The Line Between Conspiracy Theories and Journalism Is A Thin One

https://t.co/xzHR65XNsr

— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) May 24, 2021

As I keep saying, I'm old enough to remember the NYT covering itself in ignominy with first Whitewater and then WMD in Iraq.  So this both looks familiar, and explains precisely why people believe Donald Trump’s “Big Lie.”

When Nicholson Baker wrote a cover story for New York laying out the evidence that COVID-19 may have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, the hypothesis was still highly controversial. In the months that have followed, and especially over the last week, it’s gained more and more credibility. A week ago, 18 prominent scientists signed a letter published in Science calling for an open investigation into the virus’s origins. This weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. intelligence believes three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 to require hospitalization, lending even more credence to the possibility of a lab leak.

First, the WSJ article is mostly baseless bullshit.  I’m not sure it’s founded on intelligence as strong as the Steele dossier.  Because versions of this story have been around for awhile:

First, that doesn't specify which partner, or the nature of the partnership. But if you follow international news, there's another story that looks suspiciously similar to this one from May last year: https://t.co/LIc9MiseG0

— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) May 23, 2021

Except the Five Eyes community then came out and said "this isn't a Five Eyes assessment" and the dossier in question was probably made in the US, based on open-source reporting. https://t.co/A7C4SQev1K

— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) May 23, 2021

That was May of last year. It came back again in April of this year:

In that one we had similarly impressive claims. Look! IC had communications intercepts and overhead images showing increased activity at health facilities! pic.twitter.com/YA5l8jibc3

— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) May 23, 2021

That's the Google maps story that the BBC also picked up:

Reason I know that is because BBC ran the same claim, and then had to walk it back with this article. https://t.co/XPEGLLeJk1

— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) May 23, 2021

Here's a thread from back in August on why the Harvard Google maps analysis was structurally unsound https://t.co/xRCCvY2p8f

— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) May 23, 2021

Credibility? Only if you think that, because WSJ published it, it's credible. It's like we didn't learn anything in the '90's or the pre-war Bush Administration.  Who are we kidding?  We didn’t.

And while we're at it, reporting from @thedailybeast on a "Pentagon Contractors' Report" is is suspiciously similar (and mostly garbage) to all of the claims circulating in all of these stories https://t.co/jLudtd8xCq

— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) May 23, 2021

Well, that's an internet source, right? No credibility at all, amirite?

Look, I usually admire Jonathan Chait, but this is is just bullshit.  This is why Donald Trump persuades people; because we are willing to believe sources we trust, even when we shouldn’t.  And even professional “skeptics” are not really skeptical, and accept the appeal to authority as willingly as any 1st grader. Or Trump supporter; though I think the average 1st grader is less gullible.

In an age of Trump and MTG the only responsible course is to make this kind of crap go away by ignoring it and discounting it.

NEW: Dr. Fauci tells me that his opinion about the origins of COVID-19 have not changed: He believes that it is “highly likely” that it first occurred naturally before spreading from animal to human. Since no one is 100% sure, he’s open to a thorough investigation.

— Weijia Jiang (@weijia) May 24, 2021

I'm open to a thorough investigation. What I'm not open to is assuming the WSJ is credible on this story when the same story, or a version of it, has alread been circulating for a year and has been debunked after it was reported by NBC, BBC, and a number of other outlets. Honestly, the fact that WSJ published it just means they didn’t do their due diligence.  I mean, when a simple Twitter thread undoes it, there really isn’t much there, there.