One for the history books, depending on who gets to write it in the future.
Regardless of whether or not you believe on Tony Bubolinsky, you should at the very least have the opportunity to hear him and make up your own mind.
And saying that they should at least publish the controversy is absurd -- first of all, the Times did publish the controversy days ago [1], and second of all, it basically allows the peddlers of these unverifiable stories to dictate the news.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
It's more than just this one example. It's basically all of the censorship efforts over the past few months aimed to slow or stop the spread of information (true or not) that might be damaging to Biden. Twitter and Facebook actively flag posts that "fact-checkers" deem to be misinformation. There was the recent high profile case of Hunter Biden stories being actively suppressed.
Can you point to recent examples of misinformed anti-Trump articles being fact-checked by Twitter/Facebook/major news sources? As far as I can tell, those "bombshells" always spread unimpeded like wildfire.
The allegation itself is news, but it's important to label it as such when reporting it. The next step is to investigate it.
If Trump says there are extraterrestrials living in Area 51 that's news regardless if you can verify it.
If I, random nobody, show up with an allegation against Trump, using unverifiable "evidence," then that allegation is not newsworthy.
And doubly-so if my whole job is to be a partisan hack trying to delver an October surprise.
Bigger than the Office of Censorship, deployed during WW2 to help propaganda efforts? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship)
I seriously doubt that. The Office of Censorship was regularly opening private mail from USPS and purposefully destroying private mail that was unsavory to the war effort.
-------
Historically, the practice of postal censorship extended back to the Civil War: with both Confederates and Union governments censoring the mail within their control.
Also, we're all talking about it, so it's not very censored, now is it?
Nytimes doesn't publish articles about flat earth theory.
Even Fox News actual News division refuses to run these Hunter Biden stories. Same thing with Seth Rich, or ideas about crisis actors. How is this different?
There's already been leaks such as a video of Hunter Biden smoking crack while receiving a footjob (edit: if this seems crude, I'm mentioning it as something that makes it very clear that the info is real) so unless you think it's a deepfake - or that they hacked it from his iCloud account and made up the story about the laptop repair shop - then you cannot deny the veracity of the story.
It's also been corroborated by people like the aforementioned Bobulinski. If this were truly a false story it would be trivial for the Biden campaign to deny the allegations.
The reason this story is not being reported is not because it's not "verifiable"; even ignoring that it is verifiable, the media had no trouble publishing the unverified story of Trump's tax returns, the unverified and now completely debunked Russia collusion hoax (if you're not read up on it, please don't reflexively downvote - with what we know today it is now certain that it was actually a manufactured hoax and not just an innocent misunderstanding), etc. So there is absolutely a double standard at play and it's very plain to see if you go look for it, but if you just stick to CNN and other mainstream media you will literally never see the full story (or even a fraction of it).
I think that there is no source for this information, which is required for hard journalism. Like who is standing by this information and saying it is genuine? I think it bears all the hallmarks of Russian intelligence, and they even did this exact same thing in France.
The entire "story" here is unclear. How is Joe Biden involved? Can you even prove these business deals are real? You can't even verify the contents of these emails are real. Journalists aren't even being allowed to verify the hard drive.
The tax returns did have a real source that the journalists themselves verified. That isn't possible here because the story of the laptop is wildly unbelievable.
https://www.newsweek.com/wsj-newsroom-found-no-joe-biden-rol...
The media isn't ignoring this, but it is incredibly sketchy.
Its not that it can't be verified, it's that mainstream news doesn't want to verify it and be blacklisted by their peers for taking out Biden. They value their standing in their fancy social circle more than doing their job with integrity. It's pure corruption.
I can also claim that I have a hard drive with incriminating information on it. Nobody should run a news story on it unless they too can see the evidence for themselves. This is journalism 101.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/rudy-giuliani-giv...
If that was the case, we wouldn't have been involved in any wars in the past few decades.
> Nytimes doesn't publish articles about flat earth theory.
Of course not because lies about "flat earth" doesn't serve their interests. But lies/propaganda about "incubator babies"/nayirah testimony and yellowcake to start wars serves their interests.
Tons of unverified nonsense gets published. And tons of truth gets censored. Media, like the nytimes, are in the business of propaganda. They exist to sell wars and benefit the elite, not to peddle nonsense like "flat earth theory".
If a topic is important (nationally/geopolitically) and it's in a newspaper, you can be sure it's pretty much nonsense. The more respected the news agency, the more likely it is a lie.
Giuliani has burned his credibility, and the entire laptop story is on its face unbelievable.
These other stories like Yellow Cake came from legit sources that were credible at the time.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
https://www.newsweek.com/wsj-newsroom-found-no-joe-biden-rol...
A kuwaiti diplomat's daughter or intelligence officers are not credible sources. And neither is the nytimes, wsj or any major news company at this point.
> Giuliani has burned his credibility, and the entire laptop story is on its face unbelievable.
It's far more credible than incubator babies or yellowcake.
> These other stories like Yellow Cake came from legit sources that were credible at the time.
No they weren't. It was intentionally manufactured lies. The nayirah testimony was a PR generated propaganda. And yellow cake was propaganda conjured up by the nytimes and pro-war intelligence groups.
> You are comparing apples and oranges.
You are right, I am comparing actual lies that led to millions of people's deaths and a possible lie. You are right, we don't know the truth of the hunter story yet. But we know for sure that nayirah and yellow cake were intentionally manufactured lies to start wars.
At that time they had credibility.
You are misrepresenting history. It is not similar to this sketchy laptop with no legitimate source verifying it belonged to Hunter Biden.
Where do you find fox news's news division? Every part of fox news I see is running it.
The only way this will make history is if it pans out to anything besides what everyone already knows, which is that Hunter Biden is an addict and has been profiting off his family name.
Any evidence connecting that to Joe is very weak so far.
It's not just 'pot calling kettle black'..both sides are bad logic here. Let assume the biden scandal is true: Complaining about Biden's son getting a lucrative contract because of his last name, is like complaining about the splash from a puddle during a tsunami, ie, It's small potatoes of the worst sort, and the willingness of the right wing to use it as a counter scandal does not bode well for Greenwald's points when he is used a pawn for right wing interests (Tucker Carlson really..)
A more nuanced consideration of Greenwald's actions and willingness to speak against Biden in context of Trump can be found here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/19/lesser-of-two-evils-chomsky-vs-greenwald-and-the-ignored-factor/ Greenwald is an Idealist and more power to him, But Is idealism better than a pragmatism in 2020 of all years? We are in the middle of a raging pandemic and society torn apart by ethnic strife. In this case between Trump a racist, ignorant failed casino owner, and overt con man (trump u) who directly caused the deaths of thousands of people because he ignored basic scientific truths, or Biden, a lukewarm status quo (and somewhat corrupt career politician) the answer is clear for survival: Biden.