The Real Scandal: U.S. Media Uses Falsehoods To Defend Joe Biden From Hunter's Emails

[jeremyemilio]

There is a Russian disinformation campaign, but it's not a conspiracy theory, and it's not spinning away from the false allegations. Those are related but separate stories.



The story is the political dirty tricks, not that "a candidate's son might be under investigation."

Yes. There is definitely a Russian disinformation campaign. This campaign includes a lot of disinformation meant to rile up Republicans and Trump supporters against Democrats. It also includes a lot of disinformation meant to rile up Democrats and Black Lives Matter against Law Enforcement and American Institutions.

There is no evidence that it includes the Hunter Biden laptop. But that has not stopped large news sources from mixing these two stories:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden-reliable/index.html

I also agree that there are political dirty tricks at work. But the question is why the media on the right only plays into the political dirty tricks of the right, and never touches the political dirty tricks of the left, while the media on the left only plays into the political dirty tricks of the left, and never touches the political dirty tricks of the right.

Turnabout is fair play, of course. But if that's the approach you're taking, you need to stop pretending to be anything other than the mirror view of Fox News and the NY Post and everything that left leaning media outlets pretend to loath.

It's all about the political angle. Nobody wants to tell the truth anymore, and that's a problem.

Trump is going to lose on Tuesday. Most reasonable people can agree, that's a good thing. He's an awful person, let alone being a complete clown of a president.

But Biden is going to be president, and while he's awful in a more conventional sense, it doesn't change the fact that the guy is a total nosebleed. The guy's not worth the cover some people, and some media sources, give him. I understand the Trump hatred, but that's probably best expressed in making the case against Trump, not in selling your soul for Biden.

Hell, I actually liked Hilary, and even still you won't catch me pretending that she didn't F up and delete thousands of emails, many of them work related.

I like Obama, but you won't catch me pretending he didn't order the death of a US citizen and then defend it by having his Attorney General claim that the President can kill anyone he perceives to be a national security threat and has no burden to prove, before or after the fact, that the person killed actually is/was a national security threat.

I liked McCain, but you won't catch me pretending he didn't put Palin on the the ticket, unvetted, in a cynical attempt to leverage the disappointment of women voters feeling betrayed by Hillary's primary loss to Obama, built on the stupid (and offensive) assumption that for a large segment of these voters, any woman would do.

And as much as I think Giuliani (who actually once did very positive things for the people of NYC) has become a parody of himself, I also think there's an awful lot to point to the probability that Hunter Biden has been up to no good, and a non negligible chance that Joe has been pulled into that in some way, seeing as Hunter's relationship to his father would seem to be at least part of his value in these foreign dealings.

 

[ocfightfan]

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored


it's too long to paste here (and it would be too annoying to fix the format issues it would bring)

additionally,

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-editors-showing

And social media too.

 

[LuchaBear]

I'm not so sure what the hell is going on with this Hunter Biden shit but I do agree with him on how reporters and the media have been treating Biden like a lovable grandpa this whole time and there's a clear bias because of them all wanting Biden to win or because bringing any negative attention to Biden is going to get them shit on by everyone else for having the nerve to make things harder for that to happen.. This type of pile on is no different than what he recently described on Joe Rogan with how Martina Navratilova spoke up against trans athletes in female sports and what happened after to her.

It's either get in line or get labeled the enemy. We're in some very odd times

 

[ElKarlo]

I'm not so sure what the hell is going on with this Hunter Biden shit but I do agree with him on how reporters and the media have been treating Biden like a lovable grandpa this whole time and there's a clear bias because of them all wanting Biden to win or because bringing any negative attention to Biden is going to get them shit on by everyone else for having the nerve to make things harder for that to happen.. This type of pile on is no different than what he recently described on Joe Rogan with how Martina Navratilova spoke up against trans athletes in female sports and what happened after to her.

