The idea that Covid-19 may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China has gained mainstream traction of late.
It can be easy to forget that, a little over a year ago, the idea was derided as a vile, senseless conspiracy theory.
Let’s revisit. ⤵️
@SenTomCotton took much of the initial heat for suggesting this as a possibility back in January.
Here’s what the @nytimes had to say about his “fringe theory” that “lacks evidence” and which “scientists have dismissed.”
Apparently those concerns have been un-dismissed since.
In another piece in 2020, @nytimes concluded that “most agencies remain skeptical” and “scientists are dismissive” of the lab leak theory. Unfortunately, appears that was certainly true, but not to their credit.
Yet another story continues to describe the idea as a conspiracy.
But it wasn’t just NYT.
@CNN was at the forefront, writing up a poll dismissively suggesting that an accidental release was “almost certainly not true,” called the lab in question “the focus of conspiracies” and, of course, used it to take shots at President Trump.
And @CNN was content to be used as a conduit for Chinese propaganda on the subject, too, seemingly trusting a dishonest autocratic regime at their word.
Giving free airtime to a hostile power’s propaganda should be indefensible.
Here’s a piece from @ChrisCillizza from February 2020 that points back to a CNN fact check suggesting that you can “draw a line through it and say that didn’t happen” about the lab release theory.
Care to revisit this one, Mr. Cillizza?
@jaketapper also took a shot at @SenTomCotton, sharing an interview with an expert that Cotton’s views were something that he “put in the conspiracy theory bucket.”
When do we get to revisit this?
Luckily, in case your relatives were suggesting that this “conspiracy theory” about a lab release were true, @oliverdarcy has you covered with this “how to debunk coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy theories” piece that references the origin of the virus.
@NPR might’ve been the most dismissive, running stories on back to back days suggesting there was nothing to the allegations & that scientists “debunk[ed]” & “dismiss[ed]” the idea of an accidental release.
They were, in retrospect, entirely wrong, but memoryholed these pieces.
The way that @MSNBC and @chrislhayes frame these two separate issues seems instructive.
When a theory without enough evidence doesn’t help the narrative, it’s a conspiracy theory.
When it does help the narrative, it’s just an open question - even if it’s a lot less plausible.
Perhaps the worst offender, though, was @washingtonpost who, in January of 2020, said that @SenTomCotton’s concerns about a potential lab leak in Wuhan were “fanning the embers of a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked by experts” (!!!)
I don’t get how you can factcheck something that we don’t know the facts on - nonetheless conclude that one potentiality is “doubtful.”
And notice the defensive crouch - here & everywhere else - around the “unsubstantiated” lab theory.
This from @politico is precisely the type of amnesia that infects reporting like this.
Two months ago, they were lamenting how warnings and concerns about bat research had been ignored.
A year before that, they chalked concerns about the Wuhan lab up to “conspiracy theories.”
There was a rush across the board to tell the story as a battle between Trump and a lab in China. As you can imagine, Trump played the role of the villain, at least for places like @ABC back in May of 2020.
In retrospect, it appears obvious that framing wasn’t helpful.
@NBCNews leaned into this same framing, referring to the idea that the virus could’ve originally come from the Wuhan lab as a conspiracy theory/misinformation.
The other article, well, hasn’t exactly aged perfectly.
It’s hard to fault @CBSNews when the sources weren’t exactly bulletproof, in retrospect.
But that makes a broader point: journalists should be distrustful of official sources of info. That’s historically been true. Lately, it’s been anything but - leading to errors like this.
@business apparently heard about the concerns tied to the lab, asked the lab run by communist autocrats if they were responsible for loosing a pandemic on the world, and when they (unsurprisingly) said no, Bloomberg reported it as fact. @Forbes did the same.
Again: it seems inconceivable to me that so many outlets would take a virology lab run by a hostile autocratic power at their word as a source of truth on what happened.
But lots of them did.
I don’t have much space for blue checks because the media coverage to me is the bigger point here. But I did want to point out that lots of Twitter doctors & professors (potentially the same ones quoted in these pieces) were saying the same.
