Truth delayed is truth denied?

NPR admits deception in burying laptop story

and they’re not the only ones, NYT, WAPO and Twitter have admitted they wrongly suppressed the story in the weeks before the election, likely changing the outcome.

1/4 of DEMOCRATS say Laptop deception turned the election

So, will the press change its ways and report the news instead of acting as the propaganda arm of the DNC?

56 thoughts on “Truth delayed is truth denied?

  1. Yeah, what a crying shame that the press did not take Giuliani’s carefully arranged October surprise seriously.

    If there was anything of any real substance related to candidate Joe Biden on this laptop, why did Giuliani and Bannon (you cannot make this stuff up) sit on it from May to October? The answer is they thought they could blow it out of all proportion at the last possible minute and the media would gobble it up. Too bad their personal integrity and the bizarre story of the provenance of the laptop made it impossible for serious journalists to take seriously.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. They didn’t choose to disbelieve the story, they chose to suppress it for political purposes.

      Even 25% of DEMOCRATS can see they were misled to protect Biden from the truth.

      Twitter and Facebook wouldn’t even allow the story to be circulated. This was a major fraud on the American public, but you will defend it because anything done to get a Democrat into office.

      Remember that the laptop was offered first the FBI, which sat on it for months. Of course Guiliani would have preferred it came out through the DOJ instead of the Trump campaign. But when it became clear they would sit on it until it was too late, he went to the press.

      This isn’t really about the laptop, it is about the collusion between the Press and the Democratic party to conceal the truth

      Like

      1. “They didn’t choose to disbelieve the story, they chose to suppress it for political purposes.”

        Uh, what story? What truth?

        Enemies of President Biden have had access to the contents since at least May of 2020. There is still not a significant and honest story about Joe Biden that has emerged from it.

        I would not mention “collusion” if I were you.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. “Even 25% of DEMOCRATS can see they were misled to protect Biden from the truth.”

        Uh, that is not what the poll found at all. Not even close. Can you NEVER discuss things honestly? There is NO INDICATION that any Democrats think they were misled. It is just a plain fact that a negative story shouted from the rooftops at the last minute could change things.

        The question was: ” If the media had fully reported the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the 2020 election, how likely is it that Joe Biden would have been elected president?”

        Of course, that is a very loaded question. It falsely implies something nefarious was not reported. But even with that question, where is there ANYTHING about being misled? You think they would have voted for Trump instead?

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Does anyone know who dropped off the laptops? The shop owner couldn’t say because he is mostly blind.

    (How many computer repairmen are blind?)

    How did Giuliani get it? Why?

    There seems to be some unverifiable gaps in the data according to recent reports.

    The trail is very odd to say the least.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Pretty desperate. Even the NYT and WAPO admit it is genuine now.

      The repairman is extremely nearsighted, disqualifies him for driving but actually good for close work.

      The laptop itself went to the FBI, but he took the precaution of making several clones of the hard drive. Clones are exact, bit for bit, copies, even including errors and bad sectors. That’s what Giuliani got.

      If there are any doubts of the accuracy, they can easily be checked against the original in FBI custody.

      You not wanting the see the proof of the corruption of the Biden family does not disprove it, and the NYT and WAPO certainly have the resources to have checked it.

      But the scandal of what the laptop tells us about Biden is separate from the scandal of the MSM’s efforts to bury it until after the election.

      We have a President who was elected only because the press prevented the truth from getting to the voters. And that makes Watergate and Jan 6 pale in comparrison.

      Like

      1. “. . . the press prevented the truth from getting to the voters”

        What truth did the voters miss? You keep dodging this very basic question.

        There is zero evidence of actual corruption by President Biden in any of the materials that Republicans have had since May 2020. If there were, it would be all over your favorite propaganda sites. Instead, all we see is innuendo and speculation.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Then the press should have let the voters see it, and then they would have made the judgment as to whether there was fire in all that smoke.

