The New York Times Scandal Regarding The Mainstream Media’s Cover-Up Of The Hunter Biden Laptop Story Is Bigger Than The Laptop Story Itself

And, dammit, I don’t have the energy or clarity of mind to cover it properly right now.

I hate using clips and cuts from other sources to examine ethics stories, though it is a common technique around the web, perhaps the most common technique. I can do better, but as I have noted here several times of late, I’m shot full of pain-killers and antibiotics, and have approximately the mental acuity of Joe Biden along with the energy deficits of the United States, so I’m reduced to something less than my preferred methodology. Still, attention must be paid. As recently as last week, several counter-“echo chamber warriors were still making the absurd claim that the New York Times was not the outrageously biased Democratic Party propaganda organ it so clearly is, an assertion that literally requires that one stick fingers in both ears and hum like mic having a feedback crisis.

On March 17, the New York Times admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop report was accurate and genuine, more than a year after it allowed the Biden disinformation machine to falsely claim it was all “Russian disinformation.” This prompted a rare (but delicious editorial by the New York Post, which broke the story on October 14, 2020, while the 2020 Presidential election was up for grabs and got itself banned from social media for printing the truth. The Post’s victory lap said in part,

Forgive the profanity, but you have got to be s–tting us.

First, the New York Times decides more than a year later that Hunter Biden’s business woes are worthy of a story. Then, deep in the piece, in passing, it notes that Hunter’s laptop is legitimate.

“People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity,” the Times writes. “Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.”

Authenticated!!! You don’t say. You mean, when a newspaper actually does reporting on a topic and doesn’t just try to whitewash coverage for Joe Biden, it discovers it’s actually true?

But wait, it doesn’t end there. In October 2020, the Times cast doubt that there was a meeting between Joe Biden and an official from Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company for which Hunter was a board member.  “A Biden campaign spokesman said Mr. Biden’s official schedules did not show a meeting between the two men,” the Times wrote, acting as a perfect stenographer. Yet in the latest report, published Wednesday night, the Times said the meeting likely did happen. Biden had attended the dinner in question. Funny how this works when you don’t just take someone’s word for it.

In the heat of the presidential race of 2020, the Times never missed a chance to cast doubt on the laptop, saying the information was “purported” and quoting a letter from former Democratic officials who claimed — with no evidence — that it was Russian disinformation. As recently as September 2021, the Times called the laptop “unsubstantiated” in a news story.

Why was it unsubstantiated? Because of willful ignorance and the Times’ curious lack of curiosity. Hunter’s business partner Tony Bobulinski came forward immediately after The Post’s reports and confirmed that the emails bearing his name were legitimate. The Bidens didn’t even deny it was true! They just deflected, with the media’s help, saying it was a dirty trick or not a story. Mostly, the press just ignored it.Now we’re 16 months away from the 2020 election, Joe Biden’s safely in the White House, and the Times finally decides to report on the news rather than carry the Biden campaign’s water. And they find that hey, Hunter Biden’s business interests benefited from Joe Biden’s political status to a suspicious degree. Perhaps this is a topic worthy of examination.

How did the Times “authenticate” the laptop? It doesn’t say. Unlike The Post’s reporting, which detailed exactly how we got the files and where they came from, the Times does a hand wave to anonymous sources. No facts have changed since fall 2020. They knew the laptop was real from the start. They just didn’t want to say so….

Twitter banned us for supposedly publishing “hacked materials” that weren’t hacked. The company’s CEO apologized, but by that point, they had accomplished what they wanted. Like the Times, they cast enough doubt to avoid making their preferred candidate look bad.

Readers of the Times have discovered in March 2022 that Hunter Biden pursued business deals in Europe and Asia, and may have leveraged his father’s position as vice president to do it. Hunter also may not have properly registered with the government or declared all his income. All legitimate topics of discussion about a presidential candidate’s family, no?

The NY Post’s obvious bitterness should be matched by that of fair, civically competent, objective citizens who don’t like the idea of elections being stolen and the public having the metaphorical wool pulled over its eyes. The Times even used the story to raise the specter of its own, anti-Trump fake news that was so effective in hobbling his Presidency, stating in its original disinformation: 

The laptop prompted concerns about Russian disinformation because the intelligence community has warned for months about Russian attempts to influence the election, including by spreading disinformation about the Biden family. Russia has conducted a hacking campaign to find information damaging to the Biden campaign, most notably through a hack on Burisma.

Intelligence officials have also warned the White House that Russian intelligence officers were using (former NYC Mayor Rudy) Mr. Giuliani, who provided the hard drive copy to the tabloid, as a conduit for disinformation aimed at undermining Mr. Biden’s presidential run.

Here’s Never-Trump conservative Jim Treacher on his substack newsletter:

Yesterday the New York Times finally admitted the once-forbidden truth that Hunter Biden did indeed abandon a laptop full of incriminating evidence at a repair shop less than five miles from his father’s home. And today, a lot of libs and lib sympathizers have egg on their faces… One of the liberals with an eggy expression today is Leslie Stahl of CBS News, who is forevermore on record as having said this:

Stahl was 100% certain there was no substance to the story about Hunter’s laptop, because she didn’t want to believe it. Trump was saying it, so it must’ve been false. That’s just good journalism right there, Leslie.

….The mainstream media and Silicon Valley lied and suppressed the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop because they knew it would hurt his father’s chances in the election. They wanted Trump out of office more than they wanted the truth. They won’t admit it because they’re dishonest, but they can’t stop us from reminding them. Trump got this one right, guys. You’re not helping anybody by denying it. You’re only preserving your precarious place in the media ecosystem.

And we see you.

Do we? Do we really? I have my doubts, based on the insistence of the media bias gaslighters that have been so vocal on Ethics Alarms lately.

Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald quit his own organization, The Intercept, when it refused to publish his story about the laptop, and understandably shows no mercy to the Times and its accomplices:

There are a lot more articles and related developments, but the picture is pretty clear now. I would ask a final question: if the journalists and social media platforms in a nation heading into a national election decided that they would block damaging stories and facts related to one candidate while hyping rumors and anonymous reports that reflected negatively on the other candidate, what would be an accurate description of that election?

92 thoughts on “The New York Times Scandal Regarding The Mainstream Media’s Cover-Up Of The Hunter Biden Laptop Story Is Bigger Than The Laptop Story Itself

  1. I recall reading that about 50% of the Democrats voting on election day were unaware of the laptop story. I bagged a suspension from FB for posting the NYP story. On a similar note, I received a warning for posting a story regarding the Great Barrington Conference and another warning on an article claiming that COVID deaths were being overstated. In both instances, the gist of those articles was now proven correct. Now this story will continue to be buried.

  2. “I’m shot full of pain-killers and antibiotics, and have approximately the mental acuity of Joe Biden along with the energy deficits of the United States, so I’m reduced to something less than my preferred methodology.”

    That is the Jack we have all come to know and love. You still got it despite the fog of pain meds.
    First came rigged then came stolen.