It's either get in line or get labeled the enemy. We're in some very odd times

What I've been saying is that why happens to this power thst MSM and big tech wields once Trump is out? It's going to go after all of us.
UHC comes out and its roll out is botched? Guess what, the government and lobbyists didn't do anything wrong, the new scapegoat did it and they are the new enemy of the poeple.

 

[LuchaBear]

What I've been saying is that why happens to this power thst MSM and big tech wields once Trump is out? It's going to go after all of us.
UHC comes out and its roll out is botched? Guess what, the government and lobbyists didn't do anything wrong, the new scapegoat did it and they are the new enemy of the poeple.

9/11 was used as an excuse to take away people's privacy and Trump will be used as one for many other things as time goes on.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes. There is definitely a Russian disinformation campaign. This campaign includes a lot of disinformation meant to rile up Republicans and Trump supporters against Democrats. It also includes a lot of disinformation meant to rile up Democrats and Black Lives Matter against Law Enforcement and American Institutions.

There is no evidence that it includes the Hunter Biden laptop. But that has not stopped large news sources from mixing these two stories:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden-reliable/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden-reliable/index.html

Did you read that link? Doesn't seem to support your claim, and I don't think you'll find any real examples of mainstream news sources mixing the stories. If you did read the link and your objection was just the parenthetical comment "Giuliani incidentally has openly coordinated with a known Russian agent to promote disinformation about the Bidens," which is a true statement and relevant to the story, I think that (i.e., that the story mixes the Russian disinformation campaign with the Hunter Biden story in an inappropriate way) is a misleading characterization.

I also agree that there are political dirty tricks at work. But the question is why the media on the right only plays into the political dirty tricks of the right, and never touches the political dirty tricks of the left, while the media on the left only plays into the political dirty tricks of the left, and never touches the political dirty tricks of the right.

Turnabout is fair play, of course. But if that's the approach you're taking, you need to stop pretending to be anything other than the mirror view of Fox News and the NY Post and everything that left leaning media outlets pretend to loath.

Not sure what you mean by the media on the left. Is that just a reference to the non-partisan MSM that hasn't been amplifying the smear to the degree that the Trump campaign would like?

It's all about the political angle. Nobody wants to tell the truth anymore, and that's a problem.

I think the problem here from the perspective of people who want the accusations to be given more play is the opposite, that the MSM has been too diligent in not repeating falsities.

Trump is going to lose on Tuesday. Most reasonable people can agree, that's a good thing. He's an awful person, let alone being a complete clown of a president.

But Biden is going to be president, and while he's awful in a more conventional sense, it doesn't change the fact that the guy is a total nosebleed. The guy's not worth the cover some people, and some media sources, give him. I understand the Trump hatred, but that's probably best expressed in making the case against Trump, not in selling your soul for Biden.

Hypothetically, I agree no one should sell their soul for anyone. I hardly think that anyone in the media is doing that for Biden, though! It's interesting to compare Biden's run this time to Trump's in 2015-2016. Like Trump, Biden's coalition has been less visible to the big-city media and the Twitterati, and as a result, even though he was ahead in the primary polls almost from start to finish, the media didn't seem to get it, and his eventual win seemed to be a big surprise. Trump was then covered as a sensation, and the media rushed to produce a whole genre of story profiling Trump supporters in backwards towns and diners. Biden has gotten nothing like that, and I get the sense that many consumers of mainstream media still have no idea why he's so popular.

And as much as I think Giuliani (who actually once did very positive things for the people of NYC) has become a parody of himself, I also think there's an awful lot to point to the probability that Hunter Biden has been up to no good, and a non negligible chance that Joe has been pulled into that in some way, seeing as Hunter's relationship to his father would seem to be at least part of his value in these foreign dealings.

I would bet against anything like that turning out to be true. We know that in the case of Burisma, Biden did the exact opposite of what the company wanted, and his long-term record speaks for itself.

