The agency now believes “with low confidence” that Covid-19 likely came from a lab leak

I shared the RT article instead of other articles, because other articles are really biased and act like this CIA assessment is the truth. While this article put in the first paragraph the “low confidence” part and actually talk about the factors that may affected it. Which is quiet telling about the shitty quality of journalism currently.

  • 000@reddthat.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    28 days ago

    See for yourself;

    New York Times: C.I.A. Now Favors Lab Leak Theory to Explain Covid’s Origins.

    Here is the first paragraph: A new analysis that began under the Biden administration is released by the C.I.A.’s new director, John Ratcliffe, who wants the agency to get “off the sidelines” in the debate.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      28 days ago

      So one single article out of the who knows how many sources on the entire planet you could have gone with was biased, so you went straight to the bigoted Russian state-run media.

      And the fact that you think a single NYT article proves your point is ludicrous.

      • 000@reddthat.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        28 days ago

        Reuters: CIA now says COVID-19 ‘more likely’ to have come from lab.

        First paragraph: The Central Intelligence Agency has assessed that the COVID-19 pandemic is “more likely” to have emerged from a lab rather than from nature, an agency spokesperson said on Saturday.

          • 000@reddthat.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            28 days ago

            You are hopeless, you want to just keep arguing without reason.

            The bias in Reuters is that they don’t show any potential factors that may have affected this and they don’t show in the headline or the first paragraph the “low confidence” part.

              • 000@reddthat.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                28 days ago
                1. Can you quote the part where I am “defending a Nazi.”.
                2. What the hell does me as a person have to do with the post?
                  • 000@reddthat.comOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    28 days ago
                    1. Which part of the post exactly? You are clearly lying here, you are just trying to create shit from nothing.
                    2. Which make the current post bad and unfactual because of what exactly???
            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              28 days ago

              Nope. With reason.

              The reason is that you are using a source which is bigoted.

              You’re clearly fine with that, which makes me think you share their bigotry about things like Jews and queer people.

              • 000@reddthat.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                28 days ago

                Dear Flying Squid, read more to improve yourself.

                Here is a good link for you to read: Ad hominem.

                Here is a good quote from there:

                Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent’s character or background.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  I love it. “I might hate queer people and Jews and Ukrainians and support the people who promote that hate, but if you bring it up, it’s an AD HOMINEM and has nothing to do with the extremely bigoted source that you have talked about repeatedly already.”

                  And your whole argument is now based upon two sentences you have quoted that literally have no bias in them.

                  I am not going to give your bigoted buddies at RT any page views because unlike you, I do not support bigots. But I am pretty sure that if I did, the obvious bias would be apparent.

                  • 000@reddthat.comOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    28 days ago

                    You are a hard working troll, so enjoy your trolling alone.