Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The media's lab leak fiasco

slowboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 736 posts

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#571

Post by iammisc »

narrator wrote: post #47
Spooky23 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think given the demagogue POTUS and the mob of crazy followers, it was in the public interest to avoid agitating the mob. Even Facebook had the sense to realize that. As it stands, asian people are getting targeted for attacks in the street by deranged individuals.

That's why I'm always careful to say CCP instead of China or Chinese when referring to who the bad guy is in all of this. People should take care never to confuse the Chinese ethnicity with the corrupt CCP government.

Do people get offended when people say america invaded Iraq? Do we blame an Eskimo because the federal government invaded the middle east? Of course not. Nobody blames random citizens of countries for their government misdeeds. Man this shifting of standards is ridiculous.

I've just started calling covid West Taiwan virus to piss everyone off.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#572

Post by bostik »

Animats wrote: post #540
moralestapia wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the intelligence community What do you mean by this? And I'm not being snarky, really.

The US "intelligence community" is the CIA, NSA, etc.[1] Intelligence analysis is the business of trying to extract useful info from of noisy and deceptive data. Here's an introduction to the field.[2] See especially section 4. 4-11. Analyst have found the following rules helpful in dealing with deception: - Avoid over-reliance on a single source of information. - Seek and heed the opinions of those closest to the re…

> Now this should probably be taught in schools.

It should. Under the name "media literacy".

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#573

Post by Impassionata »

arduinomancer wrote: post #137

I hate how it feels like there's such a "collective narrative" for everything now days with the internet. Whenever I talk to people about recent news stories in real life it feels like everyone is just repeating talking points they read online. Its like we've been absorbed into the internet consciousness and talking to a person is like talking to "the internet brain".

It has always been like this. Everyone always repeated talking points they heard in the mainstream media. Always.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#574

Post by chmod600 »

"Suppose the media had been more open to Cotton’s point"

I sincerely have trouble imagining such discourse taking place. Isn't that sad?

Seriously, which mainstream media personality would actually entertain an idea from Tom Cotton long enough to seriously consider whether it's true or not?

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#575

Post by harry8 »

Animats wrote: post #540
moralestapia wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the intelligence community What do you mean by this? And I'm not being snarky, really.

The US "intelligence community" is the CIA, NSA, etc.[1] Intelligence analysis is the business of trying to extract useful info from of noisy and deceptive data. Here's an introduction to the field.[2] See especially section 4. 4-11. Analyst have found the following rules helpful in dealing with deception: - Avoid over-reliance on a single source of information. - Seek and heed the opinions of those closest to the re…

So anything anonymously sourced from US govt. Officials should be considered "too easy to collect... etc "...seemed correct and accurate initially, then proven to be false." "Material evidence..."

Yeah if we did this the CIA would have a much harder time spreading bullshit. But yeah they'll still try with the "OMG you love Putin" To those in the media who actually exercise these recommendations. Maybe it's not even a totally baseless and disgusting slur every single time but it has happened so often now it's safe to assume anyone any good has been accused of being a Putin stooge at least once. Hilary accusing Bernie is my personal favourite. You may have others. Greenwald, Mate, Taibbi, Tulsi Gabbard, Assange, Snowden. Zero evidence for any of it, sure, but it's still possible one or more of them is. No reason at all not to treat that with total contempt given that each has presented evidence opposing in the interests of national security state propaganda and there's none at all for these Putin stooge smears.

Feel free to keep loathing Putin, I do, I just don't see him under the bed and switch my brain off the instant he's invoked. If you haven't seen that the CIA, NSA have real issues of criminality that is in need of serious reform, and many inside will eagerly break the law to avoid it consider what would get you to change your mind on that?

The corruption inside is a far, far greater threat to the USA than Putin (or Osama bin L. or Saddam or.. the next objectively evil bogeyman) could be in their wildest fantasies. Failure to reform is incredibly dangerous and weakens defenses massively.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#576

Post by the_optimist »

99_00 wrote: post #313
arduinomancer wrote: post #137

I hate how it feels like there's such a "collective narrative" for everything now days with the internet. Whenever I talk to people about recent news stories in real life it feels like everyone is just repeating talking points they read online. Its like we've been absorbed into the internet consciousness and talking to a person is like talking to "the internet brain".

"everyone is just repeating talking points they read online" The collective narrative has existed in other media for as long as I've been alive. It's now invaded the internet. People have always listened to the radio, watched cable news, read magazines to get talking points so they can repeat them and appear well informed and intelligent. To look good in front of others and convey status. People who counter the narra…

This has been a horrifically sad accepted reality of US higher education for a generation. Students are easily-influenced, naive, and economically vulnerable.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#577

Post by throwawaysea »

speeder wrote: post #194
contemporary343 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't scientists from the Chinese CDC actually authors of the Lancet article that everyone cited? It doesn't seem like they were trying to push any seafood market hypothesis either.