    PS. drink plenty of fluids

  3. My answer would be:

    The ejection was not fair because the public was mushed and deceived by the press that us supposed to be free, fair and impartial.

    The citizens were victims of a massive coverup to hide facts about a candidate the media and one party wanted to win.

    They lied to insure that any negative news which would cost that candidate a vote was labeled “misinformation” and blamed on an adversary that we should all hate.

    The people who engaged in this KNOWINGLY took away the right to choose from those it is supposed to serve.

    They knowingly engaged in deception while blaming others for doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

    they abused their power, their position and the public trust and should be prosecuted for it.

    Furthermore, they need to be publicly reprimanded for their actions because honest, good people cast a vote for someone they would not have voted for and the choices that person has made since being elected have been harmful.

    But it’s clear that candidate does NOT have the capacity to lead because he could have only been chosen by being misrepresented.

    This is a sick and sorry day, and sadly, upon more digging, we can’t find this is not the first candidate who got into office by deception.

    It seems to make sense even more why a person like Donald Trump was so hated and attacked.

    These are NOT good people.

    We all should be VERY concerned their lies could so easily flourish and that SO MANY were ready to comply in the conspiracy.

    This was no theory at all.
    This is what mobs do.

    May they all be brought to justice.

    ******
    That’s my take if I was observing a country from the outside and saw what took place.

    Feel better!

    Btw, I was one who went to one of those shoes and read and saw the contents on the laptop.

    I still can’t unsee them.

  4. My answer would be:

    The ejection was not fair because the public was mushed and deceived by the press that us supposed to be free, fair and impartial.

    The citizens were victims of a massive coverup to hide facts about a candidate the media and one party wanted to win.

    They lied to insure that any negative news which would cost that candidate a vote was labeled “misinformation” and blamed on an adversary that we should all hate.

    The people who engaged in this KNOWINGLY took away the right to choose from those it is supposed to serve.

    They knowingly engaged in deception while blaming others for doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

    they abused their power, their position and the public trust and should be prosecuted for it.

    Furthermore, they need to be publicly reprimanded for their actions because honest, good people cast a vote for someone they would not have voted for and the choices that person has made since being elected have been harmful.

    But it’s clear that candidate does NOT have the capacity to lead because he could have only been chosen by being misrepresented.

    This is a sick and sorry day, and sadly, upon more digging, we can’t find this is not the first candidate who got into office by deception.

    It seems to make sense even more why a person like Donald Trump was so hated and attacked.

    These are NOT good people.

    We all should be VERY concerned their lies could so easily flourish and that SO MANY were ready to comply in the conspiracy.

    This was no theory at all.
    This is what mobs do.

    May they all be brought to justice.

    ******
    That’s my take if I was observing a country from the outside and saw what took place.

    Feel better!

    Btw, I was one who went to one of those shoes and read and saw the contents on the laptop.

    I still can’t unsee them.

  5. The absolutely intentional suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story by the Democrats Pravda like left wing media attack dog media is evidence that the election was rigged not stolen. Personally I think that Democrats and their attack dog media colluded to suppress the story. I think there is enough evidence to support a formal investigation.

    • The political left has shown its pattern of propaganda lies in their narratives so many times over the last 6+ years that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively push?

      The Hunter Biden laptop “Russian Misinformation” mantra was another in a long line of false propaganda narratives that’s been pushed by a transparently obvious unethical and immoral conglomerate of pro-progressive and anti-conservative media liars.

      Keeping that in mind; the anti-Russia propaganda narrative is what’s being actively pushed by the political left and their attack dog media. I truly wonder about all the propaganda related to the Russian-Ukrainian war and the details led up to that war. It appears that any Russian explanation of the invasion of Ukraine is being suppressed; therefore, pro-Ukrainian propaganda is being pushed by the political left and their media and pro-Russian propaganda is being suppressed; negative propaganda about Ukraine is being suppressed and negative propaganda about Russia is being pushed. About the only absolute truth I can garner from all the propaganda is that Russia did invaded Ukraine, the two countries are currently at war, people are dying on both sides of the conflict including Ukrainian civilians and there is a huge wave of refugees exiting Ukraine. As with most wars and following the pattern of left leaning media, propaganda instantly dominates the media and facts trickle out drip by drip.

      I don’t know what to believe anymore about the Russian-Ukrainian war or any other propaganda that’s being pushed by the left but I have the feeling that the left leaning media (aka Democratic Party attack dog activists) is actively manipulating the public, again.

      • Go ahead, Steve, post the Russian “explanation” for the invasion of Ukraine that is being “suppressed.” This I gotta see.

        • What is Russia’s motivation for the war? All I’m hearing is Ukraine good, Russia bad. That is not exactly an outstanding example of geopolitical analysis. The media talks a lot, but they don’t say anything of relevance. I know what they want, but I don’t know why they want it. Given the media track record of lies, spin, obstruction and propaganda, it isn’t good enough.

          All I’m hearing from the media is they don’t want anyone asking any questions. Calling everyone who has questions Russian propagandists isn’t persuasive, it is just rude and insulting. If that is their response, then I can only conclude that they think if Americans knew the answers to the questions they are asking, they would not support whatever position the media wants them to.

          Why did Russia actually invade Ukraine? What exactly were the Biden’s doing in Ukraine with all these shady deals? What has the US been funding in Ukraine? What are the geopolitical forces at work in that part of the world? How heavily is China involved in this conflict? How corrupt is the Ukrainian government?

          The media has proven they cannot be trusted. It should surprise no one that people, therefore, do not trust them. If they cannot provide answers of substance to the above questions, that is a failing on their part, not on the part of the people asking the questions.

        • Sounds like you got some cancel culture action going there, Steve.

          Interestingly, the New York Times HAS run stories, one in particular I remember, that tries to explain the Russian logic for the invasion of Ukraine from the Putin-esque point of view. Of course, it’s some interesting logic having to do with Nazis and all that. But I did in fact ask Steve Witherspoon to weigh in this time to see if he would do what he usually does, which is to assume that any disagreement is total disagreement – read any of his past hysterical responses to me and see if they even respond to what I said at the time. They don’t because Steve skips over the parts where I take a nuanced or even occasionally “right” or “conservative” angle on part of an issue. That’s actually a notable habit of woke liberals, too, who do not permit any dissent whatsoever, so they do not even see any other argument besides their totalizing viewpoint. It’s wrong on either end of the ideological see-saw and leads to bias making you … you know! (In this case, less well informed rather than literally stupid.)

          In the case of the war, Steve appears not to absorb any media to the left of One America Network, so he’s what, pro-Putin? I’m trying to get this. Vladimir Putin, who wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union, made a gigantic miscalculation in going for a blitzkrieg takeover of Kiev, completely failed, and moved on to a largely failing Plan B, which for all intents and purposes is simply terrorism against the civilian population. Seems there are some, um, ethical issues here, no? Tell me what’s not to understand here or why it’s a bad idea for the Ukrainian people to try to stop him. Go for it, Steve!

