New York Times Says ‘We’ Were Misled About COVID Origin

The New York Times’ mea culpa about how “we” were misled about the lab leak theory and much else during the COVID lockdowns is a day late, a dollar short, and outright insulting to the people who were right from the beginning.

The New York Times published a piece Sunday written by columnist Zeynep Tufekci titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.” She began her story explaining that the 1977 Russian flu was likely sparked by a laboratory mishap but scientists who were aware of it kept quiet to avoid “ruffling feathers.”

“Yet, in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the COVID-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks,” she wrote.

Yes, that’s right. I remember. I remember how media outlets like, let’s say, The New York Times, ran story after story portrayed anyone who speculated that the virus may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a “fringe” conspiracy theorist.

The headline on Tufekci’s piece should really read, “We Misled You About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

According to one New York Times reporter, the lab leak theory had “racist” roots. As an aside, you’ll notice that every single idea, policy, or law the modern Left doesn’t like has “racist” roots and will suddenly stop being racist the moment the Left embraces it.

As the country went into lockdown, the tale that one needed to accept to be counted among the antiracist science believers was that the virus emerged from a filthy Chinese wet market where people eat bats, pangolins, and raccoon dogs.

Tufecki’s story should now be well known. As COVID-19 spread and practically the whole world went into extended lockdowns, institutions of science and health went into overdrive not just to affirm that the virus had a natural origin, but to silence any speculation that it may have originated in a Chinese lab.

Not only did they promote this theory, but they coordinated with Big Tech and governments to suppress and censor discussion on the topic.

Oh, and it just so happens that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was getting funding from the U.S. government and was working with many Western institutions and companies.

Now, one might be tempted to say, “Well, better late than never,” and give The New York Times credit for running a piece acknowledging that the lab leak speculators were likely correct all along. But even this op-ed writer couldn’t help herself from taking pot shots at the people who chose common sense over “trust the science.”

“Some of the loudest proponents of the lab leak theory weren’t just earnestly making inquiries; they were acting in terrible faith, using the debate over pandemic origins to attack legitimate, beneficial science,” Tufecki wrote. She continued, writing that “for scientists and public health officials, circling the wagons and vilifying anyone who dared to dissent might have seemed like a reasonable defense strategy.”

Tufecki acknowledged that this was almost certainly the wrong strategy, and it ultimately backfired. But she then said that the real victims in this sordid affair were really the poor institutions that have since entirely lost public faith.

“Half-truths and strategic deceptions made it easier for people with the worst motives to appear trustworthy while discrediting important institutions where many earnestly labor in the public interest,” Tufecki wrote.

Again, the real bad guys are the outsider critics with bad motives, not the lying institutions that just had your best interest at heart.

But did those institutions really have “good” public health motivations when they chose to deceive the American people? In many cases, I think not.

It is interesting that The New York Times chose to pivot on this issue now—while, of course, still smacking at its domestic political enemies who were right all along. Mary Harrington, writing at Unheard, speculated that the Times has simply embraced the deterioration in U.S.-China relations.

“The Grey Lady’s change of official stance in relation to lab leaks has little to do with ‘honest conversation,’ and much to do with shifts in the broader geopolitical picture — especially in relation to China,” Harrington wrote.

There is probably some truth to that. As the U.S. decouples from China, American elite institutions—many of which were deeply invested in the Middle Kingdom—may no longer wish to run cover for the CCP.

A lot of money and potential access to China was at stake. Probably a lot less so now.

But countless elite institutions were willing to compromise their credibility to keep the gravy train going. Elite media organizations like The New York Times and many others, who so frequently like to portray themselves as champions of the free press, were complicit in squelching dissent on behalf of powerful, wealthy interests.

They turned the phrase “trust the science,” into the new scariest words in the English language. This sudden pivot doesn’t change that, nor does it help rebuild trust in institutions that have proven to be entirely undeserving.

The post New York Times Says ‘We’ Were Misled About COVID Origin appeared first on The Daily Signal.