kalm wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 7:35 am
GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:46 am
Well, if the media won't even report on it, why would the Trump campaign think anything more would be made out of it if they released it as a campaign? Campaigns aren't supposed to be news organizations, normally the media has been counted on to report on things. Like I said, we're in a weird point in time again in America, and we have examples in the past, where the media has gotten very polarized and it's impacting their impartiality and their ability to report the news. Actively squashing and even purposely reporting incorrectly on the Hunter Biden laptop is just one glaring example. That's worrisome when that happens.
The media isn’t just the liberal msm. Are you suggesting Trump didn’t have media surrogates at the time?
Please give examples of “active squashing and purposeful incorrect reporting” regarding Hunter.
It was reported, he obviously grifted off his dad’s name. What else is the media supposed to report? Was there no effort to tie in his grift to something more nefarious?
I’ve heard and continue to hear more about Hunter than Guilianni’s involvement with Ukraine.
If there is sone cover up, right wing media has done a terrible job in exposing both Hunter and Ashley Biden.
The right has their share of slanted media too, just not as much and no one pretends that the media on the right is objective and respectable. People do like to pretend that some news organizations are unbiased which is becoming less and less prevalent.
For the Hunter thing, come on, you're not really serious are you? Of course that was squashed. Influential media gatekeepers like Twitter and Facebook have already said out loud that they suppressed and hid stories related to it. They can say it now because it's two years after the fact, but they clearly did it. Other news organizations ran with that too, basically reporting that they, along with the social media sites, had decided it was fake news and not to be trusted. They didn't really know that (hence the incorrect reporting), but it fit their polarized view of the subject so that's how they reported it. I don't think it's the crime of the century or anything, but it's clearly a shining example of modern day yellow journalism. They got it wrong, and they waited years to tell us (or at least some have - some haven't even mentioned it) that they got it wrong.