Read on Twitter
1/ There’s something truly extraordinary about this piece in @nytimes today by national security reporter @julianbarnes. While it very briefly refers to reports in the Sunday Times and Public/Racket about intel concerning the Wuhan Inst Virology, research…
2/ conducted there, and the names of three allegedly sick researchers, there is absolutely no discernible attempt by the reporter to confirm or debunk that earlier reporting. Any national security reporter worth his or her salt has sources who could do that. Instead…
3/ the article concentrates solely and exclusively on giving the perspectives of intel officials and investigators on the supposed limitations of the evidence, which Barnes apparently has not seen himself. To make matters worse, Barnes does not tell us why…
4/ the declassification has been delayed and when it might be coming, which is what a lot of people want to know. The Times has had its ups and downs over the years, but when it comes to this topic it’s totally missing in action. An atrocious example of non- #journalism.
5/ Just to be clear: The story is a propaganda piece for those members of the intel community with whom @julianbarnes chose to communicate, putting forward what they want us to hear, with no contradictory sources or voices at all. He did not even attempt to talk to…
6/ the director of the FBI who has made it very clear he thinks the evidence leans strongly towards a lab origin, or anyone else with that view in the intel community. Why not?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
