The following is a news analysis
My recent article (link below) pointing to similarities between coronavirus comments made by liberal sources and public health officials-- compared to those of highly-criticized conservative figures-- got a lot of positive attention, and also drew instant outrage from some left-wing writers.
First, they claimed conspiracy! because "no dates" were included in my citation of the comments made by liberal sources and public health figures. Their implication was that, Well, it's understandable if liberal sources and public health figures made "coroanvirus-doubting" remarks or said it was less important than flu early on -- because nobody knew better at the time.
(To be clear, I do not view comments that were or are factually accurate as "coronavirus-doubting," but that is how some writers have mischaracterized some remarks.)
When I pointed to the fact that my article included links to the comments showing dates and context, the liberal writers then said-- Well, all of the liberal sources and public officials made their remarks earlier in the crisis than did conservatives.
When I pointed out that wasn't the case, and plenty of the remarks were made more recently, such as CDC's guidance that most of the population is at low risk of getting coronavirus (current as of at least April 6), they said-- Well, there's nuance and context that goes with the comments the liberal sources and public officials made, but not with the conservative comments.
When I said they missed a big point entirely, that many of the comments they criticized were true at the time, and some remain true today, they said... (crickets!)
I think those involved in the effort to controversialize certain people and publications have twisted themselves up into pretzels to try to avoid the reality: they cherry picked and excluded similar remarks made by others-- many of the comments perfectly accurate and not in the spirit of "denying" or "doubting" coronavirus.
So one can criticize or defend remarks as they choose, but it is disingenuous for the media to treat similar remarks differently depending upon who made them.
Read the article by clicking the link below:
Sharyl,
Did you catch this (no pun intended)
Same outlet, same day. Knocking Trump on Hydroxychloroquine as untested, no double blind and randomized tests and conducted on too small of groups, Based on anecdotal accounts:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/hydroxychloroquine-trump-coronavirus-drug
While at the same time promoting another treatment conducted in a similar manner:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/plasma-from-coronavirus-survivors-found-to-help-severely-ill-patients