Read on Twitter
My latest article is about the right’s year and a half quest to get their Hunter Biden narrative to stick, and what they’re up to next: https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-post/new-york-posts-hunter-biden-story-flops-right-wing-media-rage-mainstream-outlets-wont
So, there are a lot of questions about the emails, the newsworthiness of what’s in them, their origin, and so on.
Even if they are legitimate, nothing in them has been the “smoking gun” the Post advertised.
Even if they are legitimate, nothing in them has been the “smoking gun” the Post advertised.
I found it interesting that Giuliani said he chose the Post because other outlets “would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”
And... yes. Exactly. That’s journalism. It’s important to scrutinize stories before blasting them out.
And... yes. Exactly. That’s journalism. It’s important to scrutinize stories before blasting them out.
When outlets cut corners, they damage their reputation. In 2016, Slate published a story that could damage Trump’s campaign... but it turned out not to be true.
While other outlets like Reuters, NYT, WaPo investigated the claims, they never published.
While other outlets like Reuters, NYT, WaPo investigated the claims, they never published.
NYT investigated that particular tip for six weeks. In the end, they weren’t able to confirm the details, so they never ran it. They showed restraint. They resisted the urge to run with a potentially election-altering story during the campaign’s final weeks.
Now, of course, outlets haven’t ignored the existence of the NY Post’s reporting, but they are being rightfully skeptical of the claims being made.
Right-wing media outlets are not particularly happy about this.
Right-wing media outlets are not particularly happy about this.
There seems to be this idea among people in the conservative media ecosystem that mainstream outlets will just print anything based on a hunch.
That’s not something that usually happens.
That’s not something that usually happens.
You may remember in 2017 there were stories going around about Roy Moore, who was running for senate, facing allegations from women. There was this idea on the right that these stories weren’t being vetted.
So one conservative group tried to test this. It did not go well.
So one conservative group tried to test this. It did not go well.
This group sent a woman who contacted the Washington Post to say that Moore was inappropriate with her when she was younger. The way this plan was supposed to work was that she’d do that, WaPo would print it, and then they could show how easy it was to trick WP. Well...
The paper did try to confirm this woman’s story, but it wasn’t adding up. The paper not only didn’t publish the piece with her claim, but they turned this foiled sting operation into a story of its own. Worth a read. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html
Now, there are a number of reasons the Post’s reporting has been a bit eyebrow raising.
For one, one of the first articles noted that the Post received on a Sunday. That article was published on Wednesday. That’s 3 days.
For one, one of the first articles noted that the Post received on a Sunday. That article was published on Wednesday. That’s 3 days.
3 days is not a lot of time. At all. Again, recall that NYT investigated a story in 2016 that it didn’t end up even running for six weeks. https://twitter.com/parkermolloy/status/1318633309912576005
Also at the New York Times, after they published the stories based on Trump’s taxes, they provided insight into the work involved.
The people on the story had been working on the topic for nearly 4 years. The project’s overseeing editor is were named. Transparency.
The people on the story had been working on the topic for nearly 4 years. The project’s overseeing editor is were named. Transparency.
The closer you get to an election, the more responsibility you have to be *thorough* *before* publishing something. The Post very clearly wasn’t. For one, we still don’t know who even wrote some of these pieces because some of the authors have reportedly taken their names off.
And there are a number of issues in the stories themselves. Let’s take, for instance, the “smoking gun” article.
The firing of Viktor Shokin is talked about at length in it. The reader is clearly meant to interpret the “smoking gun” as being about Shokin’s firing.
The firing of Viktor Shokin is talked about at length in it. The reader is clearly meant to interpret the “smoking gun” as being about Shokin’s firing.
And the rest of the article makes that point clear. The takeaway is that Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin in order to help Hunter and Burisma.
The article’s use of “infamously” is interesting here... because it wasn’t “infamous.”
The article’s use of “infamously” is interesting here... because it wasn’t “infamous.”
During Trump’s impeachment, Trump’s supporters defended his decision to withhold funds to Ukraine in exchange for them to announce an investigation into Burisma by pointing to Biden withholding funds from Burisma to get them to fire Shokin.
The idea was to say “he did it, too!”
The idea was to say “he did it, too!”
The reason there’s a video of Biden telling the story about getting Ukraine to fire Shokin is because ***he had permission to withhold funding until Shokin was gone because he was carrying out US policy***
Trump’s decision to withhold was a.) rogue, and b.) for personal gain.
Trump’s decision to withhold was a.) rogue, and b.) for personal gain.
Here’s the video where Biden tells the story of getting Shokin fired. It’s not controversial. https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden
“Joe Biden has insisted that...”
No, it’s not just that he’s insisting, it’s an established fact. Shokin was covering up corruption and was opening investigations just for the sake of making it look like he was doing something, but not bringing charges against people.
No, it’s not just that he’s insisting, it’s an established fact. Shokin was covering up corruption and was opening investigations just for the sake of making it look like he was doing something, but not bringing charges against people.
The “a rogue Joe Biden went to Ukraine and threatened to withhold money unless they stopped investigating his son!” narrative has been debunked over and over and over. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/
My point being, when your big lead “smoking gun” story repeatedly makes references and hints at something that we know is not true, it undermines your credibility in a gigantic way.
Off topic for a second, but Shokin 100% looks like a generic brand Donald Trump
But we’ve known all of this. And Shokin’s story kept changing and didn’t add up. He was just trying to find an argument that might help himself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-court-forces-probe-into-biden-role-in-firing-of-prosecutor-viktor-shokin/2020/02/27/92710222-5983-11ea-8efd-0f904bdd8057_story.html
So when THAT is the basis of the “smoking gun” story, you haven’t actually presented anything that even remotely links him to corruption. If the story was really just that he may have been introduced to someone working at Burisma, they should have just reported that.
But instead the Post tried to tie this to the debunked story about Shokin. That’s going to hurt their credibility. That’s what people are talking about when they say this could be disinformation: they’re trying to reverse-engineer a scandal that doesn’t add up.
tl;dr Respectable news outlets are right to proceed with caution and not just amplify whatever NYP throws into the world. They should investigate, try to confirm whatever, and if things turn out differently than the last half dozen times this has been thrust into the news, ok
But it’s important that they not cave to people on the right throwing fits over the fact that other news outlets have questions. https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-post/new-york-posts-hunter-biden-story-flops-right-wing-media-rage-mainstream-outlets-wont
Ah, I see that my replies are going to be filled with some real geniuses.
Both of those examples were confirmed. No matter how many times you claim he didn’t say fine people on both sides, he did. I am sorry that your brain is like this. https://twitter.com/stephenpampell/status/1318646352117727232
Both of those examples were confirmed. No matter how many times you claim he didn’t say fine people on both sides, he did. I am sorry that your brain is like this. https://twitter.com/stephenpampell/status/1318646352117727232
