4 ms·

You're propagating disinfo - in the real sense of the word, not the modern Orwellian meaning - with this line of criticism. Because this is a story that has abs

You're propagating disinfo - in the real sense of the word, not the modern Orwellian meaning - with this line of criticism. Because this is a story that has absolutely been vetted, but the issue is all of the left-leaning mainstream media (read: literally everyone except parts of Fox News) have absolutely refused to cover this story. Do you really believe if the same story were about a member of the Trump family, that NPR would refuse to cover it? One more point on credibility - we literally have videos, images, text messages, e-mails of which the other recipients have been confirmed - this is all basically undeniable at this point. So the only question is, is the actual story of how the material was obtained (the laptop repair shop) true, or was the material hacked and then they basically used parallel construction to hide the true origins? That's a fine question to ask, but if you think that the material itself is false that's just completely incredible.

ehsankia 6y ago
Take a minute to step back. What do you think is more probable. That every single news organization out there, every single journalist, including NPR as you mention, are trying to hide this very real story and are wrong, while the one publication is in the right. Or that maybe, just maybe, it's the other way around and NYP published something that has not been well vetted?
- blhack 6y ago
  Every single journalist? What about Glenn Greenwald? How about Matt Taibi?
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Err, sorry I meant publication. What other large real publication has been willing to back up NYP?
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      No mainstream publication has been willing to do so. And IMO, that should be seen as an indictment of the state of the modern corporate press, as opposed to an indication that the story lacks veracity. As we've seen repeatedly over the last four years, the mainstream media is happy to amplify absurd stories - the Trump "suckers and losers" story which was quickly debunked, the entire Russia Collusion narrative, etc - if it serves their own interests. So to view what is reported in the mainstream media as the barometer of what is true is to commit an enormous error.
      - ehsankia 6y ago
        I'm sorry, I'll still rather take their word than those of a random internet stranger. And I'd like to see your proof of the "suckers and losers" story being "easily debunked, when it not only came from multiple sources, but it even matches very easily to actual public things Trump has said or implied, or the fact that he himself is a war dodger. And again, as stated above, take a moment to consider what you're actually implying. That publications such as NPR, AP, BBC, Reuters, some of the least partisan and most trusted news source with the hardest working journalist dedicated their life to communicating the facts. You're claiming that they are hiding the truth in some big conspiracy and that your one flaky source is the one telling the truth? Cmon man, don't be an old facebook grampa...
        __blockcipher__ 6y ago
        For suckers and losers, there is an e-mail that has been verified that confirmed that due to weather Trump never made the visit. The story was also denied by Bolton who is very anti-trump.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  > What do you think is more probable. That every single news organization out there, every single journalist, including NPR as you mention, are trying to hide this very real story and are wrong, while the one publication is in the right. Or that maybe, just maybe, it's the other way around and NYP published something that has not been well vetted? Great thought exercise. I'm happy to inform you that I have actually already considered both scenarios and am confident that it really is this: > every single news organization out there, every single journalist, including NPR as you mention, are trying to hide this very real story and are wrong If you look back at the media in the last four years that shouldn't be as surprising as you are implying. Although I take issue with "every single journalist", since the point of Greenwald's piece, among others, is that even if one journalist wants to tell the truth, they will be suppressed. --- To go more concrete here though, are you specifically claim that the materials are not real, or that the story of how they were acquired is false? The former is absolutely undeniable; the latter is up for debate but I personally don't even think the laptop repair shop story is fabricated. I personally watched (part of) the video of Hunter Biden smoking crack while receiving a footjob, so unless you think it's a body double or a deepfake there is no doubt in my mind that these documents are real. Furthermore the big smoking gun is the financial documents which should be trivially easy for a journalist to debunk. So if you want to question how the materials are acquired, go ahead, but the documents themselves are real, and they show very questionable business dealings in China, Ukraine, and Russia. BTW, the existence for years now of the Russia Collusion hoax - namely, the debunked notion that Trump is a vassal of Vladimir Putin and directly colluded with Russia to win the US election - should tell us everything we need to know about the intellectual integrity of the corporate press.
