The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

I'm up early (and bored), so I was looking back over our discussions at the time over the Twitter and the laptop stuff (around October 20 2020).

Even Fox News wouldn't run the story. Only the NY Post took the plunge.

And Giuliani said at the time that he felt there was only a 50/50 chance he was being played.

But sure it's all victimization of the poor right wingers lads.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-fox-news-passed-on-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns/

[whitey]

I'm up early (and bored), so I was looking back over our discussions at the time over the Twitter and the laptop stuff (around October 20 2020).

Even Fox News wouldn't run the story. Only the NY Post took the plunge.

And Giuliani said at the time that he felt there was only a 50/50 chance he was being played.

But sure it's all victimization of the poor right wingers lads.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-fox-news-passed-on-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns/

If Fox "passed" on it why did The NY Times write this article?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/technology/fox-news-hunter-biden.html

"Fox News Is Covering Hunter Biden Claims More Than 2016 WikiLeaks Emails"

And then there's this

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-has-covered-unverified-hunter-biden-email-story-more-36-hours-lead-election-day

"Fox has covered the unverified Hunter Biden email story for more than 36 hours in the lead-up to Election Day
The network has devoted nearly 600 segments to discussing the poorly sourced allegations"

[J70]

I guess once the NY Post put it all out there, Fox's on-air talent felt they could run with it. The fact remains that their actual news operation (as opposed to their now blanket on-air opinion operation) refused the option to break the story because of how questionable it was.

That's the issue here after all.

No one ever accused Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Fox and Friends of being news reporters.

[whitey]

I guess once the NY Post put it all out there, Fox's on-air talent felt they could run with it. The fact remains that their actual news operation (as opposed to their now blanket on-air opinion operation) refused the option to break the story because of how questionable it was.

That's the issue here after all.

No one ever accused Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Fox and Friends of being news reporters.

So Fox News did cover it-EXTENSIVELY

Actually iirc it's about all they bloody well talked about for weeks on end

But nice attempt at deflection and deception nonetheless

[J70]

I guess once the NY Post put it all out there, Fox's on-air talent felt they could run with it. The fact remains that their actual news operation (as opposed to their now blanket on-air opinion operation) refused the option to break the story because of how questionable it was.

That's the issue here after all.

No one ever accused Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Fox and Friends of being news reporters.

So Fox News did cover it-EXTENSIVELY

Actually iirc it's about all they bloody well talked about for weeks on end

But nice attempt at deflection and deception nonetheless

Right, I only posted a link to an article describing how Fox News passed on breaking it. Even has a very descriptive url.

I'll grant you that I should probably have said "broke" instead of "run" but in my early morning stupor I figured anyone interested would open the link.

The overall point stands.

[whitey]

I guess once the NY Post put it all out there, Fox's on-air talent felt they could run with it. The fact remains that their actual news operation (as opposed to their now blanket on-air opinion operation) refused the option to break the story because of how questionable it was.

That's the issue here after all.

No one ever accused Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Fox and Friends of being news reporters.

So Fox News did cover it-EXTENSIVELY

Actually iirc it's about all they bloody well talked about for weeks on end

But nice attempt at deflection and deception nonetheless

Right, I only posted a link to an article describing how Fox News passed on breaking it. Even has a very descriptive url.

I'll grant you that I should probably have said "broke" instead of "run" but in my early morning stupor I figured anyone interested would open the link.

The overall point stands.

It was a very poorly written article

When I saw it, I thought......what the hell are they talking about

[J70]

I guess once the NY Post put it all out there, Fox's on-air talent felt they could run with it. The fact remains that their actual news operation (as opposed to their now blanket on-air opinion operation) refused the option to break the story because of how questionable it was.

That's the issue here after all.

No one ever accused Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Fox and Friends of being news reporters.

So Fox News did cover it-EXTENSIVELY

Actually iirc it's about all they bloody well talked about for weeks on end

But nice attempt at deflection and deception nonetheless

Right, I only posted a link to an article describing how Fox News passed on breaking it. Even has a very descriptive url.

