Gain-of-function fearmongering and blame gets the glitzy NYT visual treatment as Republicans weaponize the lab leak theory again in attacks on Dr. Anthony Fauci
Hi Phil, thanks for the interesting analysis. I'm curious about the methodology, in view of your "Stance View" explanation and your summarizing in which you state: "Centrist news media can somewhat be trusted in their scientific reporting, but not in their editorial stance, selection of what to cover, and endorsement." So take, for example, APNews in your listing, which rates as 1:8:1, about the same as the average overall for centrist outlets. It can't be you are counting editorializing content, correct, with APnews, since it is an almost purely wire news outlet? Isn't the better explanation here that there were simply more "pro-lab leak events" to report that would be of interest to the general public, than zoonotic events? And if that's the case for APnews, why may it not be the same skew with the NYTimes, etc?
Hi, great thinking! I am currently working on a paper that is looking into the robustness of the methodology and alternative explanations for some of these biased media coverage findings.
You are correct that wired news outlets are a bit of a special case and any voluminetric assessments are insufficient; in the analysis, wired content was usually de-duplicated.
As to your second point about "pro lab leak events", there is a different analysis I performed, but have not yet shown, that seems to suggest that peak coverage aligns closely with political events (e.g Bidens 90 day intelligence agency assessment, or the DoE/FBI lab leak assessment change of 2023), rather then for example new scientific discoveries or papers.
So that ask the question whether centrist news coverage is biased due to editorial stance, or just very gameable by politicians creating pseudo-events that news media thinks it needs to cover. That being said, how these partisan pseudo events are covered also portrays a certain lean; usually by adopting the frame of the partisan pseudo-event creator or lab leak accuser, the outlet sides with the accuser simply by transferring the frame of the story while reporting on it. Functionally, how these headlines come to propagate a specific origin theory is interesting but secondary to my main claim that media coverage bas is what is driving the lab leak theory and evidence-belief gap in public.
Wow, thank you. That's about as comprehensive an analysis as I've seen, not that I understood much of the science in any but the broadest terms. You'd have to be a geneticist to understand the technicalities, but I appreciate you including it. It gives creditability to your article as there will be people who do understand it and they can check the evidence for themselves.
One point I'd make for an alternative motive for the lab leak theory is that it's a ‘better story’. It's more dramatic, attention grabbing and will sell more papers. I hasten to add that I have no doubt that there is a right-wing, pro Trumplethinskin bias, at least editorially, even in so-called quality papers like the NYT and WaPo. You need look no further than their owners. And, while I've always thought the lab leak theory was a possibility, I never gave it much credence. It just didn't make much sense to me.
Anyway, thank you again for your considerable effort. I've restacked.
Hi Phil, thanks for the interesting analysis. I'm curious about the methodology, in view of your "Stance View" explanation and your summarizing in which you state: "Centrist news media can somewhat be trusted in their scientific reporting, but not in their editorial stance, selection of what to cover, and endorsement." So take, for example, APNews in your listing, which rates as 1:8:1, about the same as the average overall for centrist outlets. It can't be you are counting editorializing content, correct, with APnews, since it is an almost purely wire news outlet? Isn't the better explanation here that there were simply more "pro-lab leak events" to report that would be of interest to the general public, than zoonotic events? And if that's the case for APnews, why may it not be the same skew with the NYTimes, etc?
Hi, great thinking! I am currently working on a paper that is looking into the robustness of the methodology and alternative explanations for some of these biased media coverage findings.
You are correct that wired news outlets are a bit of a special case and any voluminetric assessments are insufficient; in the analysis, wired content was usually de-duplicated.
As to your second point about "pro lab leak events", there is a different analysis I performed, but have not yet shown, that seems to suggest that peak coverage aligns closely with political events (e.g Bidens 90 day intelligence agency assessment, or the DoE/FBI lab leak assessment change of 2023), rather then for example new scientific discoveries or papers.
So that ask the question whether centrist news coverage is biased due to editorial stance, or just very gameable by politicians creating pseudo-events that news media thinks it needs to cover. That being said, how these partisan pseudo events are covered also portrays a certain lean; usually by adopting the frame of the partisan pseudo-event creator or lab leak accuser, the outlet sides with the accuser simply by transferring the frame of the story while reporting on it. Functionally, how these headlines come to propagate a specific origin theory is interesting but secondary to my main claim that media coverage bas is what is driving the lab leak theory and evidence-belief gap in public.
Wow, thank you. That's about as comprehensive an analysis as I've seen, not that I understood much of the science in any but the broadest terms. You'd have to be a geneticist to understand the technicalities, but I appreciate you including it. It gives creditability to your article as there will be people who do understand it and they can check the evidence for themselves.
One point I'd make for an alternative motive for the lab leak theory is that it's a ‘better story’. It's more dramatic, attention grabbing and will sell more papers. I hasten to add that I have no doubt that there is a right-wing, pro Trumplethinskin bias, at least editorially, even in so-called quality papers like the NYT and WaPo. You need look no further than their owners. And, while I've always thought the lab leak theory was a possibility, I never gave it much credence. It just didn't make much sense to me.
Anyway, thank you again for your considerable effort. I've restacked.
https://bsky.app/profile/solidevidence.bsky.social/post/3mrulckvzts2w