1. To demonstrate my own, as an example, the first conversation about gain of function I had was May 1, 2020. It led me down a month's long rabbit hole researching highly technical papers. Sometimes it took me a week or more to read and fully understand 10 pages.
I did not actually pitch a story on it until first week of Jan.
I would love to say I was ahead of everyone. I wasn't. We did some reporting on lab leak, but we didn't get really aggressive on it until recently.
A lot of that is my fault. I was trepidatious.
I didn't fully understand. My assumptions about how the research worked turned out to be true, but I didn't truly understand.
Sure as shit didn't help matters that NO ONE in the field was willing to talk about it. One or two, I understand, but dozens of emails going unanswered.
Certainly a lot of that had to do with media suppression. With self righteous little ninnies thought policing the entire goddamn debate.
Entire beats now exist to pummel smaller independent outlets into submission and to poison the well against them.
It's reprehensible.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reading the Vanity Fair story and a bunch of things jump out at me just concerning the mythology of early 2020.
Many in establishment and corporate media have been blaming Trump for their own efforts to suppress lab leak hypothesis.
It’s odd. It reads like TDS.
Do your fucking brains shut off when Trump talks? Does the sound of his voice negate all ability to reason?
Trump’s “racism” in this case was just a reactionary response to wider media and elite institutions adopting Pro China postures and Chinese propaganda wholesale.
When every major institution is saying, you’re not allowed to say the virus came from China because it’s racist — within earshot of Chinese operatives saying the exact same thing — well obviously Donald Trump of all people is going to call it “China virus.”
1. A decent amount of people were confused about this tweet yesterday, so I’ll explain:
It’s late 2016. Obama is still in office. The IC, Democrats, and the media are fairly determined to investigate Trump criminally, to build a case based on innuendo, selective leaks, and lies.
2. The case is that Don Trump teamed up with Vlad Putin to hack Podesta and the DNC’s emails and then leak them strategically in order to win the election for Trump, all while managing to avoid the most sophisticated surveillance apparatus mankind has ever known. (The NSA et al)
3. I know, it’s absurd on its face. Trump is smart, but he is not a Bond villain.
In any case, as a result, Trump camp has declared war on the Deep State. His chosen horseman for that war: Mike Flynn.
Yes, it is Flynn who will protect and guide Trump as he plumbs the Deep State
The irony is that Trump probably would have lost anyway, but the fact remains, any line of inquiry remotely perceived as beneficial to Trump had to be stamped out … and anyone willing to pursue it was treated as an insane pariah AND viciously suppressed on social media.
The last part is what annoys me most. It’s not just that American media mimicked Chinese propaganda, it’s that the fact checking apparatus was eager to enforce the orthodoxy.
And it wasn’t for lack of information. Don’t let them gaslight you. Not very much info has changed.
The assault on language in the name of “inclusivity” or sensitivity is really just about making language so imprecise that regular people can no longer speak truth.
Not a mistress, but a companion. Not a riot if it’s a mostly peaceful protest. Not illegal, just undocumented.
And if you want to get really down into the guts of the matter, please take notice that every mandated change in language is not only more muddled, but it takes LONGER to even say.
If the base outcome of the change is to obfuscate and belabor language, then it seems clear that
the people enforcing the change find the subject to be either one of much personal discomfort or just plain inconvenient to their goals, usually the latter under the shrill guise of the former.
Don’t call them illegal aliens, you bigot, these words literally hurt me!
I’d be willing to bet that I’m among less than one percent of senior editors/reporters in national politics 40> who has voted for both parties.
Why does it matter?
Well because as local papers dry up, journalism increasingly stovepipes. Similar academic pipelines form similar people going to the surviving corporate media companies that all have similar interests.
The web has also divided national political media into two concentrated competing forces.
On one hand, you have the conservative commentariat. On the other, about 8-12 journalism institutions barely holding on to objectivity as wokists steadily takeover their newsrooms.