The author of that article is actually Peter Daszak of Ecohealth Alliance, that was funding the Wuhan lab for gain of function research, seemly using money from US government (NIH and another department I can't recall now). EDIT: why people are downvoting this? I got something wrong? The Peter Daszak that signed the article is not the same one that runs Ecohealth Alliance?

You are correct that this is the same Peter Daszak that is president of EcoHealth and he appears as an author on some papers put out by WIV concerning bat coronavirus research. He was also the only American representative the WHO allowed on the Wuhan visit and investigation earlier this year, after the WHO rejected three other nominees from the Trump administration. There are massive conflicts of interest all over his involvement in this tale.

The other department you are thinking of is NIAID, which is a sub agency of the NIH. Fauci runs NIAID. The EcoHealth grant which went to WIV was from NIAID/NIH. You can find links to the actual grant from this fact check (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/04/fac...), which ironically is one of these deceptive fact checks that claims something is false in the headline, then claims deep in the text that it is only partially false, all while the original claim is actually essentially true.

As an aside, Professor Ebright from Rutgers described the EcoHealth-WIV research as “unequivocally” gain of function research (https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain...). He also accused NIH/NIAID of systematically undermining and avoiding oversight processes that were meant to prevent dangerous grants like this, especially since GoF research was banned in the US (https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/06/fauci-must-explain-wh...). Ebright also accused Fauci of lying during the recent senate hearing where Senator Rand Paul questioned him (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biosafety-expert-explain...). Ebright was also one of the few brave signatories on the March letter pointing out flaws with the WHO investigation and study, and asking for a new investigation (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/04/us/covid-orig...).

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#578

Post by ErikVandeWater »

wpietri wrote: post #170
scottrogowski wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be the top comment. Social media companies can either be monopolies or they can put limits on the speech of their platform... but they can't do both. While not against the law of freedom of speech, political moderation processes are certainly against the intent. Every once in a while we get a case like this where an unpopular fringe opinion becomes mainstream and underlines the point. But this isn't just…

Good thing they aren't monopolies, then. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, and Reddit are are all very popular places for people to post their views. And that's not counting the myriad lesser places like the one we're using now. And of course anybody can drop a few bucks on a blog of their own. I also disagree that sites moderating is against the intent. Freedom of speech is one right, but so is freedom of…

1. You're using the technical definition of monopoly in a debatable way to hand-wave away the issue. Each of these companies have excessive market influence.

2. All of these companies are already in bed with the government (e.g. illegal NSA spying). They also try to enact policies that are in agreement with politicians agenda as a bargaining chip to get more favorable legislation and enforcement.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#579

Post by XorNot »

Lazare wrote: post #552
XorNot wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first example there is literally an attempt to mass produce live virus for biological weapons, with human infectious viruses. As are most of your examples. This all changes if the literal goal of research is "mass produce liters of viable virus". But viral research in general doesn't do that, because it's a huge hazard, and unnecessary (and expensive, labor intensive etc.) What I am drawing contention on is what…

Those are good questions, but I think the link I provided gives some decent potential answers. I don't know, and I'm not asserting, that any of this is true. But given what is known about the types of research being done, this doesn't seem like something we can rule out either. For one example, the article quotes Shi Zhengli, a lab director at the Wuhan Virology Institute, who had been doing research on RaTG13, and w…

> I find it surprising that you are so much more convinced than a lab director of the lab in question that no such leak was possible.

> when she could prove that the outbreak in Wuhan was not any strain that the lab had a record of storing.

You answered your own question. That's the point here: the evidence does not point to a lab leak.

Re: The media's lab leak fiasco

#580

Post by the_optimist »

coffeefirst wrote: post #432
uvesten wrote: post #212

What the article forgets to mention is that there is a world power ( cough China cough ) which would use all its (social-) media manipulation skills and influence to make sure that the lab leak theory was written off as crazy conspiracy talk… Under those circumstances, and without a concerted effort by the US and other democracies to counter China’s preferred narrative, no wonder that the debate turned very lopsided.

Not to mention many of the early proponents were notorious conspiracy theorists, racists, and nut jobs who spoke with absolute certainty, cited virtually no evidence and clearly had no idea what they were talking about. Could they, in their wild speculation, been right about a few things? Sure, that’s always possible, but they didn’t actually know that at the time. This isn’t a science or mainstream media problem; bo…

This is an interesting way to evaluate ideas. Where did you learn this technique?
Post reply on HN