Mainstream media voices have finally acknowledged the information found on Hunter Biden’s laptop warrants investigation at the federal level, only after convincing the public the ordeal was nothing more than Russian-disinformation-fueled propaganda. Where to turn in the age of special-interests driven news?
To the surprise of the many, Hunter Biden confirmed yesterday, through the press team of his father, that he learned the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware is investigating his tax affairs.
"I take this matter very seriously, but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors", Hunter said in a lawyer-proofed statement.
In that same memo, the Biden-Harris transition team made a statement on behalf of the President-Elect:
"President-Elect Biden is deeply proud of his son, who has fought through difficult challenges, including the vicious personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger."
When the New York Post broke this story about Hunter Biden, Twitter took unprecedented steps to censor it. They found allies in the DNC and TV anchors of the most powerful media to discredit the story, quoting the letter signed by 50 former intelligence officers qualifying it as "Russian disinformation".
However, none of those former intelligence officers have seen any of the materials in question first hand, as Richard Grenell accurately pointed out. However, the narrative was successfully served to the public, a large portion of which took delight in “learning” about.
There are a few pejorative labels used to discredit stories that shine a negative light on the Democrats.
b) Russian asset
c) Foreign agent/foreign influence
Pick to your liking. The same pattern we can see in the story Axios published on a Chinese spy named Fang Fang, or Christina Fang, who infiltrated Eric Swalwell’s ( D-CA) inner circle.
Swalwell’s office in a statement issued to Axios said that they refuse to participate in the story:
"Rep. Swalwell, long ago, provided information about this person — whom he met more than eight years ago, and whom he hasn’t seen in nearly six years — to the FBI. To protect information that might be classified, he will not participate in your story," they said.
But then, Swalwell went to the gold standard for discrediting stories that expose Democrats, Jake Tapper’s The Lead, to say that the Axios story was planted by Donald Trump’s allies. See (a) on the list of choice labels.
The MO to discredit even reputable publications when they publish stories unfavorable of the Democrats fits the established pattern but does not follow the same principles when a Republican is under scrutiny.
Whether Hunter Biden is truly clueless or tidily sticking to talking points, the same POLITICO that once wrote off the Hunter Biden story as "Russian disinformation" now reports along with the AP (according to a person with firsthand knowledge of the investigation) that the investigation is much broader and is also looking into money laundering and Hunter's foreign ties.
America’s most powerful media writes stories by popular opinion. In this social and political climate, where Jeff Zucker dictates which stories are to be told and which to be ignored, trust in the media can only go so far.
“Obviously, we’re not going with the New York Post story right now on Hunter Biden,” said Chalian to Zucker in the leaked 9 AM conference call. While CNN is calling this editorial guidance, I call it a campaign for one party and in favor of one candidate who got elected without being properly scrutinized. Just ask Mike Allen who wrote a piece about Biden as “the luckiest, least scrutinized frontrunner.”
The Pavlovic Today was one of a very few that did not go with group-think to discredit Hunter Biden's story based on popular opinion and against the public interest to report on it, which is a responsibility of independent journalism.
Now, the most powerful media cannot ignore the story that they have written off. I’ve said before that it would only get bigger. News agendas are set by those who continue to decide not only what the news is, but also the political timing of that news.
Where does journalism go from here now? The power media structures are an extended arm of political parties, an echo chamber of political talking points that control vox populi. But the choice is in the consumer and the power of independent thinkers to do the right thing and present the facts as they are and not only when that fits the narrative.
Rely on the independent press, those who are not in the clutches of corporate and special interests. To quote Hitchens: "I became a journalist because I did not want to rely on newspapers for information."
Sign up for The Pavlovic Today Newsletter featuring news, scoops, exclusive interviews and expert analysis