🧵THREAD🧵
As the Covid lab leak hypothesis gains institutional traction, I wanted to take a moment to highlight the enormous shift in press coverage it’s received.
Originally the idea was a right wing conspiracy theory. Now, the press accepts it may be true.
Follow along ⤵️
As the Covid lab leak hypothesis gains institutional traction, I wanted to take a moment to highlight the enormous shift in press coverage it’s received.
Originally the idea was a right wing conspiracy theory. Now, the press accepts it may be true.
Follow along ⤵️
For my money, they worst offender here is @NPR.
While they now begrudgingly admit that the Energy Department believes the lab leak hypothesis is likely accurate, they ran an April 2020 piece titled “Scientists Debunk Lab Accident Theory of Pandemic Emergence”
While they now begrudgingly admit that the Energy Department believes the lab leak hypothesis is likely accurate, they ran an April 2020 piece titled “Scientists Debunk Lab Accident Theory of Pandemic Emergence”
This wasn’t the only time that @NPR ran a straight news story suggesting the lab leak hypothesis was a conspiracy.
A December 2020 tweet asserted that a potential lab origin was a “baseless conspiracy theory”
A December 2020 tweet asserted that a potential lab origin was a “baseless conspiracy theory”
But not all of the pieces are still online w/o correction.
@washingtonpost had to seriously backtrack on their original hit piece on @SenTomCotton, “Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.”
Compare that to their recent coverage.
@washingtonpost had to seriously backtrack on their original hit piece on @SenTomCotton, “Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.”
Compare that to their recent coverage.
A lot of outlets jumped in on @SenTomCotton. Here’s @nytimes, who described his observations as an “unsubstantiated rumor” that “has been dismissed by scientists” and a “fringe theory” for Chinahawks.
Their recent reporting stands in stark contrast.
Their recent reporting stands in stark contrast.
A lot of what drove the original coverage, I think, was a symptom of the press’s revulsion of President Trump, like this headline from @washingtonpost.
It’s worth pointing out that this coverage was only six months prior to the 2020 election.
Now WaPo is far more receptive.
It’s worth pointing out that this coverage was only six months prior to the 2020 election.
Now WaPo is far more receptive.
@nytimes similarly used this as an opportunity to hit President Trump as his re-election was drawing near, calling his admin’s support for the hypothesis “unfounded conspiracy theories”
One of the worst in the light of hindsight was this @AP piece from Dec 2020, “Debunked COVID-19 myths survive online, despite facts”
One of those “debunked myths” that fact-checkers had struggled mightily to quash was the idea that the virus could’ve leaked from a lab.
One of those “debunked myths” that fact-checkers had struggled mightily to quash was the idea that the virus could’ve leaked from a lab.
In some cases the headlines tell most of the story. But in others - like this piece from @CNN - the real inaccuracy comes in the body of the piece.
“It’s origin is up for debate, but it wasn’t made in a lab”
“It’s origin is up for debate, but it wasn’t made in a lab”
Ditto that from this @NBCNews piece that similarly set out as a hit on @SenTomCotton.
The change between the original reporting and their latest is…stark.
The change between the original reporting and their latest is…stark.
One of the big problems was the over-reliance by the corporate press on experts who agreed with them.
Here @ChrisCillizza for @CNN quotes an expert who said of the lab leak hypothesis that you can “draw a line through it and say that didn’t happen.”
The tune has since changed.
Here @ChrisCillizza for @CNN quotes an expert who said of the lab leak hypothesis that you can “draw a line through it and say that didn’t happen.”
The tune has since changed.
One disconcerting consistency - from @Reuters and others - has been the corporate press’s insistence on pushing China’s narrative, even in recent days.
I want to drive a point home: the lab leak hypothesis hasn’t been proven. It may never be.
But it’s a HUGE problem that the press dismissed a hypothesis about the origin of the most consequential event in our lifetime *for no legitimate reason* b/c it didn’t fit their narrative
But it’s a HUGE problem that the press dismissed a hypothesis about the origin of the most consequential event in our lifetime *for no legitimate reason* b/c it didn’t fit their narrative
If I were @Forbes, I’m not sure I would want to (still) stand by the assertions made by the director of the Wuhan Lab like this.
I think you’re getting the gist here, but here’s another example from @ABC.
I hope they can feel the schadenfreude here, too.
I hope they can feel the schadenfreude here, too.
@politico went from suggesting the lab leak hypothesis was a conspiracy theory to suggesting the big question now was what the GOP (who hold one house of Congress) would do about it.
There were plenty of individuals in the media and online who have egg on their face.
I wonder if @chrislhayes can see why his original suggestion that the lab leak was Trump “grasping at straws” could be behind the theory’s politicization that he now laments.
I wonder if @chrislhayes can see why his original suggestion that the lab leak was Trump “grasping at straws” could be behind the theory’s politicization that he now laments.
And it wouldn’t be a thread without @JRubinBlogger
I tried to be charitable in this 🧵. The lab leak hypothesis was often bundled up with other assertions that (at least for now, anyway) still register firmly as conspiracies.
But “conspiracy theory” becoming a catchall for “what my opponent said,” is how the truth gets buried.
But “conspiracy theory” becoming a catchall for “what my opponent said,” is how the truth gets buried.
It’s a fool’s errand, but I can’t stop wondering about the implications if this theory had been given daylight.
Could we have better understood COVID’s origins?
Could lives have been saved?
Could China have faced accountability?
And what about an impact on the 2020 election?
Could we have better understood COVID’s origins?
Could lives have been saved?
Could China have faced accountability?
And what about an impact on the 2020 election?
But if anyone has some real explaining to do, I think it’s probably Dr. Fauci
This 🧵 feels like a good place to re-up my pinned tweet from April 2020:
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...