- Joined
- Oct 15, 2020
- Messages
- 37,056
- Reaction score
- 18,261
- 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/
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.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 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.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.
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.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/
That swooshing sound you hear is the key question going over your head.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 is a fair summary of Cleveland’s speculation.Truth is coming out despite the media cover up so the NYT is trying to get out in front and start spinning.
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.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.
We agree. That's why I post them.Comments like the one you posted here serve a purpose.
I suspect you didn’t read much of the coverage then nor the reaction to the Times’s about-face over the past week.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.
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/
Yes, a “replace Biden” agenda would also fit the facts.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.
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/
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.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.
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.
Why did The Times change its position on the laptop’s provenance and why now?They switch from "but her emails" to "but his laptop" and expect to be taken seriously.
Clue: everybody knew your cooked-up smear was bullshit, so nobody cared. Not even you.
Willful ignorance makes for an interesting counterargument, but okay.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.
That's laughable.That swooshing sound you hear is the key question going over your head.
I suspect you're just too lazy to back up the headline of your OP.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/
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.Bengazy! Bengazy! Begazy! The right is addicted to chasing ghosts
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?