As Pandemic Exploded, Wuhan's Bat Lady Asked Scientists to Change the Name Of The Virus Because It May Offend China

 

Dear Ralph,

We heard that the 2019-nCoV was renamed as SARS-CoV-2. We had a fierce discussion among Chinese virologists. We have some comments on this name, I’m wondering if the CoV study group would consider a revision.

I attached the comments from me na dmy Chinese colleague.

“By 11 February 2020, the new coronavirus had caused more than 40,000 confirmed infections and more than 1,000 deaths, mostly in mainland China, in spite of efforts by the Chinese Government and its people to contain the spread of the virus in past weeks. It goes without saying that the effects of the epidemic on all aspects of Chinese life are devastating and, possibly, irreversible. Consequently, appropriately naming the virus and disease becomes a matter of importance to the Chinese people…”

“All proposed names are either too generic, or too similar to previous well-known viruses, or contain an Arabic number. This makes it hard to remember or recognize, leading to a tendency among the general population and scientists alike to use a shorthand term such as ‘Wuhan coronavirus’ or ‘Wuhan pneumonia.’ This has, in fact, been the case since it was named 2019-nCoV. This practice would, however, stigmatize and insult the people in Wuhan, who are still suffering from the outbreak.”

And the Bought-and-paid-for American press dutifully complied.  They viciously attacked President Trump for calling it the China Virus, a term they had been freely using up until the time that their Chinese masters told them to stop.   

In defense of the Bat Lady, she's living in a Communist dictatorship and does what she's told.  What's the excuse of the American press?:

The size of China's influence on the American media is staggering

Follow the money.

Most of the media organs are actually owned by entertainment companies like Disney.   Disney, which owns ABC has a multi-billion dollar investment in China via it’s Shanghai Disneyland theme park.  But this is only a small part of the Disney’s dependence on the Chinese market.   In the movie industry, the American public is taking a back seat.

These days, as American viewers drift in ever-greater number from traditional film and television to their smartphones and tablets for content, the foreign take for movies is often 75% or better.

The same thing is true about NBC, part of the Comcast media empire which is building the Universal Beijing Resort, a $6.5 billion theme park in Beijing. The resort is operated by Universal Parks & Resorts. It is owned by NBCUniversal, a division of Comcast, and Beijing Shouhuan Cultural Tourism Investment.

National Amusements owns a majority stake in CBS.  It also owns Viacom and like the other entertainment companies derives significant revenue for foreign sales.  And like the others views the billion Chinese consumers as it’s audience, a market too large to ignore.  ViacomCBS is proud of it’s connections around the world. 

None of these companies views itself and American news and entertainment business.  Their vision is global and business model is oriented to foreign expansion. 

These parent companies have made major investments in China or depend for a large part of their revenue on China. An example of the way that the entertainment industry know-tows to the Chinese is the way the NBA went overboard in their defense of China when one of its officials dared to defend Hong Kong's protesters. The commissioner of the NBA, Adam Silver, re-defined free speech as the "right not to speak" in siding with China.  Why? Because the NBA gets a lot of revenue from the Chinese.

If the Communist Party leaders threaten their bottom line, these "brave" defenders of free speech fold like a cheap suitcase.  Of course they never dreamed as they were getting into bed with the ChiComs that they would have to make a choice between defending freedom and tyranny.  Now that he ChiComs have them by their pocketbooks, their hearts and minds will follow.

Unlike manufacturers who moved their production to China, these entertainment companies can't repatriate their businesses. If they side with America they end up antagonizing their Chinese paymasters. Those billion Chinese as their potential customers made the CEOs of these companies slaver. And now they're stuck defending their business model.

The Washington Post even puts out a Chinese government sponsored supplement. I realize that Bezos doesn't need the money, but you have to ask how much of the WaPo bottom line comes from it's relationship with the Chinese.

The NY Times was rescued by Carlos Slim, a Mexican billionaire. Ever wonder how much Slim is connected to China and how much influence he has on the NY Times?

In our interconnected world, China's tentacles are somewhere in everyone's pocket. How much of the stuff Amazon peddles is made in China and what would Amazon's revenue look like if the American people decoupled from China?

Follow the money.