          • A friend leaves out a significant element in his analysis. How would we react if Canada began discussions with North Korea in which the Norks might get the opportunity to install military bases in Saskatchewan or the Yukon. While such a scenario is unlikely we would probably begin developing plans to eliminate the threat. Now couple that with a hypothetical idea that we wanted to make all of North America part of the US empire. The likelihood we would invade Canada on the pretext of self defense is highly plausible; especially when we have invaded other nations based on national security reasons.
            Putin wants to reconstitute the old Soviet empire and seeing Ukraine aligning with Russia’s adversaries creates the perfect opportunity to move on Ukraine.
            Even this is far too simplistic to fully understand the geopolitical landscape. There are no innocent nations in this debacle.

            • North Korean missiles in Saskatchewan, Russia bombing theaters and hospitals in Ukraine. Yeah, all the same thing, same plausible scenarios. Good grief. PS I hereby oppose any plans for the United States to conquer Canada. Man oh man.

              I wonder if Vladimir Putin reads Ethics Alarms. Maybe one of the fanboys here is in touch with him and can tell us.

            • “How would we react if Canada began discussions with North Korea in which the Norks might get the opportunity to install military bases in Saskatchewan or the Yukon. ”

              This analogy both suggests a moral equivalence between North Korea and NATO that does not exist, and ignores that fact that the discussions about letting Ukraine into NATO only exist because of Russia’s previous aggression.

        • Steve,
          Well, for what it’s worth, I had the same question that A Friend has. I have heard some people reference liberal propaganda favoring Ukraine and the Russian reason for the war, but have never gotten an explanation.

          What is that explanation?

          -Jut

          • Jut wrote, “Well, for what it’s worth, I had the same question that A Friend has. I have heard some people reference liberal propaganda favoring Ukraine and the Russian reason for the war, but have never gotten an explanation. What is that explanation?”

            I’ll cut straight to the chase and explain why I wrote what I did in my MARCH 21, 2022 AT 9:32 AM comment that started this sub-thread.

            What media outlet in the United States has actually presented the Russian government’s full explanation on exactly why they invaded Ukraine? I’m not talking about media outlets presenting their usual biased opinions based on assumptions of Russia’s reasons that “activist journalists” have built by cherry picked statements from random sources like they have done many times before. Real journalists should be pointedly asking every Russian government officials they can exactly why they invaded Ukraine and then present their answers to the public unbiasedly, if that’s possible. I haven’t seen, heard, or read any coverage presenting the Russian point of view, the current narrative is all anti-Russian and pro-Ukraine.

            The majority of the main stream media complex has revealed their propaganda tactics over the last 6+ years and when every singe narrative they present is intentionally tunnel visioned to only deliver one side of the story then you know damn good and well that the viewpoint from the other side is intentionally being withheld. I don’t know all the facts of why the war started but I want to know them and I want to know them without the media’s blatantly obvious preferential treatment to portray Ukraine as a purely innocent victim and Russia as an evil villain.

            The media track record really sucks and I don’t trust the propaganda narratives that the political left and their attack dog media actively push.

            I hope that helps you understand where I’m coming from.

            • “What media outlet in the United States has actually presented the Russian government’s full explanation on exactly why they invaded Ukraine?”

              The New York Times has:

              The rest of your long comment, Steve, is simply you thrusting your hands over your eyes and ears, pre-emptively shutting out any fact, opinion or perspective that you’re afraid you may not agree with. That hardly seems compatible with the stated aims of this blog.

              • But, of course, nobody believes that explanation, which is pure propaganda, and dumb propaganda to boot. Putin wants to reassemble as much of the old Soviet Union as possible, as well as as much of the Iron Curtain as the West will permit. He is exploiting the US’s obvious fear and reluctance to confront Russia directly, as demonstrated by Obama’s ho-hum reaction to the invasion of the Crimea and Biden’s implicit okay with an “incremental” land grab.

                There is no substantial ethics issue here, except the partisan media war on Tucker Carlson making him out to be a GOP spokesman for a pro-Putin policy. Tucker has made a fool of himself on this issue, and does not warrant the coverage his garbage has attracted.

                • No substantial ethics issue in the war? And what do you mean it’s a partisan media war on Tucker Carlson when it appears likely you have some very Carlson-like, possibly pro-Putin sympathizers among your own most active commenters? Seems you should address it.

                • Jack Marshall wrote, “But, of course, nobody believes that explanation, which is pure propaganda, and dumb propaganda to boot.”

                  Exactly!!!

                  The “denazification” that the shared NYT articles tells us about appears to be an unsupportable propaganda facade that the NYT has cherry picked and latched onto to and they seem to be promoting that as the only reason that Russia invaded but it’s likely that an unsupportable propaganda message like that is not the actual reason Russia invaded Ukraine. Real journalists would dig deeper than this propaganda facade. We can speculate about lots of things, like the NYT did, to explain the Russian invasion when there is a fact vacuum because activists journalists are tunnel-visioned, one-sided and anti-Russian and they don’t do their job.

                  Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a big Russia fan and at this point in time it looks like Russia likely broke international law with a completely unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation and to compound that there appears to be some evidence that the Russian military has committed war crimes in the prosecution of the war. All that said, that’s no excuse for journalist not doing their due diligence since before this thing started to get to the bottom of the story and present the facts to the public without bias, I simply do not believe that this has been done.

                  Note: I specifically mentioned in my comment above that “I’m not talking about media outlets presenting their usual biased opinions based on assumptions of Russia’s reasons that “activist journalists” have built by cherry picked statements from random sources like they have done many times before.” and then A Friend turns around and presents an article that did exactly what I stated that I didn’t want.

                  Jack Marshall wrote, “Tucker has made a fool of himself on this issue”

                  I know there is a lot of attacks against Tucker for something(s) he said related to Russia and the war but I honestly don’t know what it was. I used to randomly watch video clips of Tucker when they were shared with me by friends but Tucker has made a fool of himself so often, especially in recent years, that I stopped paying any attention to him, he’s like a televised internet troll intentionally trying to incite people.

                  • Tucker an internet troll….

                    Maybe he’s been commenting here under not so clever cliche names?

                    I’ve been quiet here since my comment answering Jacks question got eaten…

                    And momma always taught me, don’t feed those trolls, it makes them have more energy to do that thing they do!

                    Thank you to those who have taken precious time answering their dishonest questions.

                    Hope you’re feeling better Jack!

                  • Okay, well which is it, Steve (and Jack)? One is propaganda, one is the real reason – can you sort it out? Steve’s tactic of defining away ALL of the explanations (the denazification thing – actually the NYT article which Steve won’t read explains the historical grain of truth in it – or the reconstitution of the FSU) as false is a convenient way of not reading any of it and just defining all of the media as “left-wing” and unreliable. Frankly, Jack, I’d like to note how much of the commentary from your obsessive commenters is “process” stuff. If they would take a fraction of the energy that they spend on telling us how no good the New York Times is on actually reading it and then criticizing it if they want, we might get somewhere.

