Fox News should be sued, and kept in lawsuit after lawsuit until we can get the fairness in media law back. DD
Journalist group hits CNN for lack of diversity in streaming lineup https://thehill.com/homenews/media/596674-cnn-slammed-for-lack-of-diversity-in-streaming-lineup
WSJ takes the Gray Lady to task https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-news-thats-finally-fit-to-print-hunter-biden-laptop-new-york-post-new-york-times-joe-biden-11647637814 Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Finally News Fit to Print The press that ignored the story in 2020 admits that it’s real. By The Editorial Board March 18, 2022 6:41 pm ET Talk about burying the lead—for 17 months. The New York Times has finally acknowledged that Hunter Biden’s business dealings are legitimate news. Implicit apology accepted. The Times waddled in this week with a story on the “tax affairs” of the President’s son, including this gem in the 24th paragraph: “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.” You don’t say. This admission comes six months after a Politico writer published a book that also confirmed that the laptop emails were authentic. But the original scoop belonged to the New York Post, which broke its laptop story in October 2020—only to meet a media wall of denial and distortion. Rather than attempt to confirm the emails, nearly all of the media at the time ignored the story or “fact-checked” it as false. This in-kind contribution to candidate Joe Biden was all the more egregious given other evidence supporting the Post’s scoop. Neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign denied that the laptop was Hunter’s. And Hunter’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, went public with documents backing up some of the laptop’s contents. The herd of media conformists also echoed the speculation of obviously partisan “intelligence officials.” Some 50 of these officials—headlined by former Obama spooks James Clapper and John Brennan —circulated a statement peddling the Russian “disinformation” line—even as they admitted they had no evidence. This result was a blackout of the Hunter news, except in a few places, including these pages.Twitter blocked the Post’s account for nearly two weeks, and Facebook used algorithms to quash the story. This deprived voters of information they might have wanted to know before Election Day. There’s more for our reborn media sleuths to investigate. Mr. Bobulinski provided these pages with documents showing Hunter was looking to use the Biden name to profit from a business deal with a Shanghai-based company with ties to the Chinese government. One May 2017 “expectations” email from Hunter associate James Gilliar shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture, with another “10 held by H for the big guy.” Mr. Bobulinski says the “big guy” is Joe Biden. To this day the Bidens have not had to explain their business arrangement. The emails make clear that Hunter was cashing in on the Biden name, including as a board member of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company. That influence-peddling was a potential political liability for Mr. Biden, which was why the facts deserved an airing before the election. They are still relevant, especially with U.S.-China relations so fraught. The Times won a Pulitzer prize for pushing the Russia collusion narrative, which proved to be much ado about nothing. The New York Post deserves a Pulitzer, but it will probably have to settle for well-earned vindication. Appeared in the March 19, 2022, print edition as 'All the News That’s Finally Fit to Print.'
Are we saying that the the current liberal US government is aligned with the liberal media or are we saying that the US government controls the media no matter what year and who is in office (Trump/Biden/Bush etc) like in a communist government?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/03/hunter-biden-story-is-an-opportunity-reckoning/ Opinion: The Hunter Biden story is an opportunity for a reckoning By Editorial Board Yesterday at 8:00 a.m. EDT There was something grotesquely familiar about last week’s revelations about Hunter Biden’s business dealings abroad, both in the story’s particulars and in the more general saga of sleazy self-dealing into which it fits. The idea that these latest revelations definitively vindicate or villainize any party except Mr. Biden himself, however, is misplaced. The Post reported Wednesday on the multimillion-dollar deals the president’s son made with a Chinese energy company. The investigation adds new details and confirms old ones about the ways in which Joe Biden’s family has profited from trading overseas on his name — something for which the president deserves criticism for tacitly condoning. What it does not do, despite some conservatives’ insistence otherwise, is prove that President Biden acted corruptly. This is a reality that an election-year probe by Senate Republicans into improper influence or wrongdoing has already confirmed. The Justice Department, meanwhile, continues its inquiry into Hunter Biden’s tax affairs and foreign lobbying. For now, what’s more compelling than the assorted accusations about the Bidens’ behavior is this question: Why is confirmation of a story that first surfaced in the fall of 2020 emerging only now? When the New York Post published its blockbuster exclusive on the contents of a laptop said to have been abandoned at a Delaware repair shop by Hunter Biden, mainstream media organizations balked at running with the same narrative. Social media sites displayed even greater caution. Twitter blocked the story altogether, pointing to a policy against hacked materials, and suspended the New York Post’s account for sharing it; Facebook downranked the story in the algorithms that govern users’ news feeds for fear that it was based on misinformation. Now, The Washington Post and the New York Times have vouched for many of the relevant communications. This series of events has prompted allegations of a coverup, or at best a double standard in the treatment of conservative and liberal politicians by mainstream media and social media sites. Yet there was reason in this case for reluctance on the part of the publications and the platforms alike. Both had been the unwitting tools of a Russian influence campaign in 2016, and it was only prudent to suspect a similar plot lay behind the mysterious appearance of a computer stuffed with juicy documents and conveniently handed over to President Donald Trump’s toxic personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Indeed, at the time there was also an ongoing disinformation operation from Moscow involving — among other things — doctored recordings supposedly showing Joe Biden improperly pressuring the then-president of Ukraine to aid Hunter Biden’s business interests — a fraud promoted by Mr. Giuliani. This context doesn’t necessarily exonerate every action of every publication and platform. It makes obvious sense for newspapers to wait to verify information before turning it into a story; the harder conundrum is what to do with true information that comes from a hack, and harder still is how to treat true information that hasn’t been stolen but has been selectively shared to further an agenda. Social media sites face a tougher choice when it comes to whether and how to dampen the spread of a story when they’re unsure of its truthfulness or origins. None of these dilemmas have easy answers. The lesson learned from 2016 was evidently to err on the side of setting aside questionable material in the heat of a political campaign. The lesson learned from 2020 may well be that there’s also a danger of suppressing accurate and relevant stories.
Experiment pays Fox news watchers to watch more CNN and makes them more liberal in 30 days: https://news.google.com/articles/CA...Aowzdp7ML-3CTCRx_0F?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en
Watched an old TED talk about how we know things that I found thought-provoking and relevant to this thread. It is here: And, since I myself don't like when people post videos, I googled and found this textual explanation of the guy's argument here: Unmasking Our Ignorance: Why do we believe things that aren't true? — TEDxMileHigh Adventure But what he's arguing essentially is that people come to hold their strongly-held beliefs not from what they personally know but from what they communally know. We individually are mostly ignorant, specializing in a narrow band of knowledge, but we know other people who specialize in different bands and we adopt their knowledge as our own. This could have gone into a tribalism thread, but I wanted the media thread for this reason. Media and social media are providing the community for all the things we know. We don't know how to wire a house, but we know a guy with a youtube channel that can explain how to wire a house. We don't know if helping Ukraine will ultimately result in mutually assured nuclear destruction, but this retired general on Twitter makes a good argument for it. But with who is in our community curated either by personal choice or by algorithm (and who can tell where one stops and the other starts), our communities and therefore our communities of knowledge are fragmented. And yes I see irony in sharing this bit of communal knowledge on social media.
The Real Loser In The Johnny Depp V. Amber Heard Defamation Drama Is The Washington Post https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/02/the-real-loser-in-the-johnny-depp-v-amber-heard-defamation-drama-is-the-washington-post/
