As far as I can tell, most of the reports were just recounting factual information. The narrative was already there. The media didn't create it.
This X post makes a lot of sense: https://x.com/antfeedapp/status/2120454507448651933
What do you mean by "this"? One thing I agree with is that we knew about this story for months. I've read about Jensen's affair with Alice Huang and her ties to the Chinese government at least five months ago.
The thing that triggered the current reporting was the new sourcing about U.S. intelligence findings that came out in late October. So mainstream news started reporting on it once they had sources they found trustworthy.
The confusing thing, though, is not that the story suddenly became big, but why it didn't become big much earlier.
Did they ever find the uranium in Iraq? Good luck with those guys.
Whenever I see these kinds of stories I think of this, written a century ago:
Hanlon's razor seems to apply here, so I don't really think it's a psyop. Simply information many (top secret) parties were aware of for a while that other people who are incentivized to tell everyone eventually caught up on.
I'm tired of hearing hanlon's razor tossed around. How about the inverse: I attribute malice if doing so makes the system better and explains your behavior. Even if you are just a fool, your actions impact others and have the same consequences of malice. I hold you to account like a criminal if you act like one.
I recommend watching it if the power of media interests you.
They could have easily just waited a month or two and let this all just go away.
It's the outside pressure.
Does it just come down to virtue signaling pressure?
- He is married and had multiple affairs
- He slept with a subordinate
- He slept with a business partner
- He was compromised by a Chinese spy
These are all just facts - the narrative writes itself.