                    BTW the business about how alcohol-related deaths went way up during the pandemic? It’s the top story in today’s New York Times after the Ukraine articles, at least in the online presentation.

                    • Boy, for a smarter than average bear, AF, you sure don’t comprehend trustworthiness. The Times could break the most Democratic Party busting scandal ever, and it still wouldn’t change the record, which is undeniable: the Times cannot be counted on to print the news that’s fit to print, or that it is ethically obligated to report objectively. The laptop story is enough, all by itself, but there have been so many others. A news source doesn’t restore its trustworthiness by unpredictably deciding to publish facts. In the case of the pandemic, the Times role in scaremongering regarding the virus was shameful…and we’re supposed to applaud because it now reports on the consequences of its own exaggerations?

                  • Steve,
                    The problem with the Nazi explanation is that it is not Western propaganda; it is Putin’s propaganda. He is likely citing Nazis to mislead his own people as to the reason here.

                    Can you see any Russian official deviating from Putin’s storyline?

                    I can’t. So, what more are journalists supposed to do? I agree that they are biased, but that does not mean they are always wrong. Here, I do not see any other interpretations that make Putin look good (e.g. reuniting ethnic Russians who are being persecuted by the Ukrainians, rebuilding the USSR, securing ice-free ports in the Black Sea, anger that his puppet leader got deposed).

                    Maybe, there is something to do with bio-labs in the Ukraine that he is worried about. On that point, our journalists could do some legitimate investigating. However, after the Wuhan lab fiasco, I am not optimistic about that.

                    -Jut

                    • JutGory wrote, “The problem with the Nazi explanation is that it is not Western propaganda; it is Putin’s propaganda.”

                      Yes I know that.

                      JutGory wrote, “Can you see any Russian official deviating from Putin’s storyline?”

                      That’s kind of irrelevant to my point which is that journalist need to keep digging and not jump on the propaganda bandwagon but the NYT and many other news outlets are lazy but beating up on Russia is easy low hanging fruit.

                      The problem with the propaganda is it is false and transparently so; plus, and this is very important, even if every citizen in Ukraine was a Nazi it’s completely irrelevant to use that as an excuse to invade the country unless those Nazi’s were actively planning to or actually attacking Russians on Russian soil or if Ukraine was pounding the drumbeat of starting a war and invading Russia. International law regarding a one sovereign nation invading another sovereign nation without the presence of an actual threat pretty clear and Putin know this. The Nazi propaganda might be a useful tool as tangential propaganda used to support their core reason for the invasion but it’s garbage if used as the only reason for the invasion from the standpoint of international law. There has to be more going on here than meets the eye because this Nazi propaganda is BS, if not then Putin’s sanity must have gone completely off the rails or he simply figured out that the West was a bunch of inept feckless woke fools when the Democrats were in charge and would not put up any kind of effective military opposition to this expansion goal, just like they didn’t do when he invaded Crimean Peninsula during the Obama administration.

                      The false Nazi propaganda is clearly a false facade hiding the real reasons they invaded Ukraine and it’s the job of real journalist to get to the bottom of the story and present the facts instead of blindly jumping on the anti-Russian bandwagon.

                      Again; I’m no fan of Russia and I don’t care one bit if the factual truth behind the false facade makes Putin look like a hero or a man that’s completely lost his marbles, I want all the real unbiased facts not blind parroting of false propaganda.

                • Let me guess…

                  Trump has nothing to do with emboldening Putin I assume.

                  Also, there’s not really much the US can do to stop Putin from invading other countires. Unless you’re arguing we should start WWIII?

                  Or maybe we should just fly up and down the coast of Russia with some nukes as a deterrent?

                  Some political genius suggested that.

                  • Of course Trump had nothing to do with emboldening Putin. That’s one of the more audacious gaslighting tropes. Putin invaded while Democrats were in power, not Trump. I’ve heard all sorts of crazy explanations for this other than the obvious one. It should embarrass the Left, you included.

                    The idea of deterrence is to deter, and if the enemy knows you are determined not to deter, than deterrence doesn’t work. Russia doesn’t want a nuclear war any more than we do, but it has to believe there is a will to do what is necessary.

                    You, presumably, would have let those missiles stay in Cuba—mustn’t anger the Russian Bear. Putin couldn’t be sure that the US under Trump wouldn’t use its power to prevent what is happening now, and it might gain progressives some much needed respect to admit it. Loose cannons have their uses.

                    • So you think there’s correlation that Putin invaded while Democrats were in power.

                      Since you think Obama and Biden had an effect on Putin and Russia related to this war…

                      Let’s see if you can answer this.

                      Did Trump have any effect on Putin and Russia related to this situation and if so what?

                    • What?

                      No.

                      What effects, if any, did the previous president of the United States of America have on Putin/Russia?

                    • This is just Russian adventurism. Maybe they wished to test Biden? What Russia did manage was a PR disaster, showed the world an army that is in dire need of logistical support, and cause a possible nightmare at home. Wars are not profitable adventures in blood and treasure and this one potentially could turn into Afghanistan redux. A question that could be posed is would the Russians had done this if Trump was president?

                    • Trump absolutely left office with Russia in a stronger position than it was in before he entered, and some of this was absolutely because of Trump’s rhetoric and policies toward the country. This is indisputable. Trump said that we should let Russia back into the G8, constantly trashed NATO and considered abolishing it, and had more criticism for our allies than he ever did for Putin. He repeatedly defended Putin’s actions, including killing critics, most notably by telling Bill O’Reilly “You think we’re so innocent?” when asked about that. He publicly complained about sanctions passed by his own administration, repealed many others, and often described Putin in glowing terms. He sided with Putin’s assessment of the interventions in the 2016 election over our own intelligence agencies. And he withheld aid to Ukraine until he was caught doing so.

                      These are facts. To believe that Trump would be tougher on Russia is to ignore not only all of these facts, but the fact that Trump still has not condemned Russia’s aggression or expressed an ounce of sympathy for the people of Ukraine.

                    • Just saying “it’s irrefutable” doesn’t constitute fact, Katie. Brookings, the left-leaning think-tank, reported in 2019 that while Trump’s rhetoric regarding Russia was often conciliatory and positive, his administrations’ action were not. Actions matter, words not so much.

                      So much for “absolutely.” Your first paragraph is just regurgitated anti-Trump spin right off the rack. What someone says someone “considered” isn’t news, it’s not proof, it’s nothing. You believe spin like this because you want to (and your characterization of the Ukraine business just makes you sound naive.) I know you can do better. The facts are that Putin invaded twice while Democrats were in the White House, and not when Trump was there for four years. That can be explained many ways, but its still a fact.

                    • Half of that list is statements, not actions. The Helsinki meeting, considered one of the most disgraceful moments of the Trump administration even among many Republicans, is on there. There are indictments on the list that Trump himself had no part in securing. There’s no analysis of the seriousness of any particular action against Russia. I expect better of Brookings.

