1/ This story in @TheEconomist about the new study claiming Covid virus was genetically engineered is a model of how such controversial research should be covered. @natashaloder economist.com/science-and-te…
2/ A clear, detailed explanation of the methodology and findings; clear statement it is not yet peer reviewed and most go through that rigorous (one hopes) process; comment from scientists expressing positive and negative first impressions (that's what they are);
3/ avoiding comment from "experts" whose reactions would be entirely predictable, focusing on researchers who have not been part of the bitter Covid origins wars; respect for the authors and their critics with very little quoting of vitriolic, unscientific...
4/ smears (which have been terrible the past two days, and reprehensible); and concluding with clear statements about what needs to be done next re testing and evaluation. Very importantly, avoiding being gaslighted by scientists who insist there is nothing to see here...
5/ and who had hoped against hope the preprint would get no attention at all; and perhaps most importantly, actually covering the story rather than ignoring anything that does not fit the dominant narrative at any given time. Let's hope that other journalists shine...
6/ as brightly in their coverage and that the mainstream #media actually covers this story, which clearly is one. That's not a given: Very few mainstream media have covered the @NIH cutting funds to the Wuhan lab--why the hell is that?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
