Cunt wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 5:39 pm
They overtly SAY it is dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
If you can find an example of a 'stealth-edit' of articles about that, feel free to post it. If you can't, I'll consider that proof that you can't find any.
Stealth edits would be pretty clear evidence that news/media were deliberately dishonest, I think.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ti ... ar-AAKlIOr
How and why did this happen? For one, efforts to discover a natural source of the virus have failed. Second, early efforts to spotlight a lab leak often got mixed up with speculation that the virus was deliberately created as a bioweapon. That made it easier for many scientists to dismiss the lab scenario as tin-hat nonsense. But a lack of transparency by China and renewed attention to the activities of the Wuhan lab have led some scientists to say they were too quick to discount a possible link at first.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) from the start pointed to the lab’s location in Wuhan, pressing China for answers, so the history books will reward him if he turns out to be right. The Trump administration also sought to highlight the lab scenario but generally could only point to vague intelligence. The Trump administration’s messaging was often accompanied by anti-Chinese rhetoric that made it easier for skeptics to ignore its claims.
As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events, including important articles, that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored. But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people’s minds. This has led to renewed calls for a real investigation into the lab’s activities before the coronavirus emerged.
'...but was generally ignored'
I suspect this won't satisfy whatever you are uncertain about either. Maybe try restating.
Now Cunt, don't make a federal case of it. I showed you that your example didn't show what you said it did and told you you needed another.
As for stealth edits, isn't that more suited to the Media Bias thread?
However, I'm on break, so I'll show you a little one. See the part of your quote I made blue? That's the reporter's interpretation. Looking a little further, in the timeline, the fourth item is
Jan. 26: The Washington Times publishes an article with the headline: “Coronavirus may have originated in lab linked to China’s biowarfare program.” An editor’s note is added March 25: “Since this story ran, scientists outside of China have had a chance to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They concluded it does not show signs of having been manufactured or purposefully manipulated in a lab.”
Sounds like a consensus is forming dismissing the possibility of the lab leak, but look at the editor's note on the Washington Times website
Editor’s note (March 25, 2020): Since this story ran, scientists outside of China have had a chance to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They concluded it does not show signs of having been manufactured or purposefully manipulated in a lab, though the exact origin remains murky and experts debate whether it may have leaked from a Chinese lab that was studying it.
So maybe not so much of a consensus after all.
Is that stealthy enough?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake
