This strikes me as whataboutism. It has nothing to do with the message to which you replied. Your link is primarily about the press being insufficiently skepti

This strikes me as whataboutism. It has nothing to do with the message to which you replied. Your link is primarily about the press being insufficiently skeptical about sources in stories related to foreign intelligence. At yet it contains lines like this: > No matter what, the clear aim of this report is to cast certain stories about Joe or Hunter Biden as misinformation, when the evidence more likely shows that material like the Hunter Biden emails is real, just delivered from a disreputable source. [emphasis added] Taibbi is revealing his bias at the same time he's claiming bias influenced the contents of a report. I'm all for healthy skepticism in the public and especially as a part of journalists doing their jobs. Journalists absolutely consider what sources have to gain or what axes they may have to grid. But reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie is just as bad as assuming it's true. And when there's a public statement or report, that is news and needs to be reported on.