By now you’re aware that many, many media “fact checks” from the past year-plus about claims Covid-19 might have originated in a lab in China have aged like fine milk. Many called it a “debunked conspiracy theory,” to a large degree because one of the people floating that as a possibility was then-President Trump. Now that even Dr. Fauci is saying he’s not fully convinced the virus originated naturally, much backpedaling has ensued.
However, Washington Post foreign affairs correspondent Emily Rauhala seems to have had enough of hearing about it, claiming that of course she and other reporters covered the story:
Thanks to all the Internet Dads for the think pieces about how reporters ignored the lab theory. Have been reporting on this for more than a year. Conclusion since last summer has not changed: leak theory is possible, worth pursuing, but no conclusive evidence either way — so far
— Emily Rauhala (@emilyrauhala) May 27, 2021
As much as I am grateful for their authoritative takes and unparalleled gravitas, I only want to hear from Internet Dads who are not fresh off their first Twitter thread about furin cleavage sites and/or who picked up the phone to report this story before this week
— Emily Rauhala (@emilyrauhala) May 27, 2021
Is it just “Internet Dads” alerting the media?
What's an "Internet Dad," and why is it bad?
— Stop scolding me, I'm vaccinated (@jtLOL) May 27, 2021
An ageist dodge of the substance of a rebuttal.
— Jim (@KeenServe) May 28, 2021
Anyway, back to the actual substance…
You're not fooling anyone
— Andre (@Dre_LilMountain) May 27, 2021
Not that she isn’t trying.
Also, this reporter doesn’t appear to have been particularly open to the possibility that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab:
Recommended
Well. pic.twitter.com/ghm3FLTbHH
— Carlton Hinds (@methuselaschild) May 28, 2021
The Wuhan Institute of Virology handles the world’s most dangerous pathogens, making it the target of conspiracy theories about the origin of the coronavirus. @janisfrayer was granted access to the lab and has the story. pic.twitter.com/6WAfM6Z7VZ
— TODAY (@TODAYshow) August 10, 2020
Watching @janisfrayer at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and remembering when the White House and others blamed the lab for the coronavirus outbreak without citing or showing evidence, then just as quickly dropped the claim. https://t.co/PD7ErHu1jE
— Emily Rauhala (@emilyrauhala) August 10, 2020
So yeah, it was “covered,” but extremely downplayed (or many journos flat out called it a “debunked conspiracy theory”:
It's funny to watch journalists scurry to revise history on this. What this journalist doesn't say is that by "covering" what she means is that every time she "covered" it she downplayed and detracted from it. Literally the opposite of what she is trying to make people think now. https://t.co/QcWyNcTNzg
— Shant Mesrobian (@ShantMM) May 28, 2021
The punchline of this particular sneer is that the writer's employer was a leading player in the effort to brand the lab leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory, which helped justify social-media sanctions against sharing it.https://t.co/G0kXFIWDWKhttps://t.co/2KUg5Up3RE https://t.co/lh6pFWRiTu
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) May 28, 2021
Exactly!
“Possible and worth pursuing, just don’t count on me, a journalist, to do it.” https://t.co/SnlxjZEbFy
— Colin Duffy (@TheRightDuff) May 28, 2021
Kind of a self own to dub the people who got this more right than you “internet dads.” What does that say about you? https://t.co/FCdjsNlPF3
— Noam Blum (@neontaster) May 28, 2021
Just dripping with contempt for the all the non-credentialed riff raff who had the gall to be less credulous than the MSM. https://t.co/4dCq1GC3n9
— Leighton Akira Woodhouse (@lwoodhouse) May 28, 2021
Does anybody come across as more condescending and sneering than “journalists” who were caught pushing a narrative?