L.A. Times columnist renews attacks on the lab-leak theory while dismissing criticism of China
By newseditors // 2025-02-04
Copy
 
After years of the media demonizing and attacking any scientists supporting the lab theory of COVID-19, agencies like the FBI have concluded that it is the most likely scenario.  Even the Washington Post and other long antagonistic media outlets have come to admit that the theory is credible.  None of that has apparently changed minds over at the Los Angeles Times, which helped lead the media mob against dissenting scientists. That includes the L.A. Times science columnist Michael Hiltzik, who is often cited as an example of the unrelenting and aggressive campaign to cancel those scientists who challenged the natural origins theory. Hiltzik and the L.A. Times just ran a column renewing attacks on those who support this theory, a column that continues to omit key countervailing information from the readers. (Article republished from JonathanTurley.org) The L.A. Times appears to be the last dog in this fight. As discussed in my recent column, media outlets that ridiculed or ravaged scientists over the theory have acknowledged that it is indeed plausible. For example, in 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory. Likewise, the Washington Post denounced Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) when he raised the theory for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.” After Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus to jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.” Then, as more government reports indicated that the theory could be correct, the Post shrugged, and Kessler wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible.” Most recently, newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the CIA report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus, though assigning a “low confidence” finding. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and other news outlets reported on the finding that the lab theory was the most likely. The BBC reported that “the CIA on Saturday offered a new assessment on the origin of the Covid outbreak, saying the coronavirus is ‘more likely’ to have leaked from a Chinese lab than to have come from animals. But the intelligence agency cautioned it had ‘low confidence’ in this determination.” I noted in the column that the finding does not resolve the debate, which will continue. The point was that there can now be a debate.  The CIA did not reject the lab theory over the natural origins theory despite the overwhelming message that was sent by the L.A. Times in treating the theory as racist or looney. Hiltzik discusses my column while objecting that I added a link to the CIA definition of “low confidence” not long after the blog posting (Such additions are common on this blog and other blogs. I often note such changes, but there was no material change in the point of the column which focused on the free speech issue). The point is not that the recommendation was made with low confidence, but that the theory was found to be plausible. Hiltzik criticizes my column and others for highlighting the most recent disclosure. However, he omits that this follows even stronger findings from agencies like the FBI and evidence (as discussed in my column) that government scientists found the theory credible. He also omits any mention of the fact that he is widely cited as one of the most aggressive voices seeking to cancel scientists who voiced support for the theory. While arguing that scientific journals have not embraced the theory, he leaves out that he targeted schools that sought to allow academic discussions of the theory. Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.” Instead, Hiltzik defends China in the column against claims that it was not forthcoming in the investigations into the virus:
“The Chinese government has been accused, mostly by the lab-leak camp, of suppressing evidence of the role of the Wuhan lab out of embarrassment or fear of international repercussions. But that’s highly misleading. The truth is that China is no happier about evidence that the pandemic originated in one of its wildlife markets.”
News organizations reported how China shut down contacts with scientists and closed off access to the lab, including refusing to give data to WHO. Even NBC, which once piled on the attacks on dissenting scientists, has noted that China has steadfastly fought disclosures and only released information that was going to be made public. As Hiltzik notes, even the World Health Organization (WHO) denounced China for its lack of transparency. WHO has long been accused of being dominated by China, particularly in its initial investigations into the virus. The L.A. Times, however, is still downplaying such complaints and attributing them to fringe writers. Hiltzik portrays the criticism as mostly the ravings of “the lab-leak camp” and says the accusations are “misleading.” He also does not discuss the findings of other federal and congressional reports. He focuses instead on the lack of “peer-reviewed journals” supporting the theory. It is an ironic point from a writer who attacked Stanford for even allowing scientists to share their work in an academic setting. Once again, however, none of these reports are dispositive either way. That is the point. The debate that figures like Hiltzik fought to prevent can finally occur. However, the L.A. Times is still trying to chill that debate by portraying anyone supporting the theory as purveyors of “disinformation.” Hiltzik writes:
“The uncritical retailing of the CIA assessment underscores the perils of scientific misinformation and disinformation for public health. The Trump administration’s evidence-free focus on the Chinese laboratories ranks as anti-science propaganda.”
Even though agencies like the FBI are giving more credence to the lab theory, the L.A. Times is still portraying the position as dangerous disinformation. It takes an element of rage to maintain this dwindling position. Many of the experts who were once ridiculed for questioning the efficacy of masks, the six-foot rule, natural immunities, and school closures have been supported in recent reports. There is growing support for the view, for example, that our closure of schools did not have a meaningful impact on the transmission rate of the virus. Yet, that was another debate that was snuffed out under the attacks over spreading disinformation. (Notably, Hiltzik also supported closing schools and has rejected claims that it was a mistake). I value writers like Hiltzik for challenging scientists on issues like the lab theory. For those of us with little scientific knowledge, such debates among knowledgeable people are essential. Most of us are open to either theory. However, figures like Hiltzik actively sought to curtail that debate when it was most needed. He portrayed the very discussion of the theory as a public health danger and now continues to invoke the catch-all “disinformation” label to dismiss countervailing views. It is a particularly ironic moment when L.A. Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong is promising to restore objectivity to the newspaper and even posting a “bias meter” for readers to be warned about slanted material. The L.A. Times and Hiltzik are obviously and heavily invested in the rejection of the lab theory. However, when you are dismissing Chinese obstruction, the burden on the newspaper is becoming not just crushing but embarrassing. There is an alternative. The L.A. Times could admit that it was wrong in demonizing scientists and that both of these theories are plausible. Most importantly, it could embrace the need for an open and civil debate on the question. As the leading newspaper in the state with the greatest concentration of academic and research facilities, the L.A. Times owes it to its readers to be honest and open with both sides of the origins debate. Read more at: JonathanTurley.org
Copy