to give counterarguments from China, nor do I think their government would/will cooperate with an investigation.

You're right it was an egregious error for journalists to lump all lab origin theories as conspiracy, though I don't recall it being discussed much overall TBH. As I said in another response, there were plenty of other stories to chase, which wouldn't require cooperation from a communist regime.

Trump blathering about Chinese culpability certainly didn't help, but likely played a small role in the story being downplayed and eventually revisited. I think the passage of time was a much bigger factor, as holes in the conventional wisdom had time to develop and force critical reappraisal.

 
The issue is that nothing of import has really changed in the last 12 months.  The same facts from may 2020 are there, so what exactly has changed to make everyone do a 180?  
While I don't think everybody has done a 180, several things have contributed to renewed interest in the origins of SARS-CoV-2:

1. No intermediary host has been found.

2. No clear precursor strains in nearby bat populations.

3. Increased evidence of earlier covid infections, including some among lab personnel.

4. Pandemic under better control in the US.

 
Leadership. 

Whereas before you had a leader that constantly tried to create an enemy to have a fight with.  Who disparaged China every chance he had and tried to set China (not Russia) up as the boogeyman.  Even before Covid-19.  He tried to get everyone to call it the 'China Virus' the 'Wuhan Virus'  and 'Kung Flu'.  When you have a leader that has extreme credibility issues on the world stage, and lies constantly, it's hard to take a China investigation as anything but an attempt to redirect focus.  
Yeah I totally disagree.  Trump is Trump.  Just because he was a ##### about China, the press had an obligation to be inquisitive about the origin of this thing.  It's the biggest news story in decades that no one cared to cover.  They did it because they hated Trump or wanted to combat anything he said.  Like I said it was a dereliction of duty and using "but Trump" as an excuse is pretty lame imo.

 
At the same time, the “fact check” complex started taking an increasingly hard line against laboratory origin theories that it claimed had been debunked by scientists.
You know ... starting from the top of the OP ... I mean, what is "the fact check complex", exactly? Is it something with a veneer of official or societal sanction, such as old-line news outlets? Is this complex instead more something anyone can join via strident display on social media? Or what?

Yes, I have seen various fact-checking articles in mainstream press over the past several years. And I am familiar with sites like Snopes, as well, and would fairly consider them part of a fact-checking complex (that's central to their mission, after all).

But is that it? Or when someone invokes the "fact check complex", are they more railing against the loud end of Twitter and less against what would typically be considered responsible, staid, pre-Internet media?

 
I definitely read some early pieces questioning the origins of SARS-CoV-2, particularly as it related to the WIV. But once the gene sequencing guys suggested a natural origin, I didn't see any educated dissent. I'm not a virologist, but I know a bit about clinical virology, and certainly wasn't aware of the flaws in their reasoning. And I don't think there were boots-on-the-ground people who were knowledgeable enough to give counterarguments from China, nor do I think their government would/will cooperate with an investigation.

You're right it was an egregious error for journalists to lump all lab origin theories as conspiracy, though I don't recall it being discussed much overall TBH. As I said in another response, there were plenty of other stories to chase, which wouldn't require cooperation from a communist regime.

Trump blathering about Chinese culpability certainly didn't help, but likely played a small role in the story being downplayed and eventually revisited. I think the passage of time was a much bigger factor, as holes in the conventional wisdom had time to develop and force critical reappraisal.
Dr. Li-Meng Yan is a Chinese virologist familiar with the Wuhan lab.  She made a case for the virus being manipulated in the Wuhan lab.  She did make more outlandish claims that it was released on purpose.  That and the fact that she made these claims on Tucker Carlson immediately got her assertion that the SARS CoV 2 virus had been manipulated and wat not a product of nature, fact checked, with titles about airing debunked conspiracy theories.  Regardless of her more outlandish claims about China intentionally releasing it, the basis of her point-made in September of last year-was widely criticized (just google her name and you'll have 70+ links to articles calling her a conspiracy theorist) by every media outlet but is now being embraced by the same outlets.  

There were people on the other side of the discussion, just no one chose to listen.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top