5 ms·

The corporate media is good at memory holing things, but here's a compilation of them calling it the "Wuhan Coronavirus", "Chinese Coronavirus" and "China's Cor

The corporate media is good at memory holing things, but here's a compilation of them calling it the "Wuhan Coronavirus", "Chinese Coronavirus" and "China's Coronavirus": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZtCq1aj2g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZtCq1aj2g Bonus complication of when "the flu is worse" was the narrative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVDPVBZF2Xg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVDPVBZF2Xg

refulgentis 5y ago
- Link A: The clips are a compilation of COVID19 being referred to as the "Wuhan Coronavirus" and "China Coronavirus" in Q1 2020. I'm not sure what I was supposed to take away from it, is the implication that The US Media was hypercritical because people criticized the US president for repeatedly saying it xenophobically, months later? - Link B: The clips are a compilation of health experts on MSNBC/CNN in January 2020, when the outbreak was confined to China, telling people they didn't need to worry yet. I thought we'd emerge from this with an understanding of how quickly things move and operating under uncertainty a la Taleb, but in the current American context, it appears it turned into another reason to triple down on They'ing.
- trentnix 5y ago
  > The clips are a compilation of health experts in January 2020 Did you watch the video? Christiane Amanpour is not a health expert. The media joined the outrage mob only when the wrong people started calling it such. That's more evidence of the early politicization driven by the same media.
  - refulgentis 5y ago
    The argument as described seems weak: "Combination of words $X said on Any News Outlet at any time mean its impossible for anyone to ever criticize $X being said by anyone else in any context at any time after. If it happens, Politicized Media." I wonder if there's a bit more nuanced way to make this argument, I'm amenable to it, but...it reads more as American culture war than a discussion
    - trentnix 5y ago
      > I wonder if there's a bit more nuanced way to make this argument, I'm amenable to it, but...it reads more as American culture war than a discussion That's a fair critique, but I'm inclined to leave a more nuanced argument in someone else's hands. I'll just say I've long suspected massive media collusion and I found the media's almost overnight religious conversion on speech that identified the source of the virus to be jarring and suspiciously in sync. There are dozens of egregious examples of the media adopting certain language or using certain terms in a sudden, widespread manner. A few examples you can find on Youtube include "power through", "beginning of the end", "walls closing in", etc. I do think the media monoculture is partially to blame, but I don't that accounts for all of it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - kbutler 5y ago
      I think it occurs someone criticizes a political opponent for using a word or phrase which has been commonplace until that time, though some may have considered it offensive. Immediately, that usage is widely decried as horribly offensive, and even groups that routinely used it pile on to join the attack: "When (my opponent) said X today, it shows they are horrible and intend terrible things, whereas my use of it yesterday/last year (or in the future!) was completely innocent." The direction of the politicization will remain in dispute: Did my opponent politicize it by using language known to be offensive, as a callout to their constituency? Or did I politicize it by criticizing them, as a callout to my constituency? Or do they politicize it by continuing to use it afterward?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jonathanstrange 5y ago
It was first called the Wuhan Virus by mass media and researchers, even in China. That naming choice was fairly ordinary, similar to Spanish Flu, West Nile Virus, or Crimean–Congo fever. The "China virus" term became problematic once it was politicized in a criminally dumb way by the Trump government - back when they claimed it's not dangerous at all and totally under control in the US. Insisting on a more neutral name was helpful for distinguishing reliable information from nonsense. But in my opinion the name Sars-Cov-2 was unhelpful in the long run because people just ended up calling it Covid or Coronavirus instead. Wuhan virus would have been a better naming choice, and it was called like that inside China at the beginning. The politicization of the health crisis (instead of showing solidarity first) was the big issue. Worse, it's still ongoing. If totally neutral names are so important, maybe virologists should start thinking about naming schemes like meteorologists use, e.g. using first names.

refulgentis 5y ago

- Link A: The clips are a compilation of COVID19 being referred to as the "Wuhan Coronavirus" and "China Coronavirus" in Q1 2020. I'm not sure what I was supposed to take away from it, is the implication that The US Media was hypercritical because people criticized the US president for repeatedly saying it xenophobically, months later? - Link B: The clips are a compilation of health experts on MSNBC/CNN in January 2020, when the outbreak was confined to China, telling people they didn't need to worry yet. I thought we'd emerge from this with an understanding of how quickly things move and operating under uncertainty a la Taleb, but in the current American context, it appears it turned into another reason to triple down on They'ing.

trentnix 5y ago
> The clips are a compilation of health experts in January 2020 Did you watch the video? Christiane Amanpour is not a health expert. The media joined the outrage mob only when the wrong people started calling it such. That's more evidence of the early politicization driven by the same media.
- refulgentis 5y ago
  The argument as described seems weak: "Combination of words $X said on Any News Outlet at any time mean its impossible for anyone to ever criticize $X being said by anyone else in any context at any time after. If it happens, Politicized Media." I wonder if there's a bit more nuanced way to make this argument, I'm amenable to it, but...it reads more as American culture war than a discussion
  - trentnix 5y ago
    > I wonder if there's a bit more nuanced way to make this argument, I'm amenable to it, but...it reads more as American culture war than a discussion That's a fair critique, but I'm inclined to leave a more nuanced argument in someone else's hands. I'll just say I've long suspected massive media collusion and I found the media's almost overnight religious conversion on speech that identified the source of the virus to be jarring and suspiciously in sync. There are dozens of egregious examples of the media adopting certain language or using certain terms in a sudden, widespread manner. A few examples you can find on Youtube include "power through", "beginning of the end", "walls closing in", etc. I do think the media monoculture is partially to blame, but I don't that accounts for all of it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - kbutler 5y ago
    I think it occurs someone criticizes a political opponent for using a word or phrase which has been commonplace until that time, though some may have considered it offensive. Immediately, that usage is widely decried as horribly offensive, and even groups that routinely used it pile on to join the attack: "When (my opponent) said X today, it shows they are horrible and intend terrible things, whereas my use of it yesterday/last year (or in the future!) was completely innocent." The direction of the politicization will remain in dispute: Did my opponent politicize it by using language known to be offensive, as a callout to their constituency? Or did I politicize it by criticizing them, as a callout to my constituency? Or do they politicize it by continuing to use it afterward?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jonathanstrange 5y ago

It was first called the Wuhan Virus by mass media and researchers, even in China. That naming choice was fairly ordinary, similar to Spanish Flu, West Nile Virus, or Crimean–Congo fever. The "China virus" term became problematic once it was politicized in a criminally dumb way by the Trump government - back when they claimed it's not dangerous at all and totally under control in the US. Insisting on a more neutral name was helpful for distinguishing reliable information from nonsense. But in my opinion the name Sars-Cov-2 was unhelpful in the long run because people just ended up calling it Covid or Coronavirus instead. Wuhan virus would have been a better naming choice, and it was called like that inside China at the beginning. The politicization of the health crisis (instead of showing solidarity first) was the big issue. Worse, it's still ongoing. If totally neutral names are so important, maybe virologists should start thinking about naming schemes like meteorologists use, e.g. using first names.