 

[Stoic1]

A second Hunter Biden laptop is now with the DEA.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/31/feds-reportedly-seized-second-hunter-biden-laptop-in-february/
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1720474/hunter-biden-second-laptop-seized-government-scandal/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...top-taken-into-custody-during-dea-raid-report

 

[jeremyemilio]

Did you read that link? Doesn't seem to support your claim, and I don't think you'll find any real examples of mainstream news sources mixing the stories. If you did read the link and your objection was just the parenthetical comment "Giuliani incidentally has openly coordinated with a known Russian agent to promote disinformation about the Bidens," which is a true statement and relevant to the story, I think that (i.e., that the story mixes the Russian disinformation campaign with the Hunter Biden story in an inappropriate way) is a misleading characterization.

Not sure what you mean by the media on the left. Is that just a reference to the non-partisan MSM that hasn't been amplifying the smear to the degree that the Trump campaign would like?

I think the problem here from the perspective of people who want the accusations to be given more play is the opposite, that the MSM has been too diligent in not repeating falsities.

Hypothetically, I agree no one should sell their soul for anyone. I hardly think that anyone in the media is doing that for Biden, though! It's interesting to compare Biden's run this time to Trump's in 2015-2016. Like Trump, Biden's coalition has been less visible to the big-city media and the Twitterati, and as a result, even though he was ahead in the primary polls almost from start to finish, the media didn't seem to get it, and his eventual win seemed to be a big surprise. Trump was then covered as a sensation, and the media rushed to produce a whole genre of story profiling Trump supporters in backwards towns and diners. Biden has gotten nothing like that, and I get the sense that many consumers of mainstream media still have no idea why he's so popular.

I would bet against anything like that turning out to be true. We know that in the case of Burisma, Biden did the exact opposite of what the company wanted, and his long-term record speaks for itself.

It's honestly hopeless even trying to discuss these sorts of things with partisans. But here's one more try at what I'm attempting to get at.

In 2016 Anderson Cooper gave the better part of an hour to a woman, Jessica Leeds, who claimed that Trump had groped her on a plane ride in the 1980s. There was zero corroborating evidence. And when I say zero, I mean zero:

Leeds couldn't prove she had ever been on a plane with Trump.
She couldn't tell anyone where she was flying from or too.
She couldn't tell anyone what time of year it was.
She couldn't tell anyone what year it was.
She couldn't produce a single person she had told of the incident at the time, because she told no one for thirty years, until Trump was running for President.
She couldn't even give an explanation as to why she was flying in first class (according to her story, there was an extra seat and she was bumped up).

Zero evidence. Just a claim by a woman who couldn't even prove the most basic aspect of her story, that she had indeed once flown on a plane on which Trump was also a passenger.

That didn't stop Cooper from flying her to Atlanta, in the lead up to an election, to devote an entire show to covering her uncorroborated story:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/14/jessica-leeds-intv-anderson-cooper-ac-part-1.cnn

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/14/jessica-leeds-intv-anderson-cooper-ac-part-2.cnn

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/14/jessica-leeds-intv-anderson-cooper-ac-part-3.cnn

And don't take me wrong, here. Her story may well be true. But it was entirely and completely uncorroborated from any conventional journalistic perspective.

That same media (Cooper himself, CNN, and a host of others) resisted the Tara Reade story for as long as possible, and when they did finally acknowledge it, covered it in a way that highlighted every hole they could find, despite the fact that there was infinitely more evidence to corroborate Reade's story than there ever was to corroborate Leeds's:

We know she indeed worked for Biden.
We know that she was removed from her position working with interns suddenly.
Two or three people went on record to say that Reade had told them at the time.
There is even footage of what, by all accounts, seems to be Reade's mother calling in to Larry King to discuss her daughter being harassed and mistreated by a sitting senator.

There is no defensible reason why Cooper, CNN, et al, would cover these two stories so differently if they were truly, as you suggest, simply "non-partisan MSM" who are being cautious about "amplifying [a] smear."

The Hunter Biden story follows the same pattern. That pattern is baked in the cake with all political stories. It's okay for you to dislike Trump and want to see him lose the election. It's not okay for you to deny the reality that the the outlets you describe as the "non-partisan MSM" are, in fact, demonstrably partisan in their coverage.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's honestly hopeless even trying to discuss these sorts of things with partisans. But here's one more try at what I'm attempting to get at.

