Inflation Scaremongering
nohero said:
nohero said:
I was disagreeing with your description. I wasn't trying to debate the merits of the author's essay with you.
Smedley said:
Well my description aligns with what the author writes about, only he goes into great detail. So by disagreeing with me you're disagreeing with him, even if you choose to sidestep addressing or even reading what he wrote.
I think my comments have been pretty clear. You wrote something about your own opinion of NPR, and I commented on that. What Uri Berliner wrote (which I did read) is irrelevant to that.
actually it's not irrelevant, the essay is the whole reason I offered an opinion, so critiquing my opinion but declining to comment on the essay is a bit odd.
but let me add that I am shocked, stunned, mouth agape in disbelief that you think npr isn't biased.
Smedley said:
actually it's not irrelevant, the essay is the whole reason I offered an opinion, so critiquing my opinion but declining to comment on the essay is a bit odd.
but let me add that I am shocked, stunned, mouth agape in disbelief that you think npr isn't biased.
You didn't say that your opinion was based on the essay, you said it was based on your own personal opinion. I disagreed with your own personal opinion. Whether or not you choose to support it is a choice.
Smedley said:
I can take bias as well. I understand and accept that it's part of the media landscape.
What I can't take is the denial of the existence of bias, when it can be as plain as the nose on one's face.
"Concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at voter registration for our newsroom. In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.
So on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference."
Needs more data. How many registered independents? How many used to be registered GOP but were turned off by Trump? And in May of 2021, how many die-hard Republicans would be interested in working for any newsroom that was even-handed and wasn't a Fox-like Trump-biased outlet?
nohero said:
Smedley said:
I can take bias as well. I understand and accept that it's part of the media landscape.
What I can't take is the denial of the existence of bias, when it can be as plain as the nose on one's face.
"Concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at voter registration for our newsroom. In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.
So on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference."
Needs more data.
yes 87-0 is most definitely a toss-up open for interpretation.
Pretending that I didn't write more than that, doesn't mean it's not there.
drummerboy said:
I think there's a good case to be made that Biden's various economic packages and stimulus have had something to do with the good economy.
Much stronger than either blaming him for inflation or for crediting the fed for bringing it down.
you make a good point about the pandemic response. But in the big picture the economy was trending this way before it was interrupted by COVID.
I don't mean to suggest presidents and their actions have ZERO effect on the economy. But the effects are nowhere near the amount of credit and blame they receive for economic performance.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
I think there's a good case to be made that Biden's various economic packages and stimulus have had something to do with the good economy.
Much stronger than either blaming him for inflation or for crediting the fed for bringing it down.
you make a good point about the pandemic response. But in the big picture the economy was trending this way before it was interrupted by COVID.
I don't mean to suggest presidents and their actions have ZERO effect on the economy. But the effects are nowhere near the amount of credit and blame they receive for economic performance.
i assume you're an NPR listener, or at least a supporter. What do you think about the Uri Berliner piece? Please be as specific as possible. Thank you.
Smedley said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
I'm an occasional NPR listener, I find it has some decent programming but overall it's as left as the day is long. And I have noticed a more pronounced slant in recent years, as the author writes about. I find NPR to be akin today's late night circuit, ie Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, in terms of having an entrenched progressive worldview. I personally find it a bit off-putting, but I guess they all have their audience and they cater to it.
I'm a more-than-occasional listener and your description isn't accurate.
Ok well I think a 25 year npr veteran's view trumps both of ours.
what specifically about the essay do you find fault with?
do you realize that views are not facts?
that piece is largely ****. I'll outsource some particulars to Kevin Drum
- NPR ran lots of stories about Donald Trump's collusion with Russia but never issued a mea culpa when special prosecutor Robert Mueller exonerated him.
.
Mueller specifically said he never even addressed "collusion" because it's not a legal term. However, he did document a large number of links between Trump and Russia. These links are the things everyone was reporting about, and Mueller mostly confirmed that they had happened. He just didn't think they rose to the level of indictment.
- NPR ignored the Hunter Biden laptop story during the tail end of the 2020 presidential campaign. But the laptop later turned out to be real.
.