                      What the president considered doing is relevant to the analysis of whether this would be happening under a second Trump administration. Maybe he would have pulled us out of NATO by now; who knows. He’s a crazy person who attempted to overturn an election, as he said in his own words.

                      The question of why Russia didn’t invade under Trump could easily be countered with, “Why didn’t he invade January 2021?” It’s meaningless. Not everything every country does is controlled by who the American president is. But Trump did leave them in a stronger position, and continues to praise Putin. That his administration took some actions against Russia (many to the president’s chagrin, as he made clear) doesn’t change that.

                    • The question of why Russia didn’t invade under Trump could easily be countered with, “Why didn’t he invade January 2021?”

                      Easily, maybe, but not intelligently. And calling a dictator “smart” isn’t “praise. FDR called Stalin smart. Villains can be, and often are “smart.” This is another bad talking point you’ve picked up somewhere. Many of the Soviet dictators were smart: I’m not “praising” Khrushchev by saying he was smart. Tell-tale Trump Derangement: if he does it, it must be bad. You need to get over this.

                    • Calling a dictator smart without coupling it with any condemnation is, in fact, praise. And FDR did in fact praise Stalin in numerous, often embarrassing ways, and was naive about the threat he posed.

                      If the only thing you can say about a dictator is that they are smart, and you don’t couple that with any actual criticism, that is in fact praise. This is obvious.

                      Why do you think Trump won’t condemn Putin?

                    • Calling a dictator smart without coupling it with any condemnation is, in fact, praise.

                      Wrong. If it’s true, it’s true. Ted Bundy was smart. I don’t have to say he was a serial killer—we know that. And saying he was smart is a statement of fact, without any intention to praise him.

                      And FDR did in fact praise Stalin in numerous, often embarrassing ways, and was naive about the threat he posed. Wrong. FDR had no illusions about Stalin, and was abaout the least naive leader we have ever had. He had to deal with Stalin to defeat Germany, he knew he was dangerous, and knew there was no reason to poke the bear by not being complimentary.

                      Boy, you are setting records in being wrong in multiple ways per post.

                      “If the only thing you can say about a dictator is that they are smart, and you don’t couple that with any actual criticism, that is in fact praise.” No, in fact it isn’t. Putin is a dictator, brutal and devious. It’s a matter of record. Trump knows it, and everyone does. Trump has no obligation to say it. Saying Putin is smart is useful information, assuming Trump’s judgment means anything. He has met with Putin. Trump is reasonably regarded as having more information on the topic than, say, you. Or me.

                      “This is obvious.”—Obviously, it’s not. You are wrong.

                      “Why do you think Trump won’t condemn Putin?” Because he doesn’t like being told that he has to say something, whether he believes it or not. Neither did my father. Neither do I. If someone told me I had to publicly condemn anyone or anything or lose my job, I’d quit. It’s called compelled speech, and and its totalitarian in spirit.

                      Why do you think Trump won’t condemn Putin

                    • I am fascinated by this idea that the man who was up until recently the leader of the free world, and who would like to be so again, has “no obligation” to condemn the most famous dictator on the planet at a time when he is invading another democracy for no legitimate reason. This seems like a complete failure of ethical leadership.

                      One might say it raises my ethics alarms.

                      Every other former president has condemned Putin because they do feel an ethical call to do so. Trump does not. This is meaningful. One might say “all analysts and commentators agree” on this, but that would be wishful thinking.

                    • And no, that’s not “compelled speech.” Compelled speech is a legal concept, and a violation of the first amendment. What you are describing is some people having basic ethical expectations of another person, and that person refusing to rise to those modest ethical expectations out of pure stubborness. Being a stubborn ass can be an admirable thing at times. “I won’t say anything bad about a monster because people want me to” is obviously not one of those times. Especially when the speaker has a history of making excuses for said monster and minimizing their crimes.

                  • Carlson isn’t ‘for Russia,’ he’s an isolationist, and he’s chasing ratings. He’s a pundit and an entertainer not a journalist. Why would you, or anyone, think his opinions, as generally untrustworthy as they are, would be campaign issue?

                    • You underestimate how much control the entertainment wing has over the Republican party. This has been true at least since Michael Steele was forced to apologize to Rush Limbaugh. It’s how Trump came to power; by pushing the greatest hits of the right-wing media ecosystem.

                      It’s good and wise of you to condemn Tucker’s positions; that puts you ahead of almost every Republican politician, because they’re deathly afraid of upsetting Tucker’s audience.

                      And he absolutely is pro-Russia; he said so himself in 2019. as you can see in the link I posted.

                    • 1. Now Katie, you know that being “pro-Russia” in 2019 and post-invasion are two different things. Remember how Obama mocked Mitt Romney for being “anti-Russia”?

                      2. It was the mainstream news media, primarily CNN, that gave Trump such tremendous cheap PR. Not Fox News, uh-uh. This was a monster crated by the smug entertainment-left.

                    • 1. Yes, but there is no evidence that Tucker’s position on Russia has changed and a lot of evidence that it hasn’t. He could easily condemn Russia’s invasion at any time. He hasn’t; he has had harsher criticism for Ukraine, NATO, and the US government.

                      2. That Trump was successful in part because the MSM covered him so much (most of this coverage negative) is orthogonal to the point that Trump was basically a right-wing media meme come to life. It wasn’t CNN talking points that Trump pushed constantly. The MSM deserves a lot of blame, but let’s not deny the right-wing media their agency.

  6. Re: the headline. If Hunter was in fact holding 10 for the Big Guy, isn’t that a HUGE story? Bigger than Hunter’s various escapades in and of themselves? Wouldn’t these sorts of deals make Joe China’s and Russia’s cockholster or a Russian asset? Sheesh. The entire Trump Russia scam was simple Democrat projection on a massive scale.

    • When you look at it now all I can think about is Spiro Agnew. Was Biden getting a cut of the pie while he was vice president?

  7. “Biden, Inc” is indeed a fully-owned subsidiary of “Xi-Putin Partners”. The last 16 months are now making better sense, even though I believed the story when it broke in Oct, 2020.

    So far the legacy broadcast news continues to ignore this. Not a peep from them that I have seen.

  8. Jack asked, “if the journalists and social media platforms in a nation heading into a national election decided that they would block damaging stories and facts related to one candidate while hyping rumors and anonymous reports that reflected negatively on the other candidate, what would be an accurate description of that election?”

    They colluded to rig an election; so in my opinion, a rigged election would be the most accurate term to use.

    Here are some related definitions…

    Rigged: manipulated or controlled by deceptive or dishonest means.

    Rig: manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person or group.

    Fraud: something intended to deceive others.

    Fraudulently: in a way that involves deception.

    Propaganda: The expression of opinions or actions carried out deliberately by individuals or groups with a view to influencing the opinions or actions of other individuals or groups for predetermined ends and through psychological manipulations.

