Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Thomas L Mischler's avatar

So, two major publications based this big reveal on a source claiming to be singularly qualified to root out the truth - because of his knowledge of the version of Mandarin used only by the Chinese bureaucracy? And their editors OK'd this? Seriously?

Look, I'm not a speaker of Mandarin, I'm not a virologist, I'm not an editor or even a published writer. Until now I hadn't even been aware of the controversial articles referenced here. But even I would be extraordinarily skeptical of these claims, and especially of the notion of using the unsupported claims of ONE individual to debunk worldwide consensus. I can't help wondering what on earth they were thinking - and then I recall a major US politician who made similar claims about being uniquely qualified to solve the problems in our nation, the number of people who believed him, and the vast number who continue to do so.

The Scotsman Andrew Lang once commented, "Politicians use statistics in the same way that a drunk uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination." I believe that same methodology can be easily applied to these absurd articles.

Expand full comment
Keith Wheelock's avatar

Thanks for the ‘clarification’ on ProPublica’s bizarre October article on Covid and the Wuhan lab. I am distressed that ProPublica is associated with such a murky article that, even to this observer, seemed riddled with factual holes.

I have welcomed ProPublica and am a contributor to what I thought was an unimpeachable investigative news organization. Please inform me if (or when) ProPublica applies its stated standards of excellence to this most unusual article that seems linked to Republican Senate ‘researchers.’

Expand full comment
16 more comments...

No posts