Liberal backlash against Jon Stewart on Covid Lab Leak...

[ThatRobGuy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nder-dont-rely-celebrities-covid-19-theories/


Here is the piece they're upset about

While politicization of covid was/is an issue, and it was conservatives who were more guilty of it than liberals, initially, is that shifting?

WaPo had no problems running pieces about both Cardi B and JoJo writing covid songs about the importance of social distancing. But when Jon Stewart says something they didn't like (or that doesn't fit a convenient narrative), now all of the sudden "don't listen to celebrities on infectious disease"


Is it because they really care about credentials, or is it because Jon Stewart is espousing a (very plausible) theory that there's no "woke" way to report on?

 

[anna ~ grace]

Colbert actually looks nervous. And seems to be trying to shut Jon Stewart up. Interesting. Stewart has a point. A big one. And a good one. So simple. Yet, let’s ridicule logic by linking logic to hated right-wing politicians. Huh.

 

[DaisyDay]

There is no actual rivalry between the two; they are longtime buddies who play off each other.

I don't know if Stewart is being provocative here or serious.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There is no actual rivalry between the two; they are longtime buddies who play off each other.

I don't know if Stewart is being provocative here or serious.

I think Stewart was/is a more toned down version of Bill Maher... someone who's progressive at heart, but who understands that being progressive doesn't mean you have to abandon logic simply because you don't like the messenger of the logical position.

As the rapper Killer Mike said (when he was defending Candace Owens in a debate) "You can't hate a truth just because you don't like the person who is telling it"

I think that applies here... since it was conservatives largely espousing the lab-leak theory early on, many progressives felt the need to oppose it and dig their heels in.

Despite many of the people initially espousing it being "crazy" in a variety of other realms, the lab leak theory was never an outlandish theory in and of itself.

Rudy Giuliani obviously lost his marbles and is a bit "out there", but if he said "I think that toxic waste disposal company may be responsible for the pollution in the river that's next to their headquarters", that shouldn't disqualify that theory from being considered.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This was a live broadcast, evidently. But I doubt Stewart surprised anybody involved from the show with what he said. Worst case scenario, there probably was still a delay in the broadcast so they could've easily cut to a commercial if Stewart went too far off from what he was generally supposed to say.

No. All of those late night shows tape in the late afternoon or early evening, several hours before airing. Occasionally they will do a live episode, but it's fairly rare.

 

[Bradskii]

I think Stewart was/is a more toned down version of Bill Maher... someone who's progressive at heart, but who understands that being progressive doesn't mean you have to abandon logic simply because you don't like the messenger of the logical position.

As the rapper Killer Mike said (when he was defending Candace Owens in a debate) "You can't hate a truth just because you don't like the person who is telling it"

I think that applies here... since it was conservatives largely espousing the lab-leak theory early on, many progressives felt the need to oppose it and dig their heels in.

Despite many of the people initially espousing it being "crazy" in a variety of other realms, the lab leak theory was never an outlandish theory in and of itself.

Rudy Giuliani obviously lost his marbles and is a bit "out there", but if he said "I think that toxic waste disposal company may be responsible for the pollution in the river that's next to their headquarters", that shouldn't disqualify that theory from being considered.

When Trump pushed this claim, I ignored it because there was no evidence for it (and it was blatantly political). I'm doing the same with Stewart's comments. Let me know when you have some evidence, Jon.

 

[durangodawood]

....I think that applies here... since it was conservatives largely espousing the lab-leak theory early on, many progressives felt the need to oppose it and dig their heels in.....

Yeah it was a knee jerk reaction to Trumps use of "China virus" as a distraction from his abysmal handling of the pandemic situation.

 

[sfs]

Interesting. Stewart has a point. A big one. And a good one. So simple. Yet, let’s ridicule logic by linking logic to hated right-wing politicians. Huh.

I saw the interview. I thought Stewart's performance was embarrassing and dumb.

 

[hedrick]

The problem with Trumps original claim wasn’t that it was known that the virus didn’t leak, but that it is very unlikely that he had the evidence he claimed. As such he was trying to politicize the origin or Covid.

At this point mainstream views are that it’s possible, and deserves investigation. Not the same thing. This has become popular because some apparent evidence turned up, and because Chinese behavior suggests that they have something to hide, though I have to say that the quality of the evidence is questionable. Which is why the call is just for investigation.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[Larniavc]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nder-dont-rely-celebrities-covid-19-theories/


Here is the piece they're upset about

While politicization of covid was/is an issue, and it was conservatives who were more guilty of it than liberals, initially, is that shifting?

WaPo had no problems running pieces about both Cardi B and JoJo writing covid songs about the importance of social distancing. But when Jon Stewart says something they didn't like (or that doesn't fit a convenient narrative), now all of the sudden "don't listen to celebrities on infectious disease"


Is it because they really care about credentials, or is it because Jon Stewart is espousing a (very plausible) theory that there's no "woke" way to report on?

I can’t help think that this is a comedian taking a wry glance at life.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've seen conflicting reports that the Stewart episode was broadcast live. But usually, yes, they are taped ahead of time.

