RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-has-torn-the-mask-off-the-liberal-media-11604266772?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

Why does the media hate Donald Trump so much? There are all kinds of theories, but only one really makes sense: We are a country at odds over the most fundamental principles of ideology, economics, religion, race, culture, morality—even our own history. The media is on one side of that metaphorical war, and President Trump calls it out.

In this dispute the two sides have always been known to the participants, but the media doesn’t identify them publicly. A major part of the mainstream media’s strategy has been to preserve the perception of its neutrality and keep its role as hidden as possible. It has been criticized in the past for its liberal bias—by conservatives. But never by a sitting president with such effectiveness. (Richard Nixon mostly delegated the job to Vice President Spiro Agnew.) By treating the media for what it is—a belligerent in the culture war—Mr. Trump has done it irreparable damage.

The media is supposed to be a neutral participant. So, to a lesser extent, are Hollywood and academia. Hollywood’s job is to entertain us. The universities’ job is to educate us. The media’s job is to report the news to us. If there is indeed some kind of philosophical, theological and economic battle being waged for the soul of the country, Americans would certainly want to know if those responsible for filtering information to us are doing so in an objective fashion.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored

I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden — the last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden, leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post, publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see the censorship in action and, given the Intercept’s denials, decide for yourselves (this is the kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me — to shorten it, fix typos, etc — but it’s important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not “edit” but completely gut as a condition to publication:

TITLE: THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER’S EMAILS

Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family’s pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories.

One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions — the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election — journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.

After the Post’s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/30/yes-media-are-rigging-election-against-half-the-country-heres-how/

Even if Donald Trump had lost the 2016 election, instead of won it in a surprise, the media’s coverage of his campaign and supporters would have been a horrific failure. They presented that race as unwinnable for Trump and as if his support was inexplicable.

Their response to their 2016 failures has been not to improve their journalism in any way, shape, or form, but to decide that they didn’t do enough to bias that election in their preferred direction. Their nearly four-year temper tantrum has resulted in far worse 2020 campaign coverage than even the depths of their 2016 coverage. It’s as if they looked to the Candy Crowley debate in 2012, when she went out of her way to back Barack Obama when he said something false, and viewed it as a model, not an embarrassment.

Once again, regardless of the outcome next week, Big Media is actively at war with half of the American people and are desperately working to rig an election against them. Here are just five ways they’re doing that.

1. Refusing to Do Journalism on Joe Biden

On October 14, the New York Post published a story about how Hunter Biden had introduced his father to a top Ukrainian businessman. This contradicted Joe Biden’s oft-repeated claim to have had no knowledge whatsoever about his son’s overseas business affairs.

Hunter Biden was paid handsomely by Burisma, a Ukrainian energy concern, while his father was vice president. Hunter had no business acumen or relevant experience in the energy sector, but was paid millions of dollars by Burisma at the time his father was in charge of U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/10/30/gdp-explodes-33-1-media-bury-the-story/

“So let’s review. The economy is rebounding from the pandemic lockdowns faster than anyone expected. Jobs are returning faster than the experts predicted, with employment growing by 14.2 million since April’s huge COVID-related plunge.”

A few weeks ago we noted that the third-quarter GDP number was likely to be a stunner, defying the endless claims by the press that the economy will struggle to emerge from the COVID-19 lockdowns. We also warned that voters wouldn’t get the news through the mainstream press.

Well, we were right on both counts.

The economy grew an absolutely breathtaking 33.1% from July through September, a quarterly gain never before achieved in this country. That means that we’ve already made up two-thirds of the losses. (Under Obama, it took a full year before the economy regained two-thirds of the loss suffered in the 2009 recession.)

Not only was the growth astonishing, it exceeded all expectations. At the start of the quarter, the Blue Chip Consensus was for the rebound to be less than 20%. After the quarter ended, it predicted that growth would be less than 30%.

The press? Well, it buried the story as deep as it possibly could.