    Indoctrinate: teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

    Brainwash: make others adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.

    Bastardize: change (something) in such a way as to lower its quality or value, typically by adding new elements.

    Systematic: done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

    Gaslighting: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.

    Morph: undergo or cause to undergo a gradual process of transformation.

  9. Okay now see…you’re going to have to back this comment up right here:

    …more than a year after it allowed the Biden disinformation machine to falsely claim it was all “Russian disinformation.”

    And no…I’m not doing your work for you.

    • Knowledge Miner,
      Are you asking for literal quotes from the campaign and/or administration or are you just here indirectly implying that general statements from the Biden campaign and subsequent administration did not claim and/or imply that it was all “Russian disinformation”?

      In general I think the Biden campaign and administration kept as quiet as they possibly could about the whole thing but they did state and implying that it was a non-story which directly implies that it was a false Republican conspiracy theory to falsely smear Joe Biden. Those implications of a false Republican conspiracy theory to falsely smear Joe Biden from the Biden campaign and Administration fed directly into the false “Russian disinformation” propaganda narrative (aka the elephant in the room big lie) and this was done intentionally.

    • Then at least explain what the hell you think you’re talking about. Biden and the campaign refused to outright deny the story, they both just made derogatory comments that implied that it was another “right wing conspiracy,” and left it to Big Tech, social media and the Times et al to do its dirty work. Are you denying the admission that the laptop was real came a year= late? Do you deny that the Biden Campaign made every effort to see that its allies buried the story—which is what every campaign does when there is an “October Surprise,” the difference being that it only works when the scandal adversely effects Democrats?

      Here’s a hint: the ethical, integrity-demonstrating response to the post would be “You’re right: this was disgraceful.”

  10. Proof that the NYTs “allowed the Biden disinformation machine to say the story was Russian disinformation”

    What machine? Why would the NYTs have any control over what other people say or do? What does “allow” mean? Did the NYTs say the story was all Russian information?

    • Knowledge Miner,
      Have you ever heard of the term “sealioning”?

      Sealioning is a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable.

      It appears that you may be sealioning. Try a more ethical rhetorical tactic.

      • Steve, I guarantee you that I heard of sealioning wayyyy before you ever did. Did you learn about it this week?

        You also don’t know what it means. Asking for evidence isn’t a fallacy or a rhetorical trick.

        • Knowledge Miner wrote “Steve, I guarantee you that I heard of sealioning wayyyy before you ever did. Did you learn about it this week?”

          Do you feel just a little bit more superior than me now that you’ve gotten that arrogant display of pompousness out of the way? Oh bite me, asshole. Also, you make too many assumptions.

          Knowledge Miner wrote “You also don’t know what it means.”

          Really? I literally quoted the definition. Here it is again just in case you missed it…

          Sealioning is a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable.

          It appears that you haven’t learned that it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

          I applied that definition to this paragraph in your comment, “What machine? Why would the NYTs have any control over what other people say or do? What does “allow” mean? Did the NYTs say the story was all Russian information?” and stated that “It appears that you may be sealioning.” and you immediately jumped on that throne of arrogance, that could very well be duct-taped to your ass, and punched down to attack the deplorable messenger.

          By definition, that paragraph can be taken as sealioning and exactly why I asked you the question about sealioning. Now if you want to disagree about how I applied the definition of sealioning to your comment that’s your choice but to say that I don’t know what it means after I literally quoted the definition is a foolish bald-faced lie.

          Knowledge Miner wrote “Asking for evidence isn’t a fallacy or a rhetorical trick.”

          I never said it was and it was unethical of you to imply that I did.

        • Afraid he does know, and I already posted it once already. Stop behaving like a jerkass. Just who appointed you the fact finder and merit judge of every post here?

      • Why are you wasting your time? It seems that Jack has already posted the New York Post comments regarding the New York Times. I think the New York Post sums it up fairly well. Seems like somebody else wants a Clinton type what is the definition of is?

    • How does the Post op-ed address any of my questions?

      For instance, how did the NYTs allow the Biden disinformation machine to falsely claim it was all Russian disinformation?

      What does “allow” mean?

      Did the NYT even say that it was all Russian disinformation? I followed the story pretty carefully.

  11. Here was a telling exchange in the Times between pseudo-conservative columnist Bret Stephens and left-wing hack columnist Gail Collins:

    Bret: … [W]hat really bothered me was the not-so-subtle media effort to bury the email story right before the election as some kind of “Russian disinformation” campaign. If someone had discovered that, say, Ivanka Trump had left a laptop at a repair shop stuffed with emails about 10 percent being held “for the big guy”— to use a reference that appears to be to Joe Biden, which comes from one of the emails found on Hunter’s computer — would the story have been treated with kid gloves?

    Gail: “Well, Ivanka is a much tidier person.”

    • ?

      Answer any of these questions that are actually pertinent to your post maybe?

      Proof that the NYTs “allowed the Biden disinformation machine to say the story was Russian disinformation”….

      What machine? Why would the NYTs have any control over what other people say or do? What does “allow” mean? Did the NYTs say the story was all Russian information?

      • Knowledge Miner – I suggest you go to the NYT website, click the SEARCH icon at top left, and enter “Hunter Biden” laptop. You’ll find plenty of articles and op/eds poo-pooing the story. Note the dates as you sift through.

          • The term means a general disregard for the possibility that the story might actually turn out to be true. It’s important to understand some of the tools today’s media uses to slant coverage. One is story stacking – the sequence in which points in the article are presented. Journalists are well aware that readers stop reading longer articles, so points that are detrimental to the desired narrative are often stacked further down in the story. In the story in which the NYT acknowledged that the laptop was authentic, that detail should have been the lede. Instead, it was 20+ grafs into the article.

            Another way media outlets slant coverage lies in what they choose to cover. One would think that a story involving the tawdry activities of a presidential candidate’s child – particularly when there’s content that suggests the candidate him or herself might be involved in the shenanigans – would be a story worth coverage by the so-called Paper of Record. The New York Post did the same legwork – with a smaller staff and smaller budget – that the NYT could easily have done IF the NYT wasn’t in the bag. Remember, this is the same newspaper that, before the 2016 election, ran a front-page editorial that essentially said that it was giving up on any pretense of journalistic ethics because those were for normal times and Trump was not a normal politician.

            I say this as someone who works with the news business to make my living, and as someone who has a small side-hustle as a print and (ex) broadcast guy.

            Lest you wonder, I find Trump loathesome, and the splendid irony in all of this is that all the New York Times and other media outlets really needed to do was cover Trump’s presidency and his outrages fairly and accurately; I suspect that the 2020 outcome would almost certainly have been the same (though we might have ended up with something better on the D ticket). But they couldn’t bring themselves to do that. Instead, they chased every crazy anti-Trump conspiracy story they could find and ignored stories of real importance. Such as this one.

            • Why do you think newspapers are in the business to assume something may eventually become true?

