• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why did The NY Times suddenly change its tune about Hunter’s laptop?

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
36,896
Reaction score
18,148
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Okay, this article will be dismissed out of hand by many as it’s from The Federalist. And to be fair, this article is almost entirely speculation about what will happen with the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden. But the article does pose a very important question. Why, after a year and half, does The NY Times suddenly admit its “Russian Disinformation” narrative was (at best) misinformation and now state that it is Hunter’s laptop and those are his messages? Why do it at all knowing the their critics across town at The Post and others across the country would have a field day with their admission of error? The Times easily could have kept quite about it.

IMO, that question alone makes this a very interesting read as it’s entirely possible The NY Times isn’t done trying to spin this story for its readers.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/2...ttempt-to-control-the-hunter-biden-narrative/
 
Okay, this article will be dismissed out of hand by many as it’s from The Federalist. And to be fair, this article is almost entirely speculation about what will happen with the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden. But the article does pose a very important question. Why, after a year and half, does The NY Times suddenly admit its “Russian Disinformation” narrative was (at best) misinformation and now state that it is Hunter’s laptop and those are his messages? Why do it at all knowing the their critics across town at The Post and others across the country would have a field day with their admission of error? The Times easily could have kept quite about it.

IMO, that question alone makes this a very interesting read as it’s entirely possible The NY Times isn’t done trying to spin this story for its readers.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/2...ttempt-to-control-the-hunter-biden-narrative/

Because they need excuses why they act hoodwinked relative to just how horrible and embarrassing a POTUS we have.
 
Okay, this article will be dismissed out of hand by many as it’s from The Federalist. And to be fair, this article is almost entirely speculation about what will happen with the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden. But the article does pose a very important question. Why, after a year and half, does The NY Times suddenly admit its “Russian Disinformation” narrative was (at best) misinformation and now state that it is Hunter’s laptop and those are his messages? Why do it at all knowing the their critics across town at The Post and others across the country would have a field day with their admission of error? The Times easily could have kept quite about it.

IMO, that question alone makes this a very interesting read as it’s entirely possible The NY Times isn’t done trying to spin this story for its readers.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/2...ttempt-to-control-the-hunter-biden-narrative/
For the headline of your OP to have any meaning at all, you need to post two (2) NYTimes articles that contradict each other in their coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop witch hunt. Otherwise it's just an unsupported headline failure.
 
Wait, what? The NY Times acknowledged Hunter Biden' s laptop?
 
For the headline of your OP to have any meaning at all, you need to post two (2) NYTimes articles that contradict each other in their coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop witch hunt. Otherwise it's just an unsupported headline failure.
It would appear you are unaware The Times led the “Russian disinformation” narrative about the laptop in the fall of 2020, and honestly, I see no reason to make an effort to lift you from that state of ignorance. Comments like the one you posted here serve a purpose.
 
Okay, this article will be dismissed out of hand by many as it’s from The Federalist. And to be fair, this article is almost entirely speculation about what will happen with the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden. But the article does pose a very important question. Why, after a year and half, does The NY Times suddenly admit its “Russian Disinformation” narrative was (at best) misinformation and now state that it is Hunter’s laptop and those are his messages? Why do it at all knowing the their critics across town at The Post and others across the country would have a field day with their admission of error? The Times easily could have kept quite about it.

IMO, that question alone makes this a very interesting read as it’s entirely possible The NY Times isn’t done trying to spin this story for its readers.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/2...ttempt-to-control-the-hunter-biden-narrative/

It seems clear that some of Hunter’s activities violated FARA, but there are numerous exemptions which would likely make jurors’ heads spin trying to prove intent to violate FARA’s rather complex rules. After all, the FBI decided that Hillary’s “extreme carelessness” somehow fell short of “gross negligence” in her questionable handling of classified material. Couple that with prosecutorial discretion and/or lack of precedent and its very likely that the DOJ will choose not to act to elevate that ‘matter’ into a ‘scandal’.

