Why the media was quick to defend Red China and its virus

Hello friends wordentertainmen, on this occasion the admin wants to share an article entitled Why the media was quick to defend Red China and its virus, we have made good, quality and useful articles for you to read and take information in. hopefully the post content is about which we write you can understand. Alright, happy reading.

On February 17, 2020, just three weeks after covid 19 splashed onto the world scene, the Washington Post dismissed as a debunked conspiracy theory that Red China cooked the Wuhan Virus up in its biomedical lab. The Post attacked any public official who dared raise that possibility.

At my kindest, I would say the Post acted in ignorance. 

But given its history of running Red China's propaganda (which Red China paid handsomely to run) and its promotion of communism in its editorials and news stories, I realize there were more nefarious reasons for the Jeff Bezos and his newspaper instantly rejecting any possibility of biomedical warfare by Red China.

They wanted no discussion of the origin of this virus, which upended our society, our economy, and our form of government. By falsely claiming this was a debunked conspiracy theory, the Post and its fellow liars in the newspaper trade shut off any debate or investigation for at least a year.

They also got us to call it covid 19 rather than the Wuhan Virus with another false claim that the label was racist. The left has since succeeded in having place of origin removed from the name of viruses and diseases.

Chairman Xi smiles. Well done, fools.

15 months after the original Post lie, Michael Tracey got the Post to change the headline and run a minor correction. No one was disciplined for this error because the media does not care about the truth. It is irrelevant to their promotion of divisiveness, chaos, and Red China's agenda.

The Post was not alone. He went after and showed errors in the reporting of the New York Times and other outlets.

Tracey wrote, "I personally don’t have any vested interest in believing the lab-leak theory; if anything, confirmation of the theory as true would undoubtedly accelerate an already-ramping-up New Cold War conflict between the US and China, which I generally oppose for a variety of reasons. But I’m primarily interested simply in knowing whether the theory is true, whatever implications this might have for my other political and moral commitments. Clearly, though, much of the rest of the media doesn’t operate on the same epistemic principle."

Well, like it or not, we are in a New Cold War.

If the virus is biomedical warfare, then we are in a hot war with Red China.

But that does not explain the quick dismissal of the possibility that Red China concocted covid 19.

Tracey wrote, "A number of factors likely contributed to these journalists proclaiming hard-and-fast certainty about this issue, despite having no grounds for such certainty. Many likely thought they were heroically combating anti-Asian xenophobia by dismissing a theory that could’ve assigned some measure of culpability to Chinese state authorities for the origination and spread of the virus, although it’s unclear why this should have implicated individual Chinese-Americans. Either way, lying or misrepresenting stuff in the name of combating xenophobia can’t be justified journalistically, and is liable to backfire anyway."

In his column, he cited a May 5 essay by Nicholas Wade, who "is a science writer, editor, and author who has worked on the staff of Nature, Science, and, for many years, the New York Times."

Wade wrote, "Science reporters, unlike political reporters, have little innate skepticism of their sources’ motives; most see their role largely as purveying the wisdom of scientists to the unwashed masses. So when their sources won’t help, these journalists are at a loss.

"Another reason, perhaps, is the migration of much of the media toward the left of the political spectrum. Because President Trump said the virus had escaped from a Wuhan lab, editors gave the idea little credence. They joined the virologists in regarding lab escape as a dismissible conspiracy theory. During the Trump administration, they had no trouble in rejecting the position of the intelligence services that lab escape could not be ruled out. But when Avril Haines, President Biden’s director of national intelligence, said the same thing, she too was largely ignored. This is not to argue that editors should have endorsed the lab escape scenario, merely that they should have explored the possibility fully and fairly."

The deference to government health officials and the worship of Tony Fauci, a career medicrat, was the Pravda approach to news. Whatever the government says must be true.

In seeking the truth, one must ask cui bono, which is Latin for who benefits?

Just about every economy in the world is weaker today than it was a year ago. The lone exception among big nations is Red China.

And cui bono politically?

Democrats.

They regained the White House.

I would have cut the media slack if it had not promoted the Russian Collusion nonsense (an actual debunked conspiracy theory) and ignored Hunter Biden's laptop.

That's the article: Why the media was quick to defend Red China and its virus

Thank you for visiting my blog, hopefully it can be useful for all of you. Don't forget to share this article with your friends so they also know the interesting info, see you in other article posts.

You are now reading the article Why the media was quick to defend Red China and its virus with link address https://wordentertainmen.blogspot.com/2021/06/why-media-was-quick-to-defend-red-china.html