I'll grant you that I should probably have said "broke" instead of "run" but in my early morning stupor I figured anyone interested would open the link.

The overall point stands.

It was a very poorly written article

When I saw it, I thought......what the hell are they talking about

I guess people can judge for themselves, but I'm not sure why you'd be confused.

Main points:

Fox News news operation wouldn't break the story because of their misgivings.

NY Post had trouble getting anyone to put their name on the byline (and one whose name ended up on it subsequently disowned it).

Which all goes to the doubts about Giuliani and the story's authenticity and the reason an outfit like Twitter, at a time when concerns about misinformation were extremely prevalent, would internally debate about and end up deciding to suppress it.

[whitey]

Here's what you said "Even Fox News wouldn't run the story."

That's flat out false

There was wall to wall coverage on Fox News about it. (Slight exaggeration on my part for the sake of effect )

https://medium.com/dfrlab/coverage-of-hunter-biden-story-illustrates-extremes-in-media-polarization-b784cdde5480

"By contrast, CNN and MNSBC dedicated very little airtime to the Hunter Biden emails following the October 14, 2020 release. Fox News, however, has run ongoing coverage of the documents and purported revelations. More striking still, Fox News appears to have devoted significantly more airtime to the first six days of the Post story than it did to the first six days of the Wikileaks disclosures. Just one day after the release of the Hunter Biden record, Fox News eclipsed its one-day coverage record for the Wikileaks scandal."

[Gmac]

Time to look at the contents of the laptop and see where it leads .
John Brennan , panetta , clapper all bought and paid for by the DNC too , Russian disinformation lol
scumbags

[J70]

Here's what you said "Even Fox News wouldn't run the story."

That's flat out false

There was wall to wall coverage on Fox News about it. (Slight exaggeration on my part for the sake of effect )

https://medium.com/dfrlab/coverage-of-hunter-biden-story-illustrates-extremes-in-media-polarization-b784cdde5480

"By contrast, CNN and MNSBC dedicated very little airtime to the Hunter Biden emails following the October 14, 2020 release. Fox News, however, has run ongoing coverage of the documents and purported revelations. More striking still, Fox News appears to have devoted significantly more airtime to the first six days of the Post story than it did to the first six days of the Wikileaks disclosures. Just one day after the release of the Hunter Biden record, Fox News eclipsed its one-day coverage record for the Wikileaks scandal."

WTF is wrong with you?

The link I posted illustrated what I was saying i.e. Fox wouldn't break the story. If I hadn't listed the link, you might have a point.

But sure go ahead and double down and "win" on an ambiguous choice of words if it makes you feel better about yourself.

It is rather noticeable that you haven't disputed the point though, that Twitter's hesitancy to allow the story to amplify through their platform was perfectly justifiable.

[J70]

Time to look at the contents of the laptop and see where it leads .
John Brennan , panetta , clapper all bought and paid for by the DNC too , Russian disinformation lol
scumbags

I'm sure it will lead to similar endpoints as all the other nonsense you hype up.

I remember you telling us to "grab the popcorn" when Trump was suing Hillary a while back.

Durham still working on stuff?

How's the paedophilia conspiracies going for you boys? Q?

[whitey]

Here's what you said "Even Fox News wouldn't run the story."

That's flat out false

There was wall to wall coverage on Fox News about it. (Slight exaggeration on my part for the sake of effect )

https://medium.com/dfrlab/coverage-of-hunter-biden-story-illustrates-extremes-in-media-polarization-b784cdde5480

"By contrast, CNN and MNSBC dedicated very little airtime to the Hunter Biden emails following the October 14, 2020 release. Fox News, however, has run ongoing coverage of the documents and purported revelations. More striking still, Fox News appears to have devoted significantly more airtime to the first six days of the Post story than it did to the first six days of the Wikileaks disclosures. Just one day after the release of the Hunter Biden record, Fox News eclipsed its one-day coverage record for the Wikileaks scandal."

WTF is wrong with you?

The link I posted illustrated what I was saying i.e. Fox wouldn't break the story. If I hadn't listed the link, you might have a point.

