Something everyone here should find interesting. It stems from a disagreement with Spartan over whether a quote existed where someone was claiming that the virus was INTENTIONALLY leaked as a weapon
I already provided the quote (from social media, see below) but here is a FASCINATING and comprehensive MEDIA CRITIQUE they has even been covered by the NYT. The conclusion is that the media is partially to blame for the “weapon” story ... FIRST SUGGESTED (note word “suggested”) by Sen Tom Cotton. The fascinating part of it is that he doesn’t make the claim directly, he just suggests it but then when the story makes it to the Sunday news shows and THEN TO TWITTER.... he doesn’t shoot it down or correct it (even though it’s attributed to him), he simply attacks China (because he’s a China hawk)
https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco
So, a combination of his REPUTATION FOR PUSHING FALSE STORIES and his failure to knock it down (likely because the speculation brings him attention) leads the media to almost completely ignore the accidental
Leak hypothesis because it’s focused on knocking down Cotton’s conspiracy theory ... even though he only suggested it as ONE possibility, s as lipstick as a throw away line.
So, it’s really the “suggestion” becoming a “claim” and then the debunking becoming the story. THIS IS THE PERIL OF MODERN MEDIA because:
1) even though the “weapon” suggestion is debunked, it makes its way to social media and that gives it real legs in some groups. Illustrating the risk/role of mis/disinformation
2) the non-story becomes the story to the detriment of the actual story (source unknown) because, in part, the media is racing to debunk a non-story under headlines that suggest a nefarious act by China.
3) the perils of supremely self-interested politicians pushing stories for attention. In this instance, Cotton can actually kill the claim, but he doesn’t because the suggestion increases his visibility
4) the perils of media “groupthink” as the author describes it. The race to shit down “fake news” almost creates a different sort of “fake news.” If you read the article you will see the very experienced science reporters trying to bring the coverage back in line, but they are not a big enough voice in today’s media
