zlacker

>Shutting them up doesn't appear to have been particularly successful.

The goal posts will move on this, I guarantee it. Suddenly institutional media will claim they've been working on this story the entire time, and all of their pronouncements cajoling people into not thinking about this explanation will be completely memory-holed. I'm not being hostile to you, I'm expressing frustration here because this really does call into question nearly all of the reporting on the broader Pandemic response when we're just fully admitting here that they did this "because Trump". What other stories did they fuck up on "because Trump"?

>>remark+(OP)
Go back and look at the reporting on every American war of the last 70 years. You will see the same pattern, and yet Trump had nothing do with any of them.

Go back and look at the reporting on every major environmental disaster of the last 70 years, from DDT to oil tanker spills to lead in gasoline to anthropogenic climate change: same pattern. Trump had nothing do with any of them either.

Hint: the media is pro-status quo. On every story, there are a few outliers who provide contrarian accounts, while the majority take a don't rock the boat (much) approach. Eventually, evidence accumulates, the culture shifts, the media changes direction.

It's not, for once, about Trump.

>>PaulDa+l1
Up thread you are literally arguing[1] that Trump is the "boy who cried wolf" and that his "lies" cost us proper reporting on this. I have no idea what past reporting on wars and environmental disasters have to do with the media making an explicitly political choice about how to cover the possible origins of the pandemic.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27389293

>>remark+m2
His cognitive dissonance is very strong right now. Give it some time. Some people get there faster than others.