"Later" is doing a lot of work here. At the time the laptop story was dodgy in the extreme. The narrative about a blind PC repair guy who just happened to contact Rudy Giuliani was bizarre. Multiple outlets passed on the story before the New York Post ran it, and even one of their reporters was so skeptical he refused to allow his byline to be used. Other reporters who followed up on the story found nothing. Giuliani refused to let anyone examine the hard drive. There was never any evidence implicating Joe Biden. The entire thing bore all the hallmarks of Republican ratfuckery and deserved to be treated skeptically by reputable journalists.
- NPR consistently reported that COVID-19 had a natural origin even though there was plenty of evidence that it might have been the result of a lab leak.
.
In this case NPR was entirely in the right. The authors of "Proximal Origins," which supported the natural origins theory very early on, didn't have any secret doubts about what they wrote. There's no serious evidence that Anthony Fauci or anyone else manipulated evidence in favor of natural origins. The lab leak theory was motivated from the start not by scientific evidence but by (admittedly legitimate) suspicion of China's behavior combined with the coincidence of the virus breaking out in a city that contained a major biolab. The lab leak hypothesis has always been unlikely, and over time has gotten ever more unlikely. It's all but completely discredited now.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
I think there's a good case to be made that Biden's various economic packages and stimulus have had something to do with the good economy.
Much stronger than either blaming him for inflation or for crediting the fed for bringing it down.
you make a good point about the pandemic response. But in the big picture the economy was trending this way before it was interrupted by COVID.
I don't mean to suggest presidents and their actions have ZERO effect on the economy. But the effects are nowhere near the amount of credit and blame they receive for economic performance.
i assume you're an NPR listener, or at least a supporter. What do you think about the Uri Berliner piece? Please be as specific as possible. Thank you.
why would you assume that?
I'm a WFAN, Underground Garage, E Street Radio, and Tom Petty Radio listener.
The republicans are gonna use Uri as their next poster boy for their “gotcha” celebration…I’m always suspicious of people who become martyrs a few months before an election.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
I'm an occasional NPR listener, I find it has some decent programming but overall it's as left as the day is long. And I have noticed a more pronounced slant in recent years, as the author writes about. I find NPR to be akin today's late night circuit, ie Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, in terms of having an entrenched progressive worldview. I personally find it a bit off-putting, but I guess they all have their audience and they cater to it.
I'm a more-than-occasional listener and your description isn't accurate.
Ok well I think a 25 year npr veteran's view trumps both of ours.
what specifically about the essay do you find fault with?
do you realize that views are not facts?
that piece is largely ****. I'll outsource some particulars to Kevin Drum
- NPR ran lots of stories about Donald Trump's collusion with Russia but never issued a mea culpa when special prosecutor Robert Mueller exonerated him.
.
Mueller specifically said he never even addressed "collusion" because it's not a legal term. However, he did document a large number of links between Trump and Russia. These links are the things everyone was reporting about, and Mueller mostly confirmed that they had happened. He just didn't think they rose to the level of indictment.
- NPR ignored the Hunter Biden laptop story during the tail end of the 2020 presidential campaign. But the laptop later turned out to be real.
.
"Later" is doing a lot of work here. At the time the laptop story was dodgy in the extreme. The narrative about a blind PC repair guy who just happened to contact Rudy Giuliani was bizarre. Multiple outlets passed on the story before the New York Post ran it, and even one of their reporters was so skeptical he refused to allow his byline to be used. Other reporters who followed up on the story found nothing. Giuliani refused to let anyone examine the hard drive. There was never any evidence implicating Joe Biden. The entire thing bore all the hallmarks of Republican ratfuckery and deserved to be treated skeptically by reputable journalists.
- NPR consistently reported that COVID-19 had a natural origin even though there was plenty of evidence that it might have been the result of a lab leak.
.
In this case NPR was entirely in the right. The authors of "Proximal Origins," which supported the natural origins theory very early on, didn't have any secret doubts about what they wrote. There's no serious evidence that Anthony Fauci or anyone else manipulated evidence in favor of natural origins. The lab leak theory was motivated from the start not by scientific evidence but by (admittedly legitimate) suspicion of China's behavior combined with the coincidence of the virus breaking out in a city that contained a major biolab. The lab leak hypothesis has always been unlikely, and over time has gotten ever more unlikely. It's all but completely discredited now.
is NPR in your MSM cabal that has it out for Biden?