- blumomo 6y ago
  In a democracy majority should decide what to do. But it’s not the majority who decides what _is true_. Marc Twain used to say: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” (Interestingly you’re demanding the same: taking time to step back ;)
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Your analogy doesn't really apply. These publications are all top of their field reporters. That's like saying 99% of scientist agreeing that vaccines work doesn't mean the majority is right. In a normal population you may be right, but in a field of experts, I'm happy sticking with the majority than with the one random scientist who believes in satanic rituals telling me hydroxychloroquine works.
    - blumomo 6y ago
      Mhm, do all these many doctors of https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ look like a single random scientist who believes in satanic rituals?
      - ehsankia 6y ago
        They are still in the clear minority, just like those 3% of climate scientist who refuse to believe in climate change. The fact that the president wasn't given HCQ is all the proof you need to know how effective it is.
        chrisco255 6y ago
        Science is a method not a popularity contest. But there have been dozens of studies showing HCQs efficacy: https://c19study.com/ https://c19study.com/
        hhw 6y ago
        That site appears to be making some obviously false claims in its analysis. For instance, tt makes this claim: "100% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.002." Note that the only RCT with positive results is https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v... Which was late, not early. Meanwhile, quickly searching through all the RCT's listed, there's 5 that are negative and 10 that were inconclusive (i.e. showed no benefit). So there's 15 to 1 against the effectiveness of HCQ using the highest standard of study (RCT's), yet somehow that site attempts to represent that as 100% of 'early' RCT's showing positive results.
- colordrops 6y ago
  Try this 30 second test on WaPo about the "Majority Illusion": https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/majority-illusion/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/ma... Then, with this in mind, look at the fact that almost all media is controlled by less entities than you can count on your two hands (assuming you have ten fingers): https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redditmedia.com%2Fbuo2w6yjA-McsQoolC5012z78EI24MMm_a9BptCDbSc.png%3Fw%3D320%26s%3D37bfe66ef88be0228c8717d9595416b6&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.news.alphastreet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F07%2FMarket-share-of-social-media-platforms-June-2019.jpg&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  I'm inclined to agree that this story probably leads to nothing, either because it is absolutely nothing or because the corruption here is too vague to nail down (that's the smart kind to do). But after living through the media's credulity toward the war on terror, credulity toward the war on drugs, credulity toward the satanic panic of the 90s, credulity toward the broken forensics that have gotten innocent people executed, dismissal of Juanita Broaddrick and vilification of Edward Snowden, I'm inclined to believe they are totally capable of a kind of mass group think without any need for a belief in a kind of conspiracy.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    I may not have first hand experience with some of the older examples you give, but "vilification of Edward Snowden" makes no sense, considering 3 of the biggest news publications were the ones who were tasked with spreading Snowden's documents in the first place. How are they vilifying him if they're literally helping him spread the word? I think you're using "The media" very liberally there. Were there pundits on some cable channel vilifying him? Sure. But that is in no way equivalent to every single major news publication refusing to back NYP on this report.
    - DubiousPusher 6y ago
      That's a fair argument and Snowden is the weakest of those examples. But I think the credibility media outlets lent the security apparatchiks in responding to the crisis colored the revelations in a negative way for many Americans.
- babesh 6y ago
  What an idiotic statement. You could have said the exact same thing about the second Iraqi war. Also the conservative media is jumping all over this. Perhaps it’s only the media that you choose to believe.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    The "conservat media" is reblogging it, not investigator it. Tucker Carlson is telling absurd lies that he "lost the evidence in the mail" before making copies of it.
    - jazzyk 6y ago
      UPS says they found the missing package. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/fox-news-tucker-carlson-mocked-for-lost-in-the-mail-biden-documents-claim https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/fox-news-tucke...