I suspect some of the sources you are reading are confused about the nature of these programs. I saw the program at its original broadcast and there is no evidence of editing of Stewart's appearance. Perhaps the unedited nature of it are confusing to some of those sources. It was the first episode taped before an audience in the theater in about 15 months.

As a regular viewer of Colbert's program, he is very clear when the program is broadcast live from the studio rather than from tape.

In the normal intro, the announcer says "Live on tape from the Ed Sullivan Theater" at the end of the titles. For live shows the "on tape" is removed. The announcer also inserts the word "live" with the announcement of each guest and the band in the opening titles.

These shows are traditionally recorded "live to tape", that is produced as if they were going out live, breaks between guests are the length of the ads that will be inserted at broadcast, etc.

 

[stevil]

Is it because they really care about credentials, or is it because Jon Stewart is espousing a (very plausible) theory that there's no "woke" way to report on?

I thought Jon was very funny. He was just pointing out a trivial, unscientific thing that many people would also jump to.

Of course Jon is smarter than this, but it fit his gag.
Regardless of whether the common people suspect it a lab leak or from the wild. I don't think it matters that much. It's not like Jon is promoting people resist getting vaccinated.

 

[stevil]

I think that applies here... since it was conservatives largely espousing the lab-leak theory early on, many progressives felt the need to oppose it and dig their heels in.

I think that people opposed the lab-leak theory because it was pure speculation and not supported by any evidence at all.
Rather than because the right wingers where jumping to this theory. But of course, if right wing media and the president weren't going around saying it WAS a lab leak, then others wouldn't have had the need to weigh in on this speculation.

 

[Strathos]

I think that people opposed the lab-leak theory because it was pure speculation and not supported by any evidence at all.
Rather than because the right wingers where jumping to this theory. But of course, if right wing media and the president weren't going around saying it WAS a lab leak, then others wouldn't have had the need to weigh in on this speculation.

There's also a big difference between the theory that it escaped from a lab where it was being studied (after being discovered in the wild), and the theory that it was deliberately engineered as a weapon.

 

[stevil]

There's also a big difference between the theory that it escaped from a lab where it was being studied (after being discovered in the wild), and the theory that it was deliberately engineered as a weapon.

Well, we know there is Lab in Wuhan called "Wuhan Institute of Virology"
In that skit, Jon was claiming that it was called "Novel Corona Virus lab" which is of course nonsense.

When you claim that this virus was being studied in that lab, how do you know this?
Do we have a genetic mapping on the specific viruses being investigated in the lab? Does it match with the viruses of the pandemic? Are you able to provide a citation?

 

[DaisyDay]

I think Stewart was/is a more toned down version of Bill Maher... someone who's progressive at heart, but who understands that being progressive doesn't mean you have to abandon logic simply because you don't like the messenger of the logical position.

As the rapper Killer Mike said (when he was defending Candace Owens in a debate) "You can't hate a truth just because you don't like the person who is telling it"

I think that applies here... since it was conservatives largely espousing the lab-leak theory early on, many progressives felt the need to oppose it and dig their heels in.

Despite many of the people initially espousing it being "crazy" in a variety of other realms, the lab leak theory was never an outlandish theory in and of itself.

Rudy Giuliani obviously lost his marbles and is a bit "out there", but if he said "I think that toxic waste disposal company may be responsible for the pollution in the river that's next to their headquarters", that shouldn't disqualify that theory from being considered.

I'm not a fan of Maher, but I like Steward, Colbert and Noah.

I thought the main reason liberals tended to dismiss the Wuhan Lab theory was because the geneticists said that the genome had no signs of being engineered and appeared wild. I don't know enough about it to have a worthwhile opinion, so I accept that of the experts in their field. Should they declare that the virus did escape from the lab, then I will accept that as most probable.

 

[Strathos]

Well, we know there is Lab in Wuhan called "Wuhan Institute of Virology"
In that skit, Jon was claiming that it was called "Novel Corona Virus lab" which is of course nonsense.

When you claim that this virus was being studied in that lab, how do you know this?
Do we have a genetic mapping on the specific viruses being investigated in the lab? Does it match with the viruses of the pandemic? Are you able to provide a citation?

I'm not claiming anything. As I said, those are both just theories. I was just pointing out that some people confuse one for the other.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think that people opposed the lab-leak theory because it was pure speculation and not supported by any evidence at all.
Rather than because the right wingers where jumping to this theory. But of course, if right wing media and the president weren't going around saying it WAS a lab leak, then others wouldn't have had the need to weigh in on this speculation.

To say there was "no evidence" isn't exactly true...

A research lab in Wuhan (where the virus first showed up) that's focused on doing research for that specific type of virus is always going to be a viable culprit.

...and most reasonable people would start their investigating there in the case of the problem. But that notion was quickly dismissed by people who were "trying to pick the right side", politically.


It's not unlike if there were an oil refinery near a water source, and that water source became contaminated, the refinery would be the prime suspect.