          But the laptop certainly shows that Hunter and James cashed in on Biden being VP, and unless Hunter was lying to those he was hitting up for money, the Big Guy was getting his piece of the action, even if it were being held for him until after he was out of office.

          In any case, it was up to the voters to make the call, and the press had no business protecting them from the truth.

          Like

          1. All the facts you say were suppressed were well-known before the election.

            Hunter, just like Ivanka, Jr., and Kushner was known to trade on his family name. His stint on the Burisima Board was all over the news. It was a central fact in the second Trump impeachment occassioned by his criminal attempt to extort Ukraine.

            That Joe Biden’s brother was a contractor in Iraq was also known and publicized.

            What was REALLY missing was the kind of hair-on-fire last minute coverage of a Nothing Burger that put Trump in the White House in the first place. Looking at you Weiner and Comey. The planned October supprise fizzled. How sad for you!

            Liked by 1 person

          2. So who was supposed to reveal all the contents so voters could decide? Giuliani et. al., had the laptop or drives for a long time.

            It seems to me that if there were real fire, we would have heard endless reporting, Congressional inquiries,…

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “Yet all those Democrats say they would have voted differently had they known about the Big Guy.”

            Know WHAT?

            You are still dodging the basic question. The reason is obvious. You do not have an answer. There were no new disclosures in those emails. You are just SAD because some parts of the media did not play along with Giuliani’s October surprise.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “What truth did the voters miss?”

          A better question is, “What lies were the voters told?” The one that I remember most was the allegation that the contents of the laptop were somehow created by Russia.

          Like

          1. “The one that I remember most was the allegation that the contents of the laptop were somehow created by Russia.”

            THAT is still an open question. Although it is clear that the bulk of the emails are authentic, their provenance is still not certain. The Giuliani story of how they came into HIS possession is FISHY. So, let me ask you the type of question that you are aways posing to me – can you prove this laptop was not created and planted by a Russian team?

            Like

          2. RE: “can you prove this laptop was not created and planted by a Russian team?”

            No, I can’t, but I don’t have to: Those who say Russians created the content can’t prove that assertion, either. In other words, the Russian origin hoax is a lie.

            Like

          3. RE: “Or your story is.”

            No, my story is that the Russian origin claim is a lie. And it will be until someone proves the truth of it.

            That is, my story is true.

            Like

          4. “The emails have been verified by some of those on the other end.”

            Was this too hard for you. . . “Although it is clear that the bulk of the emails are authentic?”

            Liked by 2 people

      2. “The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained — could not be verified by either of the two security experts who reviewed the data for The Post. Neither found clear evidence of tampering in their examinations, but some of the records that might have helped verify contents were not available for analysis, they said. The Post was able in some instances to find documents from other sources that matched content on the laptop that the experts were not able to assess.“

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/

        Their forensics experts said the drives were a mess.

        The article goes into great detail.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “If you are going to disparage the reporting…”

            There is no need to disparage the reporting. WAPO — to its own satisfaction — confirmed what everyone has known all along: that the material on the laptop is Hunter’s. You can’t use WAPO’s own reporting to show that WAPO is wrong. You need something from outside WAPO because, presumably, WAPO is aware of its own reporting.

            Like

      3. “ We have a President who was elected only because the press prevented the truth from getting to the voters.”

        The NYPost is not MSM? Right wing media, radio, TV were all over this. And they have the largest audiences.

        Of course, I seem to recall even a couple of Post writers refused to sign their article and they quit.

        So the verdict on press is “not guilty”.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. And yet if you mentioned the laptop om Twitter your account was frozen and 51 former intelligence stooges lied about the Russian hoax to mislead voters about the issue.

          Like

          1. Ask Manafort why he delivered campaign strategy/polling data for swing states to Russian intelligence.

            Or why MSM never leaked the dossier.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. I don’t know that he did while employed by Trump. But polling data can be released to anyone.