 
Okay, this article will be dismissed out of hand by many as it’s from The Federalist. And to be fair, this article is almost entirely speculation about what will happen with the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden. But the article does pose a very important question. Why, after a year and half, does The NY Times suddenly admit its “Russian Disinformation” narrative was (at best) misinformation and now state that it is Hunter’s laptop and those are his messages? Why do it at all knowing the their critics across town at The Post and others across the country would have a field day with their admission of error? The Times easily could have kept quite about it.

IMO, that question alone makes this a very interesting read as it’s entirely possible The NY Times isn’t done trying to spin this story for its readers.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/2...ttempt-to-control-the-hunter-biden-narrative/
Almost entirely speculation you say, that's good enough for you to post the article and now the braindead can agree and repeat it all over the place.
 
Almost entirely speculation you say, that's good enough for you to post the article and now the braindead can agree and repeat it all over the place.
That swooshing sound you hear is the key question going over your head.
 
Truth is coming out despite the media cover up so the NYT is trying to get out in front and start spinning.
 
It would appear you are unaware The Times led the “Russian disinformation” narrative about the laptop in the fall of 2020, and honestly, I see no reason to make an effort to lift you from that state of ignorance.
Even assuming you're correct, a) nobody would remember word-for-word an article written in 2020, and b) that by itself would only be half the premise of your headline. It takes two (2) tunes to change a tune.
Comments like the one you posted here serve a purpose.
We agree. That's why I post them.
 
Even assuming you're correct, a) nobody would remember word-for-word an article written in 2020, and b) that by itself would only be half the premise of your headline. It takes two (2) tunes to change a tune.

We agree. That's why I post them.
I suspect you didn’t read much of the coverage then nor the reaction to the Times’s about-face over the past week.
 
Okay, this article will be dismissed out of hand by many as it’s from The Federalist. And to be fair, this article is almost entirely speculation about what will happen with the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden. But the article does pose a very important question. Why, after a year and half, does The NY Times suddenly admit its “Russian Disinformation” narrative was (at best) misinformation and now state that it is Hunter’s laptop and those are his messages? Why do it at all knowing the their critics across town at The Post and others across the country would have a field day with their admission of error? The Times easily could have kept quite about it.

IMO, that question alone makes this a very interesting read as it’s entirely possible The NY Times isn’t done trying to spin this story for its readers.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/2...ttempt-to-control-the-hunter-biden-narrative/

I was wondering the same thing.

The lying propagandists must have done this for a reason, but what might it have been?

I suppose we'll know more after the smoke clears.

Maybe they've decided that Biden cannot win in a second run and are just setting up the hatchet jobs they'll be conducted during the 2024 primary season.
 
I was wondering the same thing.

The lying propagandists must have done this for a reason, but what might it have been?

I suppose we'll know more after the smoke clears.

Maybe they've decided that Biden cannot win in a second run and are just setting up the hatchet jobs they'll be conducted during the 2024 primary season.
Yes, a “replace Biden” agenda would also fit the facts.

Time will tell.
 
Okay, this article will be dismissed out of hand by many as it’s from The Federalist. And to be fair, this article is almost entirely speculation about what will happen with the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden. But the article does pose a very important question. Why, after a year and half, does The NY Times suddenly admit its “Russian Disinformation” narrative was (at best) misinformation and now state that it is Hunter’s laptop and those are his messages? Why do it at all knowing the their critics across town at The Post and others across the country would have a field day with their admission of error? The Times easily could have kept quite about it.

IMO, that question alone makes this a very interesting read as it’s entirely possible The NY Times isn’t done trying to spin this story for its readers.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/2...ttempt-to-control-the-hunter-biden-narrative/

They switch from "but her emails" to "but his laptop" and expect to be taken seriously.

:LOL:

Clue: everybody knew your cooked-up smear was bullshit, so nobody cared. Not even you.
 