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
I think there's a good case to be made that Biden's various economic packages and stimulus have had something to do with the good economy.
Much stronger than either blaming him for inflation or for crediting the fed for bringing it down.
you make a good point about the pandemic response. But in the big picture the economy was trending this way before it was interrupted by COVID.
I don't mean to suggest presidents and their actions have ZERO effect on the economy. But the effects are nowhere near the amount of credit and blame they receive for economic performance.
i assume you're an NPR listener, or at least a supporter. What do you think about the Uri Berliner piece? Please be as specific as possible. Thank you.
why would you assume that?
I'm a WFAN, Underground Garage, E Street Radio, and Tom Petty Radio listener.
Tom Petty Radio is excellent, I'll give you that.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
I think there's a good case to be made that Biden's various economic packages and stimulus have had something to do with the good economy.
Much stronger than either blaming him for inflation or for crediting the fed for bringing it down.
you make a good point about the pandemic response. But in the big picture the economy was trending this way before it was interrupted by COVID.
I don't mean to suggest presidents and their actions have ZERO effect on the economy. But the effects are nowhere near the amount of credit and blame they receive for economic performance.
i assume you're an NPR listener, or at least a supporter. What do you think about the Uri Berliner piece? Please be as specific as possible. Thank you.
why would you assume that?
I'm a WFAN, Underground Garage, E Street Radio, and Tom Petty Radio listener.
Tom Petty Radio is excellent, I'll give you that.
I wouldn't even be able to find NPR on my radio
Jaytee said:
The republicans are gonna use Uri as their next poster boy for their “gotcha” celebration…I’m always suspicious of people who become martyrs a few months before an election.
he lost me when he claimed the Mueller report exonerated Trump. That's a flat out lie.
Who knows about the rest of the behind the scenes stuff. But as Drum points out his three big examples of bias are bogus, so it's hard to take the rest seriously.
Well then Drum’s opinion settles the matter (reaches over to press Staples ‘That was easy’ button).
I don’t dismiss the piece as breezily as you. Note the guy who was the NPR ombudsman for 10 years and by all accounts is a highly respected news professional, backed Berliner’s essay.
https://x.com/jdvorkin/status/1777812453272805381?s=61&t=9PvlxwW1YMphxP54kUQl-A
Who’s more credible here? Dvorkin, who knows NPR from the inside and presumably has no axe to grind either way, or a liberal blogger who’s naturally going to defend a liberal media outlet against claims of biased coverage?
I know who I’m picking and it ain’t Drum.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
I'm an occasional NPR listener, I find it has some decent programming but overall it's as left as the day is long. And I have noticed a more pronounced slant in recent years, as the author writes about. I find NPR to be akin today's late night circuit, ie Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, in terms of having an entrenched progressive worldview. I personally find it a bit off-putting, but I guess they all have their audience and they cater to it.
I'm a more-than-occasional listener and your description isn't accurate.
Ok well I think a 25 year npr veteran's view trumps both of ours.
what specifically about the essay do you find fault with?
do you realize that views are not facts?
that piece is largely ****. I'll outsource some particulars to Kevin Drum
- NPR ran lots of stories about Donald Trump's collusion with Russia but never issued a mea culpa when special prosecutor Robert Mueller exonerated him.
.
Mueller specifically said he never even addressed "collusion" because it's not a legal term. However, he did document a large number of links between Trump and Russia. These links are the things everyone was reporting about, and Mueller mostly confirmed that they had happened. He just didn't think they rose to the level of indictment.
- NPR ignored the Hunter Biden laptop story during the tail end of the 2020 presidential campaign. But the laptop later turned out to be real.
.
"Later" is doing a lot of work here. At the time the laptop story was dodgy in the extreme. The narrative about a blind PC repair guy who just happened to contact Rudy Giuliani was bizarre. Multiple outlets passed on the story before the New York Post ran it, and even one of their reporters was so skeptical he refused to allow his byline to be used. Other reporters who followed up on the story found nothing. Giuliani refused to let anyone examine the hard drive. There was never any evidence implicating Joe Biden. The entire thing bore all the hallmarks of Republican ratfuckery and deserved to be treated skeptically by reputable journalists.