    - babesh 6y ago
      And the liberal media isn’t investigating either. All politicized.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      He did not say "before making copies". I watched that segment, and he did not say that. Now, he didn't make it clear that he had made copies in the segment, but in other venues he did assert that copies were made. UPS also acknowledged that the package was indeed opened and the contents missing (though they did find them later). The point, as he admitted in a text to journalist Roger Sollenberger, was that he was convinced that someone was monitoring his texts. That may be paranoid speculation, but it is not a lie.
- refurb 6y ago
  Were you around for the early 2000's Iraq War? Because that's exactly what happened.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  No, every left wing news organization buried it. Even though those same organizations were happy to publish accusations of a supreme court committing gang rapes with no basis. Fox covered it. NYP covered it. Independent journalists covered it. Left wing corporates did not. Given the events of the past few years, with the media spending 3 years of our precious existence on salacious and false Russia conspiracy theories...maybe just maybe the NY Post has it right.
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    Fox and NYP are both Murdoch-controlled and are located at the same address. They don't count as independent verification from one another. NYP has had access to the hard drive for two weeks. Independent journalists do not. Left wing corporates do not have access to the hard drive and don't run stories when they can't vet it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Their editorial teams are independent. Yes they're right leaning, but you can't expect the left wing to report on its own these days. As for the laptop contents, they've been leaked on the internet already. And yes they do run stories when they can't vet it. They lost a settlement with Nick Sandmann over it: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/washington-post-sandmann-settlement-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/washington-post-sandman... They don't have to physically hold every piece of evidence and forensically investigate it in order to report a story. No one did that with the Snowden story that Glennwald broke. That's ridiculous. You simply frame it as "Documents Reportedly Show Biden Family Involved with Chinese Business Deals" or "Questions Surround Biden Family Foreign Business".
      - thewileyone 6y ago
        "They don't have to physically hold every piece of evidence and forensically investigate it in order to report a story." Do you consider fact-checking a form of censorship?
- lliamander 6y ago
  I think many of these institutions are probably experiencing some internal tension about whether to publish this story, but that they dominant culture and voices are so panicked about the possibility of a Trump re-election that they are highly resistant to granting the story any credibility. By the way, the emails found on the laptop have now been authenticated by a 3rd party security firm that has been relied upon before by "mainstream" publications like the Washington Post[1]. Not to mention that there is Tony Bobulinski, the CEO of Sinohawk that was founded in partnership with the Biden's, who has publicly stated that not only was Joe Biden aware of his son's foreign business activities, but that he believes Joe Biden was part of the bribery scheme. [1] https://amp.dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-authenticates-hunter-biden-burisma-email https://amp.dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ehsankia 6y ago

Take a minute to step back. What do you think is more probable. That every single news organization out there, every single journalist, including NPR as you mention, are trying to hide this very real story and are wrong, while the one publication is in the right. Or that maybe, just maybe, it's the other way around and NYP published something that has not been well vetted?

blhack 6y ago
Every single journalist? What about Glenn Greenwald? How about Matt Taibi?
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Err, sorry I meant publication. What other large real publication has been willing to back up NYP?
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    No mainstream publication has been willing to do so. And IMO, that should be seen as an indictment of the state of the modern corporate press, as opposed to an indication that the story lacks veracity. As we've seen repeatedly over the last four years, the mainstream media is happy to amplify absurd stories - the Trump "suckers and losers" story which was quickly debunked, the entire Russia Collusion narrative, etc - if it serves their own interests. So to view what is reported in the mainstream media as the barometer of what is true is to commit an enormous error.
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      I'm sorry, I'll still rather take their word than those of a random internet stranger. And I'd like to see your proof of the "suckers and losers" story being "easily debunked, when it not only came from multiple sources, but it even matches very easily to actual public things Trump has said or implied, or the fact that he himself is a war dodger. And again, as stated above, take a moment to consider what you're actually implying. That publications such as NPR, AP, BBC, Reuters, some of the least partisan and most trusted news source with the hardest working journalist dedicated their life to communicating the facts. You're claiming that they are hiding the truth in some big conspiracy and that your one flaky source is the one telling the truth? Cmon man, don't be an old facebook grampa...
      - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
        For suckers and losers, there is an e-mail that has been verified that confirmed that due to weather Trump never made the visit. The story was also denied by Bolton who is very anti-trump.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
> What do you think is more probable. That every single news organization out there, every single journalist, including NPR as you mention, are trying to hide this very real story and are wrong, while the one publication is in the right. Or that maybe, just maybe, it's the other way around and NYP published something that has not been well vetted? Great thought exercise. I'm happy to inform you that I have actually already considered both scenarios and am confident that it really is this: > every single news organization out there, every single journalist, including NPR as you mention, are trying to hide this very real story and are wrong If you look back at the media in the last four years that shouldn't be as surprising as you are implying. Although I take issue with "every single journalist", since the point of Greenwald's piece, among others, is that even if one journalist wants to tell the truth, they will be suppressed. --- To go more concrete here though, are you specifically claim that the materials are not real, or that the story of how they were acquired is false? The former is absolutely undeniable; the latter is up for debate but I personally don't even think the laptop repair shop story is fabricated. I personally watched (part of) the video of Hunter Biden smoking crack while receiving a footjob, so unless you think it's a body double or a deepfake there is no doubt in my mind that these documents are real. Furthermore the big smoking gun is the financial documents which should be trivially easy for a journalist to debunk. So if you want to question how the materials are acquired, go ahead, but the documents themselves are real, and they show very questionable business dealings in China, Ukraine, and Russia. BTW, the existence for years now of the Russia Collusion hoax - namely, the debunked notion that Trump is a vassal of Vladimir Putin and directly colluded with Russia to win the US election - should tell us everything we need to know about the intellectual integrity of the corporate press.
blumomo 6y ago
In a democracy majority should decide what to do. But it’s not the majority who decides what _is true_. Marc Twain used to say: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” (Interestingly you’re demanding the same: taking time to step back ;)
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Your analogy doesn't really apply. These publications are all top of their field reporters. That's like saying 99% of scientist agreeing that vaccines work doesn't mean the majority is right. In a normal population you may be right, but in a field of experts, I'm happy sticking with the majority than with the one random scientist who believes in satanic rituals telling me hydroxychloroquine works.
  - blumomo 6y ago
    Mhm, do all these many doctors of https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ look like a single random scientist who believes in satanic rituals?
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      They are still in the clear minority, just like those 3% of climate scientist who refuse to believe in climate change. The fact that the president wasn't given HCQ is all the proof you need to know how effective it is.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        Science is a method not a popularity contest. But there have been dozens of studies showing HCQs efficacy: https://c19study.com/ https://c19study.com/
        hhw 6y ago
        That site appears to be making some obviously false claims in its analysis. For instance, tt makes this claim: "100% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.002." Note that the only RCT with positive results is https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v... Which was late, not early. Meanwhile, quickly searching through all the RCT's listed, there's 5 that are negative and 10 that were inconclusive (i.e. showed no benefit). So there's 15 to 1 against the effectiveness of HCQ using the highest standard of study (RCT's), yet somehow that site attempts to represent that as 100% of 'early' RCT's showing positive results.
colordrops 6y ago
Try this 30 second test on WaPo about the "Majority Illusion": https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/majority-illusion/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/ma... Then, with this in mind, look at the fact that almost all media is controlled by less entities than you can count on your two hands (assuming you have ten fingers): https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redditmedia.com%2Fbuo2w6yjA-McsQoolC5012z78EI24MMm_a9BptCDbSc.png%3Fw%3D320%26s%3D37bfe66ef88be0228c8717d9595416b6&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.news.alphastreet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F07%2FMarket-share-of-social-media-platforms-June-2019.jpg&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...
