Thread by @janeqiuchina

Hi @KatherineEban @jeffykao @VanityFair @propublica:

Your article contains at least 1 glaring error & 1 glaring omission

Citing two documents published in June & Sept 2019👇,you say they lamented the BSL-4 lab as having the problem of “the 3 ‘nos’”

You got the tense wrong

1/

The glaring error:

Both documents cite the same quote, saying that there were “the 3 nos” (“三无”)—no equipment/technology standards, no design/construction teams, & no experience of operating/maintaining—“at the beginning of the construction of BSL-4 lab” (”在建设伊始“).

2/

In other words,the documents did not say,as you claim in the story,that “the 3 nos” were a problem at the time of publication

I’m sure even you—and anybody w sound judgment—would agree what you claim in the story & what the documents actually say are categorically different.

3/

The glaring omission:

Both documents also say that “Led by the Party branch, the Zhengdian [BSL-4] lab ultimately achieved ‘the 3 haves’ (“三有”)—full standards system, quality operating/maintaining team, and valuable construction experience—after overcoming the challenges’.

4/

Chinese verbs do not have tenses, and so can be very confusing for non-native speakers, which you are

Was it also a language issue that caused the glaring omission of “the 3 haves”?

Or were you being selective in what materials going into your story—to suit your narrative?

5/

In the opening plenary of @ScienceWriting #SciWri22 last week👇–organized by @sciencecohen and myself and moderated by @deborahblum—I warned against the limitation and danger of documents-based approaches.

6/

Documents-based approaches, which I also use, is powerful *only if* the documents are interpreted in the right context—scientific, political, and cultural

Otherwise, it could be subject to abuse and manipulation and be used as a tool to advance certain agenda and narratives

7/

It’s rather unbelievable for native Mandarin speakers like myself to read the passage👇 in your article saying even we “cannot really follow” the so-called “party speak”.

It’s absurd and arrogant beyond belief.

One cannot make this up.

8/

Or did you invent your own lexicon, so you could ‘interpret’ the Chinese-language documents in ways that suit your agenda and narrative?

Please do the honorable thing: Please correct the glaring error and fix the glaring omission.

9/

You might want to read this media-criticism article for @AAASKavli about keeping biases in check and upholding journalistic objectivity.

Perhaps you might learn something.

Please do better next time. Please do much better. Thanks!

10/

https://twitter.com/AAASKavli/status/1583533491459084289