- NPR consistently reported that COVID-19 had a natural origin even though there was plenty of evidence that it might have been the result of a lab leak.
.
In this case NPR was entirely in the right. The authors of "Proximal Origins," which supported the natural origins theory very early on, didn't have any secret doubts about what they wrote. There's no serious evidence that Anthony Fauci or anyone else manipulated evidence in favor of natural origins. The lab leak theory was motivated from the start not by scientific evidence but by (admittedly legitimate) suspicion of China's behavior combined with the coincidence of the virus breaking out in a city that contained a major biolab. The lab leak hypothesis has always been unlikely, and over time has gotten ever more unlikely. It's all but completely discredited now.is NPR in your MSM cabal that has it out for Biden?
After listening to NPR for decades, I stopped during the Trump admin. They became the epitome of false objectivity and have done enormous harm in normalizing Trump.
This is part of the reason why. Thanks for showing us who your are Ms. Keith.
Oh, I muted the word normalize in my mentions a long time ago.
— Tamara Keith (@tamarakeithNPR) April 26, 2017
They don't have "it out for Biden". They just suck at political journalism, like most of the MSM.
Smedley said:
Well then Drum’s opinion settles the matter (reaches over to press Staples ‘That was easy’ button).
I don’t dismiss the piece as breezily as you. Note the guy who was the NPR ombudsman for 10 years and by all accounts is a highly respected news professional, backed Berliner’s essay.
https://x.com/jdvorkin/status/1777812453272805381?s=61&t=9PvlxwW1YMphxP54kUQl-A
Who’s more credible here? Dvorkin, who knows NPR from the inside and presumably has no axe to grind either way, or a liberal blogger who’s naturally going to defend a liberal media outlet against claims of biased coverage?
I know who I’m picking and it ain’t Drum.
You are so impressed with authority that it hurts to watch.
It's not a question of "picking" who's right. Instead, look at Drum's examples, and then tell us how Berliner's case still makes sense.
NPR definitely deserves severe criticism for their reporting. But it's for reasons opposite to Berliner's.
indeed, I do tend to give more weight to an authority, defined as someone who knows more about a topic than most. I appreciate you recognizing that.
I find it odd that that would pain you, but actually you should try it sometime, rather than just always embracing the opinions of those in your political tribe.
Smedley said:
Well then Drum’s opinion settles the matter (reaches over to press Staples ‘That was easy’ button).
I don’t dismiss the piece as breezily as you. Note the guy who was the NPR ombudsman for 10 years and by all accounts is a highly respected news professional, backed Berliner’s essay.
https://x.com/jdvorkin/status/1777812453272805381?s=61&t=9PvlxwW1YMphxP54kUQl-A
Who’s more credible here? Dvorkin, who knows NPR from the inside and presumably has no axe to grind either way, or a liberal blogger who’s naturally going to defend a liberal media outlet against claims of biased coverage?
I know who I’m picking and it ain’t Drum.
First of all, Kevin Drum is hardly the only writer who criticized the Uri Berliner piece. And the portions cited from Drum are not "axe to grind" writing, they dispute significan facts as asserted by Berliner.
Second, Dvorkin was affiliated with NPR, leaving in 2006. He knew NPR "from the inside" until then. Yes, he has a point of view backed by his own experience, but his simple endorsement (not with any explanation in the tweet you cited) is just one more fact for the rest of us to put into the pile of things we're considering.
I'm more persuaded by the fact-based and context-based critiques, than simple citation of "authority", whatever that may be.
Oh, and related to our earlier discussion -
Smedley said:
nohero said:
Needs more data.
yes 87-0 is most definitely a toss-up open for interpretation.
As you know my actual response to you was: "Needs more data. How many registered independents? How many used to be registered GOP but were turned off by Trump? And in May of 2021, how many die-hard Republicans would be interested in working for any newsroom that was even-handed and wasn't a Fox-like Trump-biased outlet?" And as one current NPR voice (who you can hear on the air today) noted -
I am one of the many NPR employees registered as a "no party" DC voter who were conveniently excluded from the article's tally. https://t.co/flNw1c1tMl
— Scott Detrow (@scottdetrow) April 12, 2024
Smedley said:
indeed, I do tend to give more weight to an authority, defined as someone who knows more about a topic than most.
