Eager to obtain vindication for the pre-election fraud they spread about the Hunter Biden story, journalists falsely claimed that CIA blamed Russia for it. This was a total fabrication that they spread to hundreds of thousands if not millions, with little attempt to rectify it.
Even if this report had asserted the Hunter Biden laptop materials were manufactured by the Kremlin, that would prove nothing. Evidence-free assertions from the U.S. intelligence community merit skepticism, not blind faith — especially from people calling themselves journalists.
But the liberal sector of the media venerates the intelligence community and the CIA to such an extent that they instantly enshrine their evidence-free pronouncements as Truth. They do not even pretend to require specificity or evidence of the claims.
Amazingly, while some journalists -- such as @ChrisLHayes -- acknowledged that the original claims about this report were false and deleted his tweet, most just kept them up. Here's the HuffPost's WH reporter who *still* has it up:
When anyone, including journalists, is laid off, it is lamentable. But when one witnesses behavior like what they did yesterday, the only confounding part is that the collapse of this sector of the media is not happening even more quickly and severely.
The years-long smear campaign against @jessesingal by a good chunk of the left-liberal media -- fabricating claims that he's a harasser and stalker of transwomen -- is one of the most repulsive things I've seen, yet illustrative of their tactics. Glad to see it getting attention:
Amazing how these obviously false smears from a known fabricator -- who just became LGBT like 4 seconds ago and now uses it to attack life-long LGBT writers -- get printed in every digital media article on the Substack controversy with no questioning:
This is what Brooklyn-based media outlets do: print any accusation against their enemies without the slightest need for evidence or even responses from the accused.
Then if you object to the lies, the journalists who do it cry "harassment," & then wonder why their outlets fail.
Any rules of political discourse that subordinate the merit of an argument to the identity of the person advocating it is inherently unhealthy.
The recent demands that LGBT writers be deplatformed from Substack -- in the name of LGBT equality -- illustrates this perversion.
At first glance, this discussion may seem relevant only to a limited audience. But I would like to invite readers to consider that these dynamics, far from being a niche discussion, has broad, even universal, relevance to how our political discourse is being conducted.
Please look at how stupid and lowly so many liberals are now. If you ask for evidence to support sweeping but dubious claims about the cause of anti-Asian violence, they won't answer (their brains don't allow that). Instead, they'll call you racist: it's all they know how to do:
Here's a white historian who has a life where race plays no role other than to exploit it as a fun online toy to casually slander people as racists for refusing to endorse claims without evidence. Contempt is required for them and their tactics:
This tweet is absolutely false. The report does not even mention the Hunter Biden laptop or the documents reported on, let alone allege that it came from Russia, let alone provide proof of this. This tweet is disinformation.
The MSNBC host who first spread this tweet subsequently acknowledged that, upon reading the report, he sees that the tweet's claim is untrue because there is no mention of what it alleges:
And, just to review the basic rule of journalism (and basic rationality) once more: even if the US security state had alleged the laptop came from Russia, minimally sane and sober people will not assume that's true absent *evidence." That's what journalistic skepticism means.
With their ratings in free fall, they desperately need "the new Trump." They tried to make it Marjorie Taylor Green but nobody cared about a first-term backbencher, so they're now auditioning Tucker for the role. A bit bizarre for cable hosts to elevate another TV host this way:
Why is it OK to devote hours of TV time to maligning and stoking hatred against a cable host (and I do think it's fine), but it's not OK -- it's abusive and violent -- to voice criticisms of a front-page NYT reporter.
What's the principle here?
Tucker Carlson actually had protesters outside his home when his wife and kids were inside. Using the logic now marshalled to place off-limits criticisms of NYT reporters, couldn't he allege that CNN's attacks on him incite harassment and violence?
The Washington Post's media-spread error about Trump's Georgia call shows the deceitful playbook first invented to undermine Trump and promote Russiagate.
As they rely upon partisan audiences, news outlets are incentivized to recklessly publish against political enemies.
The worst Trump-era media humiliation was when CNN breathlessly claimed Trump, Jr. got advanced access to the WikiLeaks archive -- all because their "sources" misread an email date.
How did MSNBC & CBS purport to "independently confirm" the same falsehood? It's a key tactic.