Yes. Like to the infamous dossier, the media should have kept it quiet until after the election.
They failed, though and the laptop was widely reported by every media organization.
The NY Times and Washington Post have come out and confirmed the emails are real. That ship has sailed.
If they didn’t want to run with the story because they wanted to independently confirm the emails that would be at least somewhat defensible. The NY Post broke the story and they are a reputable newspaper. So even that is still iffy. But they ran stories calling the laptop and emails fake news and probable Russian disinformation. Also without taking the time to independently check. That shows clear bias.
The signatories to that well publicised letter should know better than to put out that kind of opinion without having seen any evidence one way or the other.
Nope. They are completely full of shit.
Also without taking the time to independently check. That shows clear bias.
And they weren’t given the data to check.
1 Like
…and except for conversations on Twitter where it was banned
Twitter is a garbage dump. Don’t really know what you want from me there.
1 Like
Maybe we need a social media platform that doesn’t censor anything. Maybe call it Truth Social.
1 Like
It’s a highly influential and well-followed “garbage dump” worth somewhere around $44,000,000,000.
(it matters, it might be full of people talking at each other, but it has a very wide reach.)
To make an analogy, I think this is monday morning quarterbacking without having really been able to watch the game on sunday.
I’m not sure it matter if the emails are real, if they were tampered with.
When the newspapers are sued for money on this, and as a defense they claim that they are not real news sources, or cancel a prime time show and still go to court, as had happened with Fox’s coverage of trump after the election, then i’ll be more inclined to believe there was bias.
Here’s what I would like from you:
My media sources and tech companies reported on it.
Twitter didn’t. I guess that makes twitter better? And I shouldn’t call it a garbage dump? I’m not sure.
One person’s “garbage” is another person’s $44B “treasure”.
1 Like
I’m going to need a link to these articles. I can’t imagine they were able to verify the validity of the emails, especially in the face of the data discrepancies from the emails.
No, they are a rag.
They based their opinions on all the data available to them and their extensive experience working in the intelligence field. Did you even read the letter they all signed?
Here’s a link to the NY Post story. It has an internal link to the NY Times story it references. Maybe you have access past that paywall, I don’t.
Yes I read then entire letter the intelligence experts put out. It was a carefully worded letter designed to cast serious doubt on the laptop story while stating fairly late that they hadn’t actually seen or attempted to verify anything about it. If a G2 staff member had tried that they’d have been written up for dereliction of duty.
I do. I actually remember reading the NYT article when it was published. But this is a good example of the NY Post being garbage, I appreciate you posting it for us.
From the NYT article:
People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.
So they were able to authenticate a couple of specific emails. NY Post reacted to this by claiming/implying the entirety of the content on the laptop was authenticated. That’s simply not true because we know there are impossible discrepancies in the data. At least some of the data was manipulated.
From the NY Post article:
In the heat of the presidential race of 2020, the Times never missed a chance to cast doubt on the laptop, saying the information was “purported” and quoting a letter from former Democratic officials who claimed — with no evidence — that it was Russian disinformation. As recently as September 2021, the Times called the laptop “unsubstantiated” in a news story.
Basically, they are made that the NYT didn’t jump to conclusions and instead reported the stuff that they knew at the time. Weird.
That’s at least the 2nd time you’ve said the laptop data contained impossible discrepancies or was manipulated. Where are you getting that from?
Also while IDK about the Times in particular, but CNN, NBC, and MSNBC were all over the Russian disinformation and “unsubstantiated” angle. This while there was independent corroboration of many of the emails and others being checked out. Of course you can’t substantiated every single email and file, but when you get a high enough percentage and those are embarrassing enough for the owner the rest look pretty good. Kind of like checking a sample to do data veracity tests.
Ultimately this is inference, not facts.
I think reporting on the hunter biden laptop in opinion columns was fine. And i remember that happening from a number of conservatives.
But it’s not really fact based enough to be news. I think it’s very notable that some of the same outlets that had columns did not run news stories (again as best i remember.) The NY Post was pretty much alone.
I think the “bias” is that news reporters like to report facts, not speculation. That is not quite as true for a presidential candidate. but this speculation was about biden’s son, not biden.
Isn’t the CNN story completely unrelated to the laptop story? Like the investigation in your article started two years before the laptop story, and its about tax fraud and a gun crime, not sketchy business arrangements with pops and the Ukraine.
2 Likes
Said unironically, immediately after posting a CNN.com article on the topic. With links to the New York Post and NYT in this thread.
If Hunter did something illegal, throw him in jail. I’ve never heard of a person who wants him protected. In general, the right wants him in jail because of his dad and the left wants whatever the judges/juries decide is correct. I don’t have the legal expertise to declare guilt or innocence, so let’s wait out the existing investigations and see what happens.
2 Likes
To clarify-- The NY Post is a trashy tabloid. In terms of the Murdoch empire it goes:
Wall Street Journal > Fox > New York Post / the Sun
Besides extreme bias, speculation, exaggeration, and covering their front pages with sex and blood, they are bad at facts.
Here’s a famous one–
Should add:
Giuliani told The New York Times that he chose the Post because “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”