It's odd that would pain you.
Actually you should try it sometime, rather than just always embracing the opinions of those in your political tribe.
yes, we all give weight to authority. that's how information absorption works.
however, you also need to view authority with a skeptical eye, to the extent you can.
It's difficult, for example, to be skeptical about what a climate scientist says, since most of us don't know squat about climate science.
However, in the area of political journalism it's a lot easier to be effectively skeptical. You don't need a PHD to be conversant on the relevant matters.
And, I am not "embracing opinions". I am evaluating an analysis of the facts. These are not the same thing. I think this is the source of your confusion.
Drum has looked at the facts behind Berliner's assertions and has consequently found his assertions wanting.
You apparently are more impressed by someone's length of service than their fact basis.
Also, as nohero has pointed out, if Dvorkin left NPR in 2006, his "inside" knowledge of NPR is essentially useless, undermining his authority on the subject. But I bet this fact will have no effect on your view of his authority. Also, on what basis do you say he has no axe to grind? What do you actually know about him?
Smedley said:
indeed, I do tend to give more weight to an authority, defined as someone who knows more about a topic than most. I appreciate you recognizing that.
I find it odd that that would pain you, but actually you should try it sometime, rather than just always embracing the opinions of those in your political tribe.
smedley… drummer boy is a rebel WITH a cause… I like that about him. You and the others who feel that somehow you can change his mind on the issues are just wasting time. Embrace the fact that he’s not a follower, like you all like keep reminding us of how diverse you conservatives are…the only tribe some of us belong to is the southern European tribe…
concerning the "87 Dems, no R's" thing:
I always look askance at findings like this. The fact is that certain professions simply don't attract conservatives.
How many famous conservative investigative journalists have their ever been? I think the answer is zero. Correct me if I'm wrong. And it's not because conservatives apply for the jobs and get rejected. It's because conservatives, as a rule, are not interested in investigative journalism. Investigative journalism involves looking into the corruption of authority. Conservatives like authority. (I'm stressing investigative journalism as opposed to talking heads journalism. Two totally different things.)
The same thing applies for all of those other bastions of liberalness, like Hollywood and academia and the arts. Conservatives are not being "kept out" of these areas, as they like to proclaim. They're not there in significant numbers because they don't like those things and therefore have no desire to be good at them.
Isn't this obvious?
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
indeed, I do tend to give more weight to an authority, defined as someone who knows more about a topic than most.
It's odd that would pain you.
Actually you should try it sometime, rather than just always embracing the opinions of those in your political tribe.
yes, we all give weight to authority. that's how information absorption works.
however, you also need to view authority with a skeptical eye, to the extent you can.
It's difficult, for example, to be skeptical about what a climate scientist says, since most of us don't know squat about climate science.
However, in the area of political journalism it's a lot easier to be effectively skeptical. You don't need a PHD to be conversant on the relevant matters.
And, I am not "embracing opinions". I am evaluating an analysis of the facts. These are not the same thing. I think this is the source of your confusion.
Drum has looked at the facts behind Berliner's assertions and has consequently found his assertions wanting.
You apparently are more impressed by someone's length of service than their fact basis.
Also, as nohero has pointed out, if Dvorkin left NPR in 2006, his "inside" knowledge of NPR is essentially useless, undermining his authority on the subject. But I bet this fact will have no effect on your view of his authority. Also, on what basis do you say he has no axe to grind? What do you actually know about him?
your boy Drum says the lab leak theory is "all but completely discredited".
uh. It is? Last meaningful update I recall on this was last year when the Dept of Energy said a lab leak was the most likely cause. Did I miss something since then?
did you miss Drum's false statement in your evaluation of the facts? Or did you just see Drum was the writer and so you automatically bought into whatever he wrote.
Smedley said:
your boy Drum says the lab leak theory is "all but completely discredited".
uh. It is? Last meaningful update I recall on this was last year when the Dept of Energy said a lab leak was the most likely cause. Did I miss something since then?
...
yes, you did, especially if that's your best recollection of the government's report on the status of whether it was a lab leak.
