Thread by @janeqiuchina

Stunning scoop or train wreck?

A matter of mistranslation?

Incompetence, honest errors or bad faith?

Summary of glaring errors & omissions & lack of insight of science in story by @KatherineEban @jeffykao

@tracyweber @SteveEngelberg @propublica @radhikajones @VanityFair

1/

1️⃣ Glaring error in the tense regarding “the 3 nos” and glaring omission of “the 3 haves”

The dispatch you cited was about officials gloating about how they had started from “the 3 nos”, overcome obstacles, and achieved “the 3 haves”, which was noted in the GOP report👇

2/

https://twitter.com/janeqiuchina/status/1586647298938920961

2️⃣ Glaring error

Your story says:on 24 Feb 2020 Zhou became the 1st in the world to apply for a patent for CoV2 vaccine

It’s wrong: half dozen Western companies applied earlier.H/T @flodebarre

By your logic,isn’t that even more scientifically & technologically impossible?

3/

3️⃣ Glaring error

Your story mentions “hidden danger” 4 times,& uses them as evidence that major biosafety accidents took place at WIV before covid & had been covered up

They are mistranslated from “安全隐患” (potential, not actual, safety danger)👇

bit.ly/3NCkrQS

4/

More on “安全隐患”: it’s one of the most mistranslated Chinese terms

This article👇explains the literal translation of “隐” to “hidden” is not correct because 隐患 refers to potential, rather than actual, danger.

There is no ambiguity here.

bit.ly/3NCkrQS

5/

4️⃣ You misrepresented @WHO SAGO report by portraying the two theories as equally likely, a mistake called false equivalence

They are not

At SAGO press briefing,I asked which scenario was mostly likely

Answer:“the strongest evidence is still around a zoonotic transmission”

6/

https://twitter.com/sciencecohen/status/1535014432354422785

5️⃣ A key element of your narrative is: there was a biosafety crisis at WIV in late 2019

This is false

The misunderstanding resulted from mistranslations

Your evidence for the “crisis” includes:

(1) Uncovering of “hidden safety danger”, which results from mistranslation 👇

7/

https://twitter.com/janeqiuchina/status/1589102265436360704

(2) Referencing an “accident” that you say mentioned in the 12 Nov dispatch

This resulted from confusion of actual & hypothetical events

The sentence starting with “每当这时” = Every time a potential risky situation rises, Party members would rush to the frontlines

8/

Wrong translation by VF/PP👇: Every time a biosafety lapse has/had happened, Party members have/had rushed to the front lines.

There’s no equivalent of “would” or “could” in Chinese, and so grasping hypotheticals can be very challenging for non-native speakers.

9/

Other native speakers and professional translators of Chinese language raised similar issues👇

Another factual error: the 12 Nov dispatch was actually a republication of a post published on 30 Aug of the same year

This further messes up your narrative

10/

https://twitter.com/dakekang/status/1586943469297213440

6️⃣ You story also speculates that “emergence response activity”, listed below, was triggered by biosafety breach at WIV:

(1) 3 Sept:WIV meeting about an upcoming internal audit to evaluate political discipline issues

(2) 11 Sept:Central Inspection Patrol Group visiting CAS

11/

(3) 19 Nov: safety training at WIV, attended by CAS biosafety official Ji Changzheng, who invoked Xi Jiping’s general comments on safety issues.

You interpret this as Xi issuing specific instructions for WIV to address biosafety breaches.

12/

(4) Oct: a senior official argued before Congress’ standing committee for the importance of biosecurity law that was being deliberated.

I admire your imagination that joined all those dots—some real and other imagined.

But you imagined wrong.

13/

You have obviously missed the crucial contexts below:

(a) People in China often invoke Xi’s remarks to underscore the importance of the matter in question

(b) There had been anti-corruption campaigns for years, and so (1) and (2) above👆took place within that context

14/

(c)In 2019,China was drafting/deliberating its first biosecurity law & there was a national campaign to improve workplace safety (including biosafety)

There is no indication the remarks by Xi & other senior officials on safety importance were specifically geared towards WIV

15/

7️⃣ You consider the following as evidence for biosafety breaches at WIV, but you are wrong.

(1) During a safety training in Nov 2019, WIV officials outlined several safety issues identified in the past year that he hoped would be addressed to prevent potential consequences

16/

https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1586384717838155776

(2) Senate report regards procurements of equipments as signs that WIV struggled to maintain key biosafety capabilities.

(3) Patent applications of inventions to counter corrosion of equipments are also seem as signs that the biosafety labs are not up for scratch.

17/

https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1586384737689800704

Please similar critiques👇by @dakekang & @BeijingPalmer about glaring errors & glaring omissions that put in question the narrative—and the motivation/integrity of the sources/writers/outlets

Both are fierce critics of China

Please also see article by @hiltzikm @latimes👇

18/

https://twitter.com/amymaxmen/status/1587583214645923842

In the opening plenary of @ScienceWriting #SciWri22 on 22 Oct👇–organized by @sciencecohen and myself and moderated by @deborahblum—I warned against the limitation and danger of documents-based approaches.

bit.ly/3NCui9o

19/

If documents are not interpreted in correct context—scientific, political & cultural—then they could be subject to abuse and we risk joining dots we’re not supposed to be joining.

I should add if you get translation wrong, then you might be inventing dots that do not exist.

20/

In response to @hiltzikm, you blamed problems on vagueness of Chinese language

Many scientists, journalists (incl fierce critics of China), native Chinese speakers,supporters of natural origins or lab leak think it’s a matter of honesty, integrity & due diligence—or lack of

21/

I’d think the documents you cite in the story are the ones that help make the strongest case

I’m open to the possibility that you might have other documents that can help make similar arguments.

If so, then please bring them along, and let them subject to public scrutiny.

22/

In China, the press is a tool of propaganda for advancing political gains.

I had thought media organizations in the US, especially the likes of @propublica, were categorically different.

Please, prove to me that I was right.

23/

They say journalism is what makes democracy work

We should all ask ourselves: Have we helped to make democracy work?

Or have we helped perpetuate stereotypes and existing narratives, exacerbate mistrust and polarization, and make the world a more dangerous place?

24/

So,stunning scoop or train wreck?

A matter of mistranslation?

Incompetence,honest errors or bad faith?

You tell me. You answer will determine whether @propublica—or journalism in general—deserve to be trusted

@VanityFair,it’s said,is a lost cause—about which I’m agnostic

25/

PS. Could you please provide the link to the 2018 Zhangjiajie report?

The link associated with “2011”, which is linked to a 2019 dispatch right now, is obviously not the correct one. Please provide the correct one.

Many thanks!

26/

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!

27/

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

@threadreaderapp unroll