And of course the usual conspiracy theorists like @MaxBlumenthal had their own perspectives on this one, that just happened to neatly fit all of their priors about the world and how it works (a consistent theme in this thread).
And with @JRubinBlogger there’s always, always a tweet.
Do we know for certain how the pandemic started? No, and it isn’t clear that we ever will. I tried to give a lot of leeway on this one given that.
But as you can see, the narrative was strong, the dismissal of other ideas was near-religious, and now it’s as if it never happened.
Events like this do infinitely more to undermine America’s faith in experts and the media than anything Trump could ever do or say. And it’s all both self-inflected and avoidable.
But too many people can’t seem to help themselves. And whole industries suffer as a result.
And remember, all of this is coming from the same people who purport to be deeply concerned with the supposed plague of mis- and disinformation.
This situation had many of the classic elements of bad reporting of late: uncritically trusting dishonest sources, rushing to a conclusion because it would hurt President Trump, media circular logic.
And it had an unsurprising result: a huge & quickly memoryholed media failure.
Okay, I finally broke down and made a Patreon. Don't feel the need to give, but if you like the threads and want to buy me a beer, here's your shot.
I'll give half of anything folks give to a charity in DC fighting homelessness (recommendations welcome) patreon.com/drewholden360?…
Also, for those not familiar with the changing conversation about the possibility of a lab leak origin, here’s a good thread:
Whatever happened to Harris and Biden’s “strongest economy ever” that the media spent so much time hyping up in the lead up to the election?
I revisit the claims, and explain why they were off the mark about the economy all along, in my latest @AmerCompass.
Quick🧵thread🧵⤵️
It can be easy, in the wake of an election, to forget just how dominant a media narrative was.
One that’s already fading from view was how “great” the economy was, and why it would benefit Harris on Election Day. americancompass.org/its-still-the-…
As a refresher, check out this headline from @axios about the data.
@YahooFinance upgraded Biden’s economic grade to an A. That captures the press sentiment at the time quite well.
In recent days, the mainstream media has taken nakedly ridiculous claims about the tattoos of @PeteHegseth, Trump’s SecDef nominee, to spin up a story alleging he’s an extremist.
It’s an egregious example of politically driven “journalism.” I unpack why. ⤵️
The story really started with @AP, who ran an article claiming that two tattoos that @PeteHegseth has have ties to extremism, citing an extremely thin (and downright suspect) report.
They used that to label him a potential “insider threat” in their headline.
It wasn’t until 3 paragraphs in that a reader was told what that claim rested on: a tattoo of a Latin phrase. They’d go on to mention “concerns” about a cross tattoo as well.
Would be great if Trump’s unconventional picks for his cabinet inspire the media to consider a nominee’s credentials.
They might want to look at the current HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra, who brings to the table the medical experience of being in Congress for 12 terms.
Or perhaps Obama’s former HHS Secretary, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, who had just finished her stint lobbying for Walmart.
Or Donna Shalala, Clinton’s former head of HHS, whose credentials were as a university administrator and feminist.
I know it seems silly, but the media meltdown about Trump working at a McDonald’s is clarifying about why trust in the press has cratered.
Before we get to that, let’s revisit some of the most deranged takes. ⤵️
The press’s response to Trump deciding to troll Harris for her unsupported claims that she worked at McDonald’s by working at the chain himself sent the media into a tizzy.
Here’s @CNN, suddenly apologetic about a corporation in the political limelight.
My favorite take came from @nytimes, who appeared outraged that…Trump didn’t wear a hairnet.
The media is already trying to memory-hole the (first) attempted assassination of former President Trump.
I suspect many of you have felt it happening, but I walked through the details for The Spectator, and wanted to share some of them here.
Follow along ⤵️
First, I just want to level-set to make sure I’m not crazy.
Someone tried to kill the former POTUS, who, according to a variety of polls, is the odds-on favorite to return to that office. Tons of details didn’t make sense.
Seems like the press story of the year, right?
Well…
So far, the press doesn’t seem to think so.
It started as soon as the shots rang out. Do you remember how bad & unhelpful the headlines were?
I’ve got screenshots. @USATODAY @NBCNews (“popping noises”) @CNN (“injured in incident”) @latimes (“loud noises want through the crowd”)