DubiousPusher 6y ago
I'm inclined to agree that this story probably leads to nothing, either because it is absolutely nothing or because the corruption here is too vague to nail down (that's the smart kind to do). But after living through the media's credulity toward the war on terror, credulity toward the war on drugs, credulity toward the satanic panic of the 90s, credulity toward the broken forensics that have gotten innocent people executed, dismissal of Juanita Broaddrick and vilification of Edward Snowden, I'm inclined to believe they are totally capable of a kind of mass group think without any need for a belief in a kind of conspiracy.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  I may not have first hand experience with some of the older examples you give, but "vilification of Edward Snowden" makes no sense, considering 3 of the biggest news publications were the ones who were tasked with spreading Snowden's documents in the first place. How are they vilifying him if they're literally helping him spread the word? I think you're using "The media" very liberally there. Were there pundits on some cable channel vilifying him? Sure. But that is in no way equivalent to every single major news publication refusing to back NYP on this report.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    That's a fair argument and Snowden is the weakest of those examples. But I think the credibility media outlets lent the security apparatchiks in responding to the crisis colored the revelations in a negative way for many Americans.
babesh 6y ago
What an idiotic statement. You could have said the exact same thing about the second Iraqi war. Also the conservative media is jumping all over this. Perhaps it’s only the media that you choose to believe.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  The "conservat media" is reblogging it, not investigator it. Tucker Carlson is telling absurd lies that he "lost the evidence in the mail" before making copies of it.
  - jazzyk 6y ago
    UPS says they found the missing package. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/fox-news-tucker-carlson-mocked-for-lost-in-the-mail-biden-documents-claim https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/fox-news-tucke...
  - babesh 6y ago
    And the liberal media isn’t investigating either. All politicized.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    He did not say "before making copies". I watched that segment, and he did not say that. Now, he didn't make it clear that he had made copies in the segment, but in other venues he did assert that copies were made. UPS also acknowledged that the package was indeed opened and the contents missing (though they did find them later). The point, as he admitted in a text to journalist Roger Sollenberger, was that he was convinced that someone was monitoring his texts. That may be paranoid speculation, but it is not a lie.
refurb 6y ago
Were you around for the early 2000's Iraq War? Because that's exactly what happened.
chrisco255 6y ago
No, every left wing news organization buried it. Even though those same organizations were happy to publish accusations of a supreme court committing gang rapes with no basis. Fox covered it. NYP covered it. Independent journalists covered it. Left wing corporates did not. Given the events of the past few years, with the media spending 3 years of our precious existence on salacious and false Russia conspiracy theories...maybe just maybe the NY Post has it right.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  Fox and NYP are both Murdoch-controlled and are located at the same address. They don't count as independent verification from one another. NYP has had access to the hard drive for two weeks. Independent journalists do not. Left wing corporates do not have access to the hard drive and don't run stories when they can't vet it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Their editorial teams are independent. Yes they're right leaning, but you can't expect the left wing to report on its own these days. As for the laptop contents, they've been leaked on the internet already. And yes they do run stories when they can't vet it. They lost a settlement with Nick Sandmann over it: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/washington-post-sandmann-settlement-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/washington-post-sandman... They don't have to physically hold every piece of evidence and forensically investigate it in order to report a story. No one did that with the Snowden story that Glennwald broke. That's ridiculous. You simply frame it as "Documents Reportedly Show Biden Family Involved with Chinese Business Deals" or "Questions Surround Biden Family Foreign Business".
    - thewileyone 6y ago
      "They don't have to physically hold every piece of evidence and forensically investigate it in order to report a story." Do you consider fact-checking a form of censorship?
lliamander 6y ago
I think many of these institutions are probably experiencing some internal tension about whether to publish this story, but that they dominant culture and voices are so panicked about the possibility of a Trump re-election that they are highly resistant to granting the story any credibility. By the way, the emails found on the laptop have now been authenticated by a 3rd party security firm that has been relied upon before by "mainstream" publications like the Washington Post[1]. Not to mention that there is Tony Bobulinski, the CEO of Sinohawk that was founded in partnership with the Biden's, who has publicly stated that not only was Joe Biden aware of his son's foreign business activities, but that he believes Joe Biden was part of the bribery scheme. [1] https://amp.dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-authenticates-hunter-biden-burisma-email https://amp.dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]