              They’re supposed to report on the info they have at the time and Their reporting was totally accurate.

              What did they say, specifically, at the time that was wrong?

              Also, how did they “allow” Biden disinformation? What disinformation did they say?

              • Comment eaten yesterday.

                See trolls are alive and active!

                Funny when they act smug and smart about everything but the obvious where they play dumb…

                Hope you’re feeling better Jack!

              • No, they’re supposed to look into stories, even if those stories originated as a scoop by a competitor. Had the NYT looked at the laptop files, contacted relevant individuals cited in it, run forensics on the photography and done the basic journalistic due diligence that the Fourth Estate is expected to do… if they HAD done those things, and arrived at the conclusion that the story was wrong… well, then (assuming their conclusion was correct) they would have done a service to the nation.

                They did none of those things. And your query is, I’m afraid, proof that you’re a troll. I started moderating online back in 1994 and, while I’ve always given people the benefit of the doubt, I know one when I see one. This disappoints me, actually, because before Trump got elected we had a fair number of smart, articulate progressives participating here (and I remind you, I think he’s scum). One by one, they dropped off when confronted with the failures of their own logic. I’m disappointed because I’d initially hoped that in you we’d found a passionate, articulate progressive voice again. This group needs them.

                Sadly, no. It’s clear that you’re just a troll asshole. You’re simply here to create as much havoc as you can before you get booted out. I have no power over such things but, knowing our host and the foul mood he’s in these days, you will be soon.

                Have a nice life.

                • See, this is exactly what I’ve been hoping to correct here but it’s almost impossible. Somebody is a “troll asshole” who is “creating havoc” and all these other people dropped off “when they were confronted with the failures of their own logic.” No, Arthur (and Steve and Steve and Null), you disagree with their POLITICS and therefore these other people are ruder, stupider and worse-looking – exactly the SAME problem I have with a lot of rigid wokesters and the way THEY converse with people and judge them. BTW I think it is both true that the New York Times made lots of mistakes in 2019 and 2020 (as I’ve said many times before but Steve Witherspoon is too busy name-calling to notice my moderate takes on things) but also that it’s ridiculous to think that all these people suddenly would have switched their votes to Trump over Hunter Biden, no matter what some poll says.

                  • I don’t think you are stupid. I think you are so biased you are incapable of seeing anyone else’s point of view. Judging from your previous statements, you think the same of me.

                    I’m not sure how you go from a place of mutual disgust at each other’s opinions to a place of shared understanding in an online forum.

                    • Interesting, because I wish this blog would sometimes offer the “ethical” insight that it’s meritorious to be able to articulate the responsible version of BOTH sides of a political issue rather than always declaring one side correct and the wrong-slash-unethical. I read a variety of “left” and “right” things every day, do you? From the beginning Steve Witherspoon didn’t even “hear” what I said half the time; as soon as he saw something he didn’t like, he blew up.

    • BadKnowledgeMiner,
      In response to your 03/21—10:06PM comment above. You are not very clear.
      You begin with the word “interesting” but offer no specific degree of interest and so the reader is left not knowing how seriously to take the spirit of your message. So, exactly how interested are you?

      You then use the word “sometimes” but that just isn’t specific enough for your fellow brother bloggers to know precisely what your target goal is for the “meritorious” balance you seek in discussion.

      “responsible version” What the heck does that even mean? Your lack of clarity is beginning to snowball and is giving me a headache.

      Gosh you then follow up with the inaccurate smear of declaring your brother bloggers “always declaring one side correct and the wrong-slash-unethical.” Holy-Moly that is some serious absolutist exaggeration there buddy and you are going to have to do better if you want to stick around.

      You are really feeling your oats now and rolling downhill so you offer up your bona fides by saying:
      “I read a variety of ‘left’ and ‘right’ things every day, do you?” Wow, zero citations!
      That is just lazy blogging.

      We are nearing the end now without any noticeable improvement when you write:
      “From the beginning Steve Witherspoon didn’t even ‘hear’ what I said half the time”
      There you go again with unsubstantiated accusations. I mean come on man, where are your examples? From the beginning of what/when? What exactly to you mean by “hear” written words?
      How can we possibly know if “half the time” is even close to accurate without unbiased analysis?
      Again, lazy writing.

      You finish by saying that Steve “blew up” “as soon as he saw something he didn’t like.”
      Jeepers, that is truly an irresponsible negative characterization of one of your fellow bloggers. I mean really, were you in the room with Steve to even know what actually occurred at that moment?

  12. My goodness I have read about trolls, assholes oh, and something about a sea lion. Reading the comments I thought I’m on a Red Sox and Yankees posting board. Apparently the topic at hand which was the New York Times has gone adrift. Right now the topic of the day seems to be Russia and suddenly everyone is a combination Doctor Phil and Russian scholar. I doubt somehow we are ever going to see the New York Times admit even a partial error in judgement.

    • Sorry this is so long but I think it’s useful.

      Rick McNair wrote, “Apparently the topic at hand which was the New York Times has gone adrift. Right now the topic of the day seems to be Russia…”

      Well the original topic was actually related to propaganda related to Russia because the political left promoted the false propaganda narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, they intentionally colluded to LIE to the public in their effort to withhold important election related information and fraudulently rig the election, see my comment above about this. It’s really not much of a stretch to extrapolate the kind of deceptive false propaganda narrative used about Russia back then to the current propaganda about Russia related to the Russia/Ukraine conflict. The political left loves to demonize Russia when they think they can politically benefit from it.

      Rick McNair wrote, “My goodness I have read about trolls, assholes oh, and something about a sea lion.”

      Yup, that happens when there is an commenter that’s obviously trolling Ethics Alarms threads.

      Here’s a couple of specific examples from this thread…

      A Friend trolled above, “the NYT article which Steve won’t read…”, “…convenient way of not reading any of it”

      That’s another in a line of intentional misrepresentations posted by “A Friend”.

      A Friend is a man with either a very short memory, a selective memory or doesn’t give a damn about actual facts. Even though I stated back on February 13th that I canceled my subscription to the New York Times a few years ago, I clearly wrote in a reply to A Friend on February 14th that, “Yes A Friend, I’m exposed to the New York Times articles regularly…”. A Friend has intentionally misrepresented my NYT subscription cancellation multiple times by writing that I refuse to read the NYT when in fact it means I refuse to support the NYT with my money, but that doesn’t fit into A Friend’s tunnel vision narrative so he continues to misrepresent the facts by making up things that are not true like he did in the quoted statements above. A Friend is regularly trying to falsely impune my character and the character of all the regular EA commenters while not realizing that his rhetorical attacks reveal his own character.

      Special Note: How the does this illogical A Friend miss deducing the fact that I knew that the NYT used the word “denazification” in their article and I literally stated as much in my comment. The NYT first usage of “denazification” was more than a third of the way into the article, so how could I know they used the word if I didn’t actually read the article? A Friend’s deductive reasoning skills related to reading comprehension are lacking or his bias has completely blinded him.

