4 ms·

It is unfortunate that the news would have been too close to the election, so I have some understanding why some news organizations handled the story they did.

It is unfortunate that the news would have been too close to the election, so I have some understanding why some news organizations handled the story they did. I liken this to the Google, and other tech companies, interviewing process. It is better to miss out on a good hire, than hire (or elect) someone that was a false positive for good. So based on reasonable doubt or suspicion, a story like this should cause anyone connected to be considered not a good choice for government employment anywhere since it could cause the US to be taken advantage of by any relevant other countries.

frumper 3y ago
They didn't just pass on the story, they put out negative commentary about it by calling it a distraction without even bothering to explain how they arrived at that.
- fortuna86 3y ago
  There's a reason for that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-bi... > The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
  - frumper 3y ago
    It’s weird to give a reason why NPR didn’t do something by citing an article from February of the following year.
    - fortuna86 3y ago
      The story was suspicious for many reasons, is the point.
  - 0xdeadfa65 3y ago
    And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.
    - fortuna86 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - 0xdeadfa65 3y ago
        [flagged]
        fortuna86 3y ago
        [flagged]
        0xdeadfa65 3y ago
        [flagged]
        fortuna86 3y ago
        [flagged]
        0xdeadfa65 3y ago
        >I'm trying to tell you that your writing is unintelligible. You're free to ask me what point is giving you trouble. >I don't believe you. You know all his talking points by heart. Trump vomits more foul content than any person I know. But okay. Gatekeep hating Trump. Weird flex though. >See my first point. Nice dodge. I'm starting to think I pulled all the wind out of sails since I wasn't just some run of the mill trumptard. Do you admit that? I'm giddy with anticipation. >I still don't believe you, and I'm bored with this, goodbye. Not bored. Defeated. Just take the L friend.

frumper 3y ago

They didn't just pass on the story, they put out negative commentary about it by calling it a distraction without even bothering to explain how they arrived at that.

fortuna86 3y ago
There's a reason for that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-bi... > The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
- frumper 3y ago
  It’s weird to give a reason why NPR didn’t do something by citing an article from February of the following year.
  - fortuna86 3y ago
    The story was suspicious for many reasons, is the point.
- 0xdeadfa65 3y ago
  And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.
  - fortuna86 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - 0xdeadfa65 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - fortuna86 3y ago
        [flagged]
        0xdeadfa65 3y ago
        [flagged]
        fortuna86 3y ago
        [flagged]
        0xdeadfa65 3y ago
        >I'm trying to tell you that your writing is unintelligible. You're free to ask me what point is giving you trouble. >I don't believe you. You know all his talking points by heart. Trump vomits more foul content than any person I know. But okay. Gatekeep hating Trump. Weird flex though. >See my first point. Nice dodge. I'm starting to think I pulled all the wind out of sails since I wasn't just some run of the mill trumptard. Do you admit that? I'm giddy with anticipation. >I still don't believe you, and I'm bored with this, goodbye. Not bored. Defeated. Just take the L friend.