3 ms·
The reporters at the New York Post thought the story was so dubious that they refused to be named in the byline, and the basic premise directly contradicts the
by jounker 6y ago
The reporters at the New York Post thought the story was so dubious that they refused to be named in the byline, and the basic premise directly contradicts the historical (and easily verifiable) facts surrounding the Shokin’s removal.
- googthrowaway42 6y agoThe reporters who wrote the story were so skeptical of what they wrote they didn't add their names to their own story... that they themselves wrote. That's pretty stupid and unlikely. More likely, people were concerned about the real world ramifications of having their names on the story (e.g. getting killed or harassed). I understand that this is a talking point but use your brain.
- hackyhacky 6y agoNice try, but the reporters in question explained their reason for not wanting their names on it. [1] [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-insiders-slag-flimsy-hunter-biden-stories.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-inside... "Use your brain" indeed.