Below is a slideshow presenting the home pages of major news sites as of 11 a.m. Eastern time on Thursday.

See for yourself how much space was devoted to this news. On several sites, the story doesn’t appear “above the fold.” On USA Today’s home page, you have to scroll two-thirds of the way to the bottom to see a link. And the feature story on its Money page was about National Cat Day .

If the stories appeared on the front page at all, the news about stellar third-quarter growth was followed by a big cautionary statement.

“…Problems remain,” says the New York Times.

“…That’s not the whole story,” says CNN

“…But the data is complicated,” says the Washington Post

“…But slowdown emerges,” says USA Today.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-newsroom-is-safe-if-the-intercept-can-fall-victim-to-media-groupthink/

Glenn Greenwald founded The Intercept in 2013 with the explicit goal of creating a news outlet that would be insulated from the partisan and financial pressures inherent to corporate media.

As he acknowledges in a resignation letter published Thursday, that project has ultimately failed.

The Intercept’s editors, who Greenwald notes repeatedly are almost all based in New York, forbade him from publishing a column airing well-documented allegations of Biden family corruption. They told him that he couldn’t publish the piece as written at The Intercept, supposedly in violation of his contract, and discouraged him from publishing it elsewhere, as doing so would be “unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept.”

“The final, precipitating cause [of resignation] is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden,” Greenwald wrote. 

In so doing, the editors were following in the footsteps of their media betters at the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC, all of which have either ignored the documents and first-hand accounts of corruption proffered by the former CEO of a Biden family business, or woven them into some meta-narrative about the importance of media gatekeeping in protecting credulous readers from foreign disinformation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/glenn-greenwald-resigns-from-the-intercept-alleging-censorship-of-views-critical-of-joe-biden/

Journalist Glenn Greenwald announced his resignation from The Intercept on Thursday, alleging that the outlet he co-founded was attempting to censor a column in which he criticizes Joe Biden.

Greenwald said he would continue publishing a freelance column, joining a number of journalists such as Matt Taibbi and Andrew Sullivan who have moved their work to the independent publishing platform Substack. Sullivan announced in July that he would leave New York Magazine, writing at the time that editors and writers at the publication were forced to commit to “critical theory in questions of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

Greenwald laid out the reasons for his own resignation in a Substack post.

“The final, precipitating cause [of resignation] is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden,” Greenwald wrote. Lashing out at “all New-York-based Intercept editors” who “vehemently” support Biden, Greenwald claimed that “modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. ”

Greenwald wrote that the article his editors wanted to censor referred to newly-released documents pertaining to Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine and China. He criticized his former publication for “a deep fear of offending hegemonic cultural liberalism and center-left Twitter luminaries, and an overarching need to secure the approval and admiration of the very mainstream media outlets we created The Intercept to oppose, critique and subvert.”

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/28/twitter-facebook-confess-there-is-no-evidence-of-russian-disinformation-behind-hunter-biden-story/

n Wednesday’s Senate hearing on Big Tech and Section 230, both Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that neither had any evidence that the New York Post’s reporting on Joe Biden’s knowledge of his son Hunter Biden’s foreign business deals is Russian disinformation.

“For both Mr. Zuckerberg and Dorsey who censored the New York Post stories or throttle them back, do you have any evidence that the New York Post story is part of Russian disinformation or that those emails are not authentic?” Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin asked. “Do you have any information whatsoever they are not authentic or they are Russian disinformation?

Dorsey and Zuckerberg both denied receiving any indication that the story was part of a Russian misinformation campaign.

Within days of the story’s censorship, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe explicitly debunked the disinformation claims made by Rep. Adam Schiff, when he reported the intelligence community has no evidence that the bombshell story was a foreign attempt to spread misinformation and interfere in the U.S. election.

“Let me be clear,” he said on Fox News, “The intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that.”

“We have shared no intelligence with Chairman Schiff, or any other member of Congress that Hunter Biden’s laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” Ratcliffe clarified. “It’s simply not true.”