A failed scandal narrative doesn't imply anything about the underlying facts, even though "narrative" has a implication of falsehood about it. That article has

A failed scandal narrative doesn't imply anything about the underlying facts, even though "narrative" has a implication of falsehood about it. That article has some pretty mixed signals, both in the "intelligence" section and the one about Murdoch sources. In any case, the WSJ has since published: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-real-11625868661 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-real... https://www.wsj.com/articles/vindication-over-hunter-biden-emails-new-york-post-politico-11632521169 https://www.wsj.com/articles/vindication-over-hunter-biden-e... WP describes WSJ: "Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable." But also, these articles are critical of the majority of media outlets overage. So, what are we to conclude?