            The MSM never had to release the Dossier, there were plenty of people talking about the salacious bits on social media. They only had to give it credibility, which they did.

            Mostly they didn’t release it because Trump has a lot of lawyers.

            Like

          3. “And that there was no evidence of that claimed collusion.”

            Another lie. Do you never stop?

            There was plenty of evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia. Plenty.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. RE: “So, will the press change its ways and report the news instead of acting as the propaganda arm of the DNC?”

    I doubt it.

    NPR’s reporter, Laura Sullivan, may well be sincere, but the larger pattern of news outlets reversing their positions on the significance of Hunter’s laptop still inspires cynicism. For example, some of the European pundits I’ve been following to learn about the war in Ukraine are convinced that the re-emergence of the laptop story is a sign that Stumble Joe is soon to be removed from office.

    That seems far fetched to me. Other explanations exist.

    One holds that our media oligarchs ordered up the laptop-story-reversal as a PR stunt to restore media credibility in advance of hard times ahead, or in advance of indictments.

    Another holds that Russian or Chinese intelligence are prepared to release compromising material on the Bidens, should the president pursue policies they don’t like. Perhaps our own intelligence community wishes to “shape the battlespace” in preparation for such a contingency.

    Finally, there’s a theory that a little public cognitive dissonance now will support a lot of public cognitive dissonance later.

    Who can say what the best explanation is? I’m convinced only that the laptop-story-reversal is not a sign that the better angels of our nature are proliferating.

    Like

  4. “ One holds that our media oligarchs ordered up the laptop-story-reversal as a PR stunt to restore media credibility in advance of hard times ahead, or in advance of indictments.”

    Did they all get together in a secret bunker to plot our demise, too?

    I am sure this story will linger for months or more. But as the WAPO article describes, there are still a boatload of questions.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Did they all get together in a secret bunker to plot our demise, too?”

      No, there’s an app for that.

      How would you answer Dr. Tabor’s question: “So, will the press change its ways and report the news instead of acting as the propaganda arm of the DNC?”

      Like

      1. How the heck would I know what any media, right wing or left, is going to do?

        If you were asked the same question WRT to MSM on the right, the answer would be a lie. Why? Because you have no idea either.

        Seeing FOX pundits on the RNC stage with Trump kind seals the deal that right wing media is the PR and propaganda arm of Republicans.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. OK, If the laptop had belonged to Trump Jr. would the NYT, WAPO and NPR suppressed it or would it have been front page every day until the election?

          YOu know the honest answer.

          Like

          1. You tell me. I don’t work for media.

            Why did the NYPost, FOX, WSJ and all the power on the right media go with it?

            Were they in great fear of other media?

            Plus Giuliani and his cronies had the drives.

            Do you know the honest answer to that one?

            I think the answer you are looking for is that they had crap and knew it.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. I know you won’t read anything WAPO (I read WSJ and FOX pretty regularly) so here is part of an op-ed by Phillip Bump:

            “ The wariness shown by news outlets was different: the story was hard to validate. The laptop came to the New York Post through Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani who explicitly told the New York Times that he chose the newspaper because other outlets would vet the story first. Giuliani first took the story to Fox News, in fact, but the network reportedly passed specifically because of questions about the laptop’s credibility.
            Importantly, once The Post’s story ran, it didn’t share the laptop material with other outlets. That was the second factor that was outside the media’s control: it’s hard to cover something based solely on secondhand information. Much of the recent crowing about how The Washington Post and the New York Times finally wrote that some of the material was legitimate is based solely on the fact that we only recently obtained material to vet.
            Regardless, the story was covered by both The Post and the Times repeatedly in the final weeks of the election. We had an excellent explainer compiled by our fact-checking team, describing what was known and what was unclear; it became one of the paper’s most-read fact-checks in history. It is true that the story was not covered much on CNN and MSNBC, certainly compared to Fox News and Fox Business. The network that covered it the most after those two? Russia Today.”