That's been my experience, too. Also with people who reflexively accuse anyone who points out flaws in their arguments of partisanship.

The Hunter Biden story follows the same pattern. That pattern is baked in the cake with all political stories. It's okay for you to dislike Trump and want to see him lose the election. It's not okay for you to deny the reality that the the outlets you describe as the "non-partisan MSM" are, in fact, demonstrably partisan in their coverage.

Right, but this presumes that your CT is true. If the non-partisan MSM isn't, in fact, secretly plotting to help Biden, pointing out that the treatment of the Hunter Biden story is consistent with normal journalistic best practices is a useful corrective to Republican propaganda. The key here is that one must first grant the possibility that the GOP narrative about the media could be wrong. From there, it is a short step toward seeing the reality that it is.

 

[jeremyemilio]

That's been my experience, too. Also with people who reflexively accuse anyone who points out flaws in their arguments of partisanship.



Right, but this presumes that your CT is true. If the non-partisan MSM isn't, in fact, secretly plotting to help Biden, pointing out that the treatment of the Hunter Biden story is consistent with normal journalistic best practices is a useful corrective to Republican propaganda.

There was an awful lot more to my post than that. What is your response to the way that Jessica Leeds was covered in comparison with the way that Tara Reade was covered?

I put that there to prove my point that the outlets you have labeled as being part of the "non-partisan MSM" are, indeed, partisan in their coverage. Am I missing something in my comparison? Or am I right?

 

[Jack V Savage]

There was an awful lot more to my post than that. What is your response to the way that Jessica Leeds was covered in comparison with the way that Tara Reade was covered?

The indication of total close-mindedness in the post disinclined me to put forth the effort to engage in all that. Having read through all that stuff at the time, I think it was clear that the Reade stuff was false, even before it fell apart.

I put that there to prove my point that the outlets you have labeled as being part of the "non-partisan MSM" are, indeed, partisan in their coverage. Am I missing something in my comparison? Or am I right?

I distinguish between openly partisan outlets, like Fox, and non-partisan media that follows a different model (regardless of whether people think that they succeed at their mission of politically neutral reporting). Should be possible to separate a discussion about that parenthetical point from the labeling. Some outlets at some times make decisions I would criticize, but when Breitbart makes bad decisions, that's not a deviation from their mission; it's part of the mission, which is understood by consumers and critics alike.

 

[PhitePhan]

There was an awful lot more to my post than that. What is your response to the way that Jessica Leeds was covered in comparison with the way that Tara Reade was covered?

I put that there to prove my point that the outlets you have labeled as being part of the "non-partisan MSM" are, indeed, partisan in their coverage. Am I missing something in my comparison? Or am I right?

LOL, you’ve never “debated” Jack before I take it?

 

[jeremyemilio]

The indication of total close-mindedness in the post disinclined me to put forth the effort to engage in all that. Having read through all that stuff at the time, I think it was clear that the Reade stuff was false, even before it fell apart.

I distinguish between openly partisan outlets, like Fox, and non-partisan media that follows a different model (regardless of whether people think that they succeed at their mission of politically neutral reporting). Should be possible to separate a discussion about that parenthetical point from the labeling. Some outlets at some times, make decisions I would criticize, but when Breitbart makes bad decisions, that's not a deviation from their mission; it's part of the mission, which is understood by consumers and critics alike.

It's odd to me that you won't address the fact that CNN ran from the Tara Reade story (and yes, like all stories of sexual assault to emerge years after the fact, it's tough to prove either true or false, but I really don't see how it "fell apart," by the way) but gave Jessica Leeds almost the entirety of an episode to discuss a completely uncorroborated (uncorroborated as in, zero evidence they ever even took the same flight) story with Anderson Cooper.

Clearly that was a partisan decision, no?