But sure go ahead and double down and "win" on an ambiguous choice of words if it makes you feel better about yourself.

It is rather noticeable that you haven't disputed the point though, that Twitter's hesitancy to allow the story to amplify through their platform was perfectly justifiable.

Go back and read what you wrote

You were heavily implying that Fox didn't give ANY coverage to the story thereby excusing your buddies at CNN and MSNBC for doing the same

That's a flat out falsehood

There was wall to wall coverage on Fox in the lead up to the election

Maybe for the first couple of days they held back, but once it became clear the story was legit.......they went hell for leather

Meanwhile your pals either didn't cover it or dismissed it as Russian misinformation

You simply got conned by a badly written article.....it happens the best of us

[J70]

Here's what you said "Even Fox News wouldn't run the story."

That's flat out false

There was wall to wall coverage on Fox News about it. (Slight exaggeration on my part for the sake of effect )

https://medium.com/dfrlab/coverage-of-hunter-biden-story-illustrates-extremes-in-media-polarization-b784cdde5480

"By contrast, CNN and MNSBC dedicated very little airtime to the Hunter Biden emails following the October 14, 2020 release. Fox News, however, has run ongoing coverage of the documents and purported revelations. More striking still, Fox News appears to have devoted significantly more airtime to the first six days of the Post story than it did to the first six days of the Wikileaks disclosures. Just one day after the release of the Hunter Biden record, Fox News eclipsed its one-day coverage record for the Wikileaks scandal."

WTF is wrong with you?

The link I posted illustrated what I was saying i.e. Fox wouldn't break the story. If I hadn't listed the link, you might have a point.

But sure go ahead and double down and "win" on an ambiguous choice of words if it makes you feel better about yourself.

It is rather noticeable that you haven't disputed the point though, that Twitter's hesitancy to allow the story to amplify through their platform was perfectly justifiable.

Go back and read what you wrote

You were heavily implying that Fox didn't give ANY coverage to the story thereby excusing your buddies at CNN and MSNBC for doing the same

That's a flat out falsehood

There was wall to wall coverage on Fox in the lead up to the election

Maybe for the first couple of days they held back, but once it became clear the story was legit.......they went hell for leather

Meanwhile your pals either didn't cover it or dismissed it as Russian misinformation

You simply got conned by a badly written article.....it happens the best of us

Let's take it step by step for those with intellectual issues:

1.   The topic of discussion is the publicity and favour Musk is trying to curry with the right wing over the supposed controversy when in October 2020 Twitter decided that the Hunter Biden laptop story had far too many holes and questions to just allow it to be amplified across their platform. Yourself and Gmac, predictably, resurrected this thread to wallow in the "victimization" of and "bias against" the US right wing.

2.   Someone had posted the link in question on this thread back in October 2020 which showed that Fox News, at the time, passed on breaking the story Giuliani was shopping around because THEY TOO had serious reservations about its authenticity. As with their election operation back then (before they purged certain, responsible professionals), their news operation had significantly different standards to uphold when compared to the likes of Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity.

3.   I was curious about what WE on this thread were discussing at the time, as the whole issue is what the perception of the story was THEN, not NOW. So I found that someone had posted the link in question and felt it was rather pertinent as if even the news desk at Fox News wouldn't break it, then why the f**k are Twitter suddenly being hammered on the right for trying to avoid being the vehicle for the spread of utter nonsense?

4.   Instead of addressing the actual point i.e. the questions over the authenticity of the story being completely legitimate at the time, you're trying to change the subject. I didn't imply Fox didn't cover it, I said they wouldn't "run it" and posted a link which clearly illustrates what I was talking about i.e. breaking the story and the questions they had about whether it was legit i.e. the very topic we were supposedly discussing.
And BTW, you're going on about the article being badly written and conning me and so on, yet haven't actually given a single example of why you think that is the case.

[whitey]

I won't even bother reading that

The bottom line is you implied Fox didn't cover the story

That's flat out false

In fact Fox were criticized by the other media outlets for the amount of coverage they gave to it

But-as always you're free to believe what you want

[Gabriel_Hurl]