...this stated shift in the view of the CIA has occurred just after Trump's political lackey has been installed is not a surprise, but both that lack of independence in the agency's leadership and the lack of evidence to substantiate the newly stated beliefs regarding the pandemic's origin need equal emphasis in the report, if not greater emphasis, so that the report's casual audience does not take away the false belief that the lab leak theory is at all supported by evidence at this point.
So, if a person were to seriously report on this matter instead of producing an ephemeral sort of update, one would actually make that context exceptionally and painfully clear. The report, as it is, does not actually address anything substantive about the pandemic's origins or why scientists, given the current evidence, do not take the lab leak theory as a reasonable explanation. If this reporter cared to be serious about the topic, all of that would be mentioned, but instead, a clickbait assertion such as "It's Official: China Did It" just attracts attention and furthers the spread of the conspiracy theory by lending it unwarranted, superficial credibility. The use of such clickbait is a marketing strategy (not journalism) that will drive misunderstanding (given the diminished context).
Being clear on scientific matters is exceptionally important in furthering most democratic and progressive values. Journalists should take pains to aid that effort.
How would you refer to the reporter's story? Briefly uncareful? Partially stated? Wholly accurate? Completely contextualized?
If he were pushing flat earth, I would say he's a risible moron. Here, at best, he is underinformed and does not have the time to look into what he is reporting with the degree of care that it deserves. So, possibly, there are financial constraints that are keeping him from fully contextualizing that segment. Or he does not care to take the time. Which it is cannot be judged from the report, but the potential effect of such a minimally contextualized report is not good for how future pandemics are handled, for it will ultimately provide an environment in which complete idiots like RFK Jr. and Bret Weinstein thrive. The US does not need a stupider response to the next pandemic than that provided by Trump and the anti-vaxxers, but the inaccuracies propagated by social media and insufficiently careful reporting might well lead to that outcome.
= new reply since forum marked as read