            Washington Post

            Essentially, the laptop story was all NYPost and they would not share it or vet it.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “If you were asked the same question WRT to MSM on the right, the answer would be a lie.”

        I DID answer the same question WRT to [sic] MSM. My answer isn’t specific to left or right MSM. I said, “I doubt it.” And, “I’m convinced only that the laptop-story-reversal is not a sign that the better angels of our nature are proliferating.”

        Like

        1. “So, will the press change its ways and report the news instead of acting as the propaganda arm of the DNC?”

          “I doubt it.”

          So FOX, NYPost, are the propaganda arm of the left also?

          You said you didn’t specify, so which is it?

          Face it, you meant media leaning liberal.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “You said you didn’t specify, so which is it?”

          My answer didn’t need to be specific. Logically, if left-wing outlets are reversing their position on the laptop story, it is valid to say (as I did) that the reversal doesn’t compell me to believe that media in general will become more ethical.

          For the record, though, I see outrageous propaganda everywhere in media, both left and right.

          Like

          1. “ I see outrageous propaganda everywhere in media, both left and right.”

            Which is why I am thankful for our press freedoms. We have so many media that cross referencing is not only possible, it is really a patriotic obligation to stay aware of who says what, how, when, where and why.

            If one values our country.

            Some countries, like Russia, knows this all too well. Which is why they have few media and dead journalists.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “it is really a patriotic obligation to stay aware of who says what, how, when, where and why.”

            And yet you call people who read Russian media useful idiots for Putin.

            Like

          3. Yes, they are.

            I have read and view the various posts you made and they are lying when I compare them to the rest of world’s media.

            I do them same when right wing media posts articles.

            So I did my homework.

            You?

            Liked by 2 people

          4. My approach is to expose myself to information that interests me. Sources that commit logical fallacies or rely on erroneous factual data don’t interest me in the least. I don’t assume that source A is lying because source B says something different. I look for the lie itself, and I’m willing to accept truth-telling from anyone, regardless of affiliation.

            So yes, I do my homework.

            Like

          5. “I look for the lie itself,”

            It’s amazing how easy that is when you think critically and have a long memory.

            As an example. tomorrow’s editorial for the Pilot is now up. Another apocalyptic warning about climate change.

            In the third assessment report(1 & 2 few people heard about,) we were warned it was necessary to prevent a further rise of 2C from current(2001) temps.

            As it became clear that we weren’t going to exceed that anyway, it became 1.5C, and now were are told it is 1.5C from PRE-INDUSTRIAL levels. We are already 1C above pre-industrial, so they are saying it will be catastrophe if temperatures rise 0.5C above current.

            How’s that for moving goalposts?

            They get away with it because the average American has the attention span of a goldfish.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Stop acting as the propaganda arm of the DNC? Yeah, the same day pigs fly. Sleazy Democrats and sleazy press are bosom buddies who share a common interest, being sleazy.

    Like

    1. Real media reports on the real world. It is well known that reality has a liberal bias and you people just can’t stand it.

      With all due respect, calling WAPO or NBC or CBS or NPR or NYT “sleazy” while eagerly gobbling down everything you see on Fox or read in the New York Post or find in some cesspool on the internet is beyond laughable. It is pathological.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Reality like the gist of this thread? You know, complete lies to be complicit with election tampering favoring a Democrat? Liberal bias apparently equals all that you claim doesn’t exist…FRAUD!!

        Like

        1. Y9our one-sidedness is so blatantly idiotic, it barely requires a reply. If you truly believe that only the left MSM does what you say, then there are several bridges in New York I can sell you. Or maybe some oceanfront property in Arizona. Your choice.

          Like

          1. News and commentary are different things.

            Do you have any evidence that FOX has reported anything it its NEWS segments that was untrue, or that it suppressed a story that was true?

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s