      Next…

      A Friend also wrote above, “Frankly, Jack, I’d like to note how much of the commentary from your obsessive commenters is “process” stuff.”

      Interesting that A Friend would write that regular EA commenters are obsessive but yet he completely ignores his own blatantly obvious obsession to troll regular EA commenters and call them obsessive simply because of their level of participation. I must be occupying a few terabytes of quality space in A Friend’s brain that could be used for more important things like increasing his deductive reasoning and comprehension skills; A Friend’s obvious obsession to troll me in particular seems to be consuming his time here.

      A Friend complains in that sentence to Jack that I quoted that some commenters write about “process stuff” but sometimes it’s the “process stuff” where unethical behavior, like A Friend’s misrepresentations and trolling, creeps its way to the surface and reveals the character of the man, incidentally who once commented here using his real name but is now is using a pseudonym which is kind of interesting on a different level. Of course A Friend doesn’t like it when others comment about the “process stuff” in his comments because he doesn’t want his unethical and immature behaviors to be pointed out, his rhetorical choices have consequences but it seems he want’s to do whatever he wants to without consequences.

      Observation: A Friend sometimes complains like a snowflake does when their behavior is pointed out and he appears to be incapable or unwilling to learn to change his trolling behaviors. A Friend ignores the fact that if his rhetorical style shifts away from trolling that the replies to his commentary would also change, so here we are, A Friend is making his bed and he doesn’t want to sleep in it. I think A Friend is feeling the relative unbridled freedom of being unknown and he’s using that relative anonymity to troll Ethics Alarms and intentionally incite others. This can be a real problem when anonymity is mixed with what appears to be some kind of unspoken vengeance, hate at some level and questionable judgement.

      Personally, I wish A Friend would walk away away from this “new” rhetorical trolling style and argue in good faith, I’m sure we could all have some decent conversations, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

      So in conclusion; when you have a commenter that insists on behaving like an internet troll on a regular basis the comments do tend to morph off-track and that’s usually the goal of an internet troll.

      TROLL: noun (abbreviated version of internet troll) Those that post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

      • Steve, I gotta run, I have a life, so I have to make this short. First, more process stuff rather than discussing issues, eh? Second, I’m glad you access the New York Times a lot, which is odd since people complain they get booted out after a few stories without a subscription. But in any case, then you should be having no problem at all finding reportage and analysis as to why Russia – Putin specifically – is doing what he’s doing in Ukraine. There is now so much information on this in the Times from VARIOUS reporting and opinion-oriented sources, including new material TODAY, that you should be all set.

        Finally, on your name-calling: I laugh, man. The truth is that you descend into this for one reason and one reason only: because I don’t agree with you politically on everything. That’s it, there’s no question about it. When you consider how similar this is to the way the far left behaves, it’s remarkable and very telling. I simply suggest that a website called “Ethics Alarms” should be aware of how this leads to the accusation of being an echo chamber. PS there was no excuse – none – for the tech media giants to censor the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop scoop, and I hope we never see that sort of thing again. See ya later.

  13. “Steve, I gotta run, I have a life, so I have to make this short.”

    As if he doesn’t? Strike one for being a pompous, arrogant jerk.

    “Finally, on your name-calling: I laugh, man.”

    Strike two. You only laugh because you’re behind a keyboard and he can’t bust you one in the grill.

    “The truth is that you descend into this for one reason and one reason only: because I don’t agree with you politically on everything.”

    Strike three for acting like a mind reader. Yer out!

  14. From WaPo:

    “The Times would later report that this was contentious even at the conservative publication. Fox News had already passed on it, apparently in part because of the questions about provenance. A number of Post employees questioned whether the paper had done enough to vet the material. Speaking to the Times, Giuliani insisted that this was exactly why the Post was given all of it: “either nobody else would take it,” he said, “or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”

    After the story came out, the Post didn’t share the material with other outlets for them to do their own investigations. In other words, coverage necessarily depended on taking the Post’s word for things, which is by itself a disincentive for other outlets.

    After the story published Oct. 14, media outlets tried to assess its credibility, without luck. Mac Isaac gave a lengthy, odd interview to reporters that same afternoon in which he repeatedly gave evasive answers and appeared to change his explanations for how he knew whose laptop it was and how it got to the FBI. In the days that followed, the Time and Daily Beast reports reinforced questions about how the material was obtained and how it was being used explicitly to aid Trump’s campaign.

    Even today, the full story isn’t clear. Is the story straightforward — Mac Isaac obtained a laptop, thought it might be relevant to national politics and then found only one taker, Giuliani, for the material? Was the material reportedly circulating in Ukraine the same stuff? Nonexistent? Obtained from an iCloud hack independently? Did Guo learn about the laptop from Bannon, with mentions of the material in September following from there? It is of course always easy to ask infinite questions when you’re skeptical, but that the answers to this aren’t known now reinforces the reasons for skepticism 18 months ago.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/18/forgotten-and-ignored-context-emergence-hunter-biden-laptop-story/

    I find this explanation, among others in the article, convincing for why news sources were skeptical of this story three weeks before the election. I doubt others here will. But it does address the question some have raised here of why other news sources did not try to investigate the story–they did, and the NYP refused to cooperate with them.

    • “I find this explanation, among others in the article, convincing for why news sources were skeptical of this story three weeks before the election.”

      You’re $#!tting me, right?

      Here’s another example of the WaPo’s “skepticism”

      The Campaign To Impeach President Trump HAS BEGUN

      Almost as ludicrous as Hope-n-Change being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize a mere eleven (11) days after taking office, then going on to not only deploy soldiers and fighter pilots to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, but become the only POTUS to preside over eight years of uninterrupted war.

      It’s not only a joke as a news source, but a bad one. Not only will I ever cite the WaPo as a source of anything but hyper-partisan blather, but wouldn’t use it to wrap fish.

      It’d be an insult to the fish.

      • I actually agree with you about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re talking about here, nor does the WaPo article you linked to.

        You seem unable to communicate other than in a random string of right-wing talking points. Unfortunately, you are not the only one like that here.

        Let me know if you’d actually like to address the subject at hand.

        • If something is a right or left wing talking point does that automatically dismiss it? Is there any validity to talking points? Often the resource can be rather reasonable.

        • That article was posted 01/20/2017, a rather odd date for any Impeachment Process to begin.

          To anyone not leaning perilously aport, it displays the legendarily hyper-partisan bias of WaPo; you citing it as a destination source is signature significance.

          “You seem unable to communicate other than in a random string of right-wing talking points.”

          My my! The breathtakingly viscid irony through which you had to slog to type that.

          • 1/20/2017 was, of course, not the beginning of any impeachment “process,” as you know.

            And you have no actual counter-arguments to WaPo’s analysis, so you just attack the source. This can be useful when dismissing fringe conspiracy websites, but is less useful when it comes to one of the biggest newspapers in the country.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.