Pray tell, what news did I miss that has all but completely discredited the lab leak theory ? (Restated opinions of liberal bloggers don't count.)
please share. This offer extends to ml1 and nohero who have also endorsed Drum's argument.
Smedley said:
Pray tell, what news did I miss that has all but completely discredited the lab leak theory ? (Restated opinions of liberal bloggers don't count.)
please share. This offer extends to ml1 and nohero who have also endorsed Drum's argument.
I suggest you investigate it yourself. There's a better chance you might actually remember it that way.
Suffice to say, there is no published evidence from the Energy Dept, or any other govt agency that has looked into it, that supports a lab leak. There's lots of evidence pointing to a natural emergence.
so, the scoreboard is:
lab leak - no evidence
natural - lots of evidence
Looks like one of them is pretty discredited to me.
Smedley said:
Pray tell, what news did I miss that has all but completely discredited the lab leak theory ? (Restated opinions of liberal bloggers don't count.)
please share. This offer extends to ml1 and nohero who have also endorsed Drum's argument.
How you remember what was reported, and what was reported, are not the same things.
How seriously should we take the US DoE’s Covid lab leak theory? | Coronavirus | The Guardian
The DOE did have a report with a "low confidence" determination that it was a lab leak. There are other scientists, inside and outside of government, who come to different conclusions. What Drum wrote was, "The lab leak hypothesis has always been unlikely, and over time has gotten ever more unlikely. It's all but completely discredited now." Whether you think the available evidence supports his "all but completely" closing phrase, his general point is that the criticism of NPR for not completely accepting the "lab leak" isn't supported by facts.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Pray tell, what news did I miss that has all but completely discredited the lab leak theory ? (Restated opinions of liberal bloggers don't count.)
please share. This offer extends to ml1 and nohero who have also endorsed Drum's argument.
I suggest you investigate it yourself. There's a better chance you might actually remember it that way.
Suffice to say, there is no published evidence from the Energy Dept, or any other govt agency that has looked into it, that supports a lab leak. There's lots of evidence pointing to a natural emergence.
so, the scoreboard is:
lab leak - no evidence
natural - lots of evidence
Looks like one of them is pretty discredited to me.
4 us Intel agencies have said with low confidence it was natural transmission. One agency has said lab leak with moderate confidence. And then DoE said lab leak with low confidence.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/26/politics/covid-lab-leak-wuhan-china-intelligence/index.html
if that makes the lab leak theory "all but completely discredited", or even your watered-down "pretty discredited", then apparently we have different definitions of discredited.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Pray tell, what news did I miss that has all but completely discredited the lab leak theory ? (Restated opinions of liberal bloggers don't count.)
please share. This offer extends to ml1 and nohero who have also endorsed Drum's argument.
I suggest you investigate it yourself. There's a better chance you might actually remember it that way.
Suffice to say, there is no published evidence from the Energy Dept, or any other govt agency that has looked into it, that supports a lab leak. There's lots of evidence pointing to a natural emergence.
so, the scoreboard is:
lab leak - no evidence
natural - lots of evidence
Looks like one of them is pretty discredited to me.
4 us Intel agencies have said with low confidence it was natural transmission. One agency has said lab leak with moderate confidence. And then DoE said lab leak with low confidence.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/26/politics/covid-lab-leak-wuhan-china-intelligence/index.html
if that makes the lab leak theory "all but completely discredited", or even your watered-down "pretty discredited", then apparently we have different definitions of discredited.
Why are you willfully ignoring my point about there being no published evidence for a lab leak?
There has been no basis provided for why or how even those low confidence levels were arrived at.
otoh, there is much published (not from the government) evidence for a natural emergence. (And, unfortunately for your knowledge base, this info is not reported by the places you frequent for your information.)
Why does this not matter to you? Apparently the only thing that matters to you are unsubstantiated words from government authorities.
You don't think that lots of evidence for one theory, and zero evidence for the other theory, "all but completely" discredits the latter?
Yes, we clearly have different definitions for the word discredited.
I can take bias as well. I understand and accept that it's part of the media landscape.
What I can't take is the denial of the existence of bias, when it can be as plain as the nose on one's face.
"Concerned by the lack of viewpoint diversity, I looked at voter registration for our newsroom. In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans. None.
So on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference."