FBI had the laptop in 2019. Good research and reporting would have made mention of that, as Redsteeze/Stephen L Miller pointed out. Instead of knee jerk “we don’t publish disinfo” perhaps NPR could have investigated and not suppressed.
FBI had the laptop in 2019. Good research and reporting would have made mention of that, as Redsteeze/Stephen L Miller pointed out. Instead of knee jerk “we don’t publish disinfo” perhaps NPR could have investigated and not suppressed.
This was the moment I stopped trusting NPR and The Intercept.
I can handle the incessant race baiting, the hours of droning on about inane and asinine culture war nonsense. I can handle LatinX. I can handle the holier-than-thou attitude, and severe lack of multiracial class conscienceness.
But burying a true story right before an election for political reasons was too much. I hated Trump and reviewed the laptop materials in October, and still voted for Biden. But the insane censorship changed how I viewed many publications. I even subscribed to the New York Post for the first time in the aftermath. You might tip the scales of a single election, NPR, but to sacrifice the trust of some segment of your audience to do so is a high price, indeed.
Wrong. They asked Hunter Biden if it was his. He didn't deny it. But instead, every untrustworthy media institution claimed in unison that the story had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation."
Hunter Biden didn't affirm or deny it, he didn't address it at all early on.
But that's not the point. The other outlets didn't have access to the contents of the laptop, to verify and put in context the NYP's stories. The NYP isn't the gold standard of reliability, and even some of their own journalists refused to have their byline on the stories, which were full of spin.
You show your own untrustworthiness when you claim all the media said the laptop story had the hallmarks of disinfo. They mostly didn't claim that. They reported that some experts believed that. Quite plausibly, given the timing.
You are so dishonest. "Neither confirm now deny" is a spook tactic. If it wasn't his then he would have denied it. He never did, because he knew it was his. This was enough evidence for me to comb through what was published in 2020. I saw those pictures of Hunter Biden smoking crack in October 2020. And you know what? I still voted for Joe. But mainstream journalists performed an act of partisanship and buried the story until after the election, forever tarnishing their reputations.
Ha, look inward about honesty. You don't say anything that remotely implies any on my part. And now read what I actually said, which you don't reply to.
No, the mainstream media didn't bury the story. It was widely covered in the US press before the election, as you implied yourself in your earlier post. NPR didn't cover it except online, though.
It wasn't widely covered before the election, it was completely buried. The original newspaper that reported it was literally banned from Twitter. A bunch of CIA spooks disinformed the media outlets by pre-bunking the story, which they then erroneously labeled "Russian disinformation." There was evidence of Hunter Biden smoking crack that was reported before the 2020 election, and every single Democratic partisan thought it was Russian disinformation, thanks to outlets like NPR and the New York Times and the Washington Post. And none of them have ever apologized for intentionally misleading their audiences for political gain.
If you want me to take you seriously, say "Hunter Biden smoked crack, took pictures of himself smoking crack, and those pictures are legitimate evidence of his crack addiction."
Again, the media didn't label it Russian disinfo. Again, they reported what a group of experts said about that. No, there wasn't any intentional misleading, apart perhaps from what the NYP was doing, which even some of its own journalists refused to put their byline on. The experts said what they believed was probable, and it was reported that way.
The story was banned from Twitter for one day, on the basis of being hacked material. The ban was lifted the next day. It was all over Twitter and social media in general.
No, the story wasn't buried, as I already pointed out to you. You can easily verify that yourself. These are only the results that Google has dated, there are no doubt also undated ones:
Hunter smoking crack was never the heart of the story. The NYP repeatedly claimed their secret stash of emails showed Joe Biden was complicit in Hunter's corruption. That wasn't true.
You can't state the true information that I asked you to state, so I can't take you seriously. You don't care about the truth. You care about what makes your preferred political party look good.
I have to agree most news feeds today are not reporting news. They are posting their opinions. True reporting never included this in the past. Opinions like assholes everybody's got one. If you're a national or even regional voice the job is to report as a reporter even journalist. Not to opine. If this were the job it would be called opinionist I would have to think.
I've given up on TV news that is paid by narratives. I've turned to interview based podcasts that don't tend to follow anyone's narrative. Namely I like Joe Rogan. He isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but seems pretty normal and willing to learn about the things his guests bring to his shows. I used to not like him thought he was a 90s douche bag. Grew on me I guess. The other guy I like to listen to is Shawn Ryan former operative. However he tried magic mushrooms and found a better path. What i like to call hippie warrior. Still has his head on straight but learned to see life through his 3rd eye as well. Some would say that's hypocritical but I must beg to differ. God didn't say how many times one has to turn the other cheek. So that why I like him. I see Trump as the guy that has let the right know it's OK to fight back and don't take shit. But try with words and lawyers and sanctions first. I that didnt work try a precise missile hit next. Anyway that got a little long but, my opinion is small. All one can hope for later in life is a good companion by your side.
Investigate what? The only people with knowledge of the facts weren't willing to share them with any but sources friendly to Trump. That included the NYP. The FBI wasn't making it public either.
“We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just distractions.” Terrence Samuels, NPR’s Managing Editor for News on the NY Post Hunter Biden story. 10/22/2020
FBI had the laptop in 2019. Good research and reporting would have made mention of that, as Redsteeze/Stephen L Miller pointed out. Instead of knee jerk “we don’t publish disinfo” perhaps NPR could have investigated and not suppressed.
This was the moment I stopped trusting NPR and The Intercept.
I can handle the incessant race baiting, the hours of droning on about inane and asinine culture war nonsense. I can handle LatinX. I can handle the holier-than-thou attitude, and severe lack of multiracial class conscienceness.
But burying a true story right before an election for political reasons was too much. I hated Trump and reviewed the laptop materials in October, and still voted for Biden. But the insane censorship changed how I viewed many publications. I even subscribed to the New York Post for the first time in the aftermath. You might tip the scales of a single election, NPR, but to sacrifice the trust of some segment of your audience to do so is a high price, indeed.
The FBI wasn't sharing their info with news orgs, and neither was NYP. They had no way to know the story was well founded until later.
Wrong. They asked Hunter Biden if it was his. He didn't deny it. But instead, every untrustworthy media institution claimed in unison that the story had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation."
Hunter Biden didn't affirm or deny it, he didn't address it at all early on.
But that's not the point. The other outlets didn't have access to the contents of the laptop, to verify and put in context the NYP's stories. The NYP isn't the gold standard of reliability, and even some of their own journalists refused to have their byline on the stories, which were full of spin.
You show your own untrustworthiness when you claim all the media said the laptop story had the hallmarks of disinfo. They mostly didn't claim that. They reported that some experts believed that. Quite plausibly, given the timing.
You are so dishonest. "Neither confirm now deny" is a spook tactic. If it wasn't his then he would have denied it. He never did, because he knew it was his. This was enough evidence for me to comb through what was published in 2020. I saw those pictures of Hunter Biden smoking crack in October 2020. And you know what? I still voted for Joe. But mainstream journalists performed an act of partisanship and buried the story until after the election, forever tarnishing their reputations.
Ha, look inward about honesty. You don't say anything that remotely implies any on my part. And now read what I actually said, which you don't reply to.
No, the mainstream media didn't bury the story. It was widely covered in the US press before the election, as you implied yourself in your earlier post. NPR didn't cover it except online, though.
It wasn't widely covered before the election, it was completely buried. The original newspaper that reported it was literally banned from Twitter. A bunch of CIA spooks disinformed the media outlets by pre-bunking the story, which they then erroneously labeled "Russian disinformation." There was evidence of Hunter Biden smoking crack that was reported before the 2020 election, and every single Democratic partisan thought it was Russian disinformation, thanks to outlets like NPR and the New York Times and the Washington Post. And none of them have ever apologized for intentionally misleading their audiences for political gain.
If you want me to take you seriously, say "Hunter Biden smoked crack, took pictures of himself smoking crack, and those pictures are legitimate evidence of his crack addiction."
You're not reading what you reply to.
Again, the media didn't label it Russian disinfo. Again, they reported what a group of experts said about that. No, there wasn't any intentional misleading, apart perhaps from what the NYP was doing, which even some of its own journalists refused to put their byline on. The experts said what they believed was probable, and it was reported that way.
The story was banned from Twitter for one day, on the basis of being hacked material. The ban was lifted the next day. It was all over Twitter and social media in general.
No, the story wasn't buried, as I already pointed out to you. You can easily verify that yourself. These are only the results that Google has dated, there are no doubt also undated ones:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hunter+biden+laptop&sca_esv=725efba4277893af&rls=en&cs=0&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:10/15/2020,cd_max:11/3/2020&sxsrf=ACQVn08VTTqbOAndmTSEq70xVmsWIL_ACg:1713372402072&filter=0&biw=946&bih=915&dpr=2
Hunter smoking crack was never the heart of the story. The NYP repeatedly claimed their secret stash of emails showed Joe Biden was complicit in Hunter's corruption. That wasn't true.
Look inward.
You can't state the true information that I asked you to state, so I can't take you seriously. You don't care about the truth. You care about what makes your preferred political party look good.
Hey, do you have links to any actual proof?
I have links showing that not a single member of the "left wing media" stated that the laptop was Russian Disinfo.
It's not hard to find.
Just look on the "left wing media"
I'll give you 5$ if you can find a single instance of mainstream media stating that the laptop *is* disinformation.
You really can't read. Amazing resistance to plain fact.
I have to agree most news feeds today are not reporting news. They are posting their opinions. True reporting never included this in the past. Opinions like assholes everybody's got one. If you're a national or even regional voice the job is to report as a reporter even journalist. Not to opine. If this were the job it would be called opinionist I would have to think.
I've given up on TV news that is paid by narratives. I've turned to interview based podcasts that don't tend to follow anyone's narrative. Namely I like Joe Rogan. He isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but seems pretty normal and willing to learn about the things his guests bring to his shows. I used to not like him thought he was a 90s douche bag. Grew on me I guess. The other guy I like to listen to is Shawn Ryan former operative. However he tried magic mushrooms and found a better path. What i like to call hippie warrior. Still has his head on straight but learned to see life through his 3rd eye as well. Some would say that's hypocritical but I must beg to differ. God didn't say how many times one has to turn the other cheek. So that why I like him. I see Trump as the guy that has let the right know it's OK to fight back and don't take shit. But try with words and lawyers and sanctions first. I that didnt work try a precise missile hit next. Anyway that got a little long but, my opinion is small. All one can hope for later in life is a good companion by your side.
Then you're literally insane. :)
I still listen to NPR and read The Intercept. I just don't trust them like I used to, is all.
Investigate what? The only people with knowledge of the facts weren't willing to share them with any but sources friendly to Trump. That included the NYP. The FBI wasn't making it public either.
Naturally Miller ignored all that.
What did they suppress? Seriously? Try again.
“We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just distractions.” Terrence Samuels, NPR’s Managing Editor for News on the NY Post Hunter Biden story. 10/22/2020