I'm not a partisan by any stretch. My posting history, whether in Covid, or BLM, or the upcoming election is pretty self evident. And I certainly don't support Trump. And I've expressed agreement with you on a number of things. But that doesn't stop your from avoiding legit engagement with my point by simply brushing me off for my "close-mindedness."

 

[ElKarlo]

9/11 was used as an excuse to take away people's privacy and Trump will be used as one for many other things as time goes on.

Agreed. 9-11 was just the excuse needed go the Patriot act to be passed. And it's still in force now

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's odd to me that you won't address the fact that CNN ran from the Tara Reade story (and yes, like all stories of sexual assault to emerge years after the fact, it's tough to prove either true or false, but I really don't see how it "fell apart," by the way) but gave Jessica Leeds almost the entirety of an episode to discuss a completely uncorroborated (uncorroborated as in, zero evidence they ever even took the same flight) story with Anderson Cooper.

Clearly that was a partisan decision, no?

I'm not a partisan by any stretch. My posting history, whether in Covid, or BLM, or the upcoming election is pretty self evident. And I certainly don't support Trump. And I've expressed agreement with you on a number of things. But that doesn't stop your from avoiding legit engagement with my point by simply brushing me off for my "close-mindedness."

Your characterization of the evidence in the Leeds case is not accurate. And what I was referring to was your decision not to engage with the substance of the post you were responding to (which appears fatal to your case) and instead to attack my motives and shift the discussion. It's not a tactic that encourages discussion.

 

[Prefect]

A second Hunter Biden laptop is now with the DEA.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/31/feds-reportedly-seized-second-hunter-biden-laptop-in-february/
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1720474/hunter-biden-second-laptop-seized-government-scandal/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...top-taken-into-custody-during-dea-raid-report

Are there any more dick picks for trumpers to get all hard over?

THEY NEED MORE HUGE WHITE COCK.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Your characterization of the evidence in the Leeds case is not accurate. And what I was referring to was your decision not to engage with the substance of the post you were responding to (which appears fatal to your case) and instead to attack my motives and shift the discussion. It's not a tactic that encourages discussion.

I was directly responding to your declaration, in your post, that the group I had described as being left leaning media were, according to you, the "non-partisan MSM." I didn't attack your motives or shift the discussion. I was simply responding.

My characterization of the evidence in the Leeds case is absolutely accurate (as is my characterization of the evidence in the Tara Reade case). There was some later discussion that the flight was from Dallas to somewhere in New York, but that was after the left leaning media picked it up, and it doesn't add much. She also said she was on a 707, which wasn't flying at the time, and somewhere along the line the time period moved from the "early 80s" to sometime in 1979.

As I said, I don't disbelieve Jessica Leeds. I'm simply pointing out that she was given most of an hour on AC 360 despite having no corroborating evidence.

Neither do I know if Reade is telling the truth. But I certainly know there is much more corroborating evidence in her case than in the Leeds case. And yet, the "non-partisan MSM" didn't treat her nearly as well nor her story as being nearly as credible.

 

[Stoic1]

Are there any more dick picks for trumpers to get all hard over?

THEY NEED MORE HUGE WHITE COCK.

You seem....fixated.

First talking about my small dick and now this.

I think you're a repressed homosexual. It's 2020 and nobody cares. Just come out of the closet already.

 

[Prefect]

You seem....fixated.

First talking about my small dick and now this.

I think you're a repressed homosexual. It's 2020 and nobody cares. Just come out of the closet already.

What do you say about a political party when its smear is releasing pictures ,maybe real maybe fake, of someone partying hard and fucking a bunch of women with a huge cock? It kind of goes to show how fucking boring their idea of life is. You guys so got him with that smear.

 

[Stoic1]

What do you say about a political party when its smear is releasing pictures ,maybe real maybe fake, of someone partying hard and fucking a bunch of women with a huge cock? It kind of goes to show how fucking boring their idea of life is. You guys so got him with that smear.

Bro, I am happily married 20 years.

It isn't going to work out. Enough with the subtle sexual inuendo.

Stop with the cock talk.

There are a few gay members here already and they might be more receptive.