It would appear you are unaware The Times led the “Russian disinformation” narrative about the laptop in the fall of 2020, and honestly, I see no reason to make an effort to lift you from that state of ignorance. Comments like the one you posted here serve a purpose.
The thing is that hardly anyone paid attention to any of that shit. Who cares about Hunter's laptop? I didn't care then, and I don't care now. The mere fact that Rudy G. was involved at all, makes it ridiculous.

Only the far right is making a big deal out of this. No one else cares.
 
I was wondering the same thing.

The lying propagandists must have done this for a reason, but what might it have been?

I suppose we'll know more after the smoke clears.

Maybe they've decided that Biden cannot win in a second run and are just setting up the hatchet jobs they'll be conducted during the 2024 primary season.

You never convinced anyone but yourselves that Hillary was a criminal despite Trump's own DOJ - the guy who promised to "LOCK HER UP!" - making no effort ever to indict her. You're not going to do it with a laptop Trump's FBI sat on for a couple years without making any effort to indict Hunter.

But you're not gonna let that stop you from putting on a show of performative bullshit to make it look like you take your latest propaganda seriously, as if that's going to make someone else think it's real.
 
They switch from "but her emails" to "but his laptop" and expect to be taken seriously.

:LOL:

Clue: everybody knew your cooked-up smear was bullshit, so nobody cared. Not even you.
Why did The Times change its position on the laptop’s provenance and why now?
 
The thing is that hardly anyone paid attention to any of that shit. Who cares about Hunter's laptop? I didn't care then, and I don't care now. The mere fact that Rudy G. was involved at all, makes it ridiculous.

Only the far right is making a big deal out of this. No one else cares.
Willful ignorance makes for an interesting counterargument, but okay.
 
I suspect you didn’t read much of the coverage then nor the reaction to the Times’s about-face over the past week.
I suspect you're just too lazy to back up the headline of your OP.
 
Okay, this article will be dismissed out of hand by many as it’s from The Federalist. And to be fair, this article is almost entirely speculation about what will happen with the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden. But the article does pose a very important question. Why, after a year and half, does The NY Times suddenly admit its “Russian Disinformation” narrative was (at best) misinformation and now state that it is Hunter’s laptop and those are his messages? Why do it at all knowing the their critics across town at The Post and others across the country would have a field day with their admission of error? The Times easily could have kept quite about it.

IMO, that question alone makes this a very interesting read as it’s entirely possible The NY Times isn’t done trying to spin this story for its readers.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/2...ttempt-to-control-the-hunter-biden-narrative/


Bengazy! Bengazy! Begazy! The right is addicted to chasing ghosts
 
Bengazy! Bengazy! Begazy! The right is addicted to chasing ghosts
Indeed. What was that final tally? TEN "investigations" over SEVEN YEARS, and ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR$ of taxpayer money on their Benghazi witch hunts. And all for what? Blaming Obama, and jerking off the Hillary haters. And Republicans are not even smart enough to be embarrassed about their actions.
 
A couple of key observations about NYT's tactics:
The Times’s tactic of preemptively providing defenses to hypothetical criminal charges should also alert readers to the inevitability of an indictment against Hunter.
As noted above, the Times’ preemptive countering of several hypothetical criminal charges indicates the leftist paper’s coverage of the Hunter Biden case seeks not to inform the public but to form a gentle narrative on which the president’s son can land when the expected indictment drops. Here it is not merely the many defenses the Times lays out, but the entirety of the article that also downplays the potential charges and paints the most sympathetic scenario possible for Hunter Biden.
Downplay the Charges, Build the Narrative, and Beta-Test the Defenses
 
Indeed. What was that final tally? TEN "investigations" over SEVEN YEARS, and ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR$ of taxpayer money on their Benghazi witch hunts. And all for what? Blaming Obama, and jerking off the Hillary haters. And Republicans are not even smart enough to be embarrassed about their actions.

How much time and money going after Trump nothing burgers?
 
Back
Top Bottom