Who is Joe Biden?  How much has he done to enrich his family – most especially his dissolute, neer-do-well son Hunter?  How tied to, thus beholden to, China is he…and what implications would that have for the United States during a Biden presidency?

These questions did not come into play because a computer of Hunter Biden’s may have been found with loads of incriminating material on it.  They have existed for months and, in several cases, years.  Much of the email material on this computer, if it is real (andit seems to be), do not tell us about these activities; they confirm them.

Here, for example, from an article in London’s Daily Mail, is a summary of much of the information I’m talking about – information, I am absolutely certain, that would be all over our mainstream media in a split second if it were about Donald Trump:

  • Hunter Biden was involved with China’s largest private energy company CEFC
  • He was given equity, ownership of a holding company and huge consulting fees
  • He also allegedly held a share of the equity for his father Joe Biden
  • Sources told Fox that a person identified only as ‘the Big Guy’ in an email about equity payments was the former Vice President
  • Hunter was dealing with CEFC chairman Ye Jianming who has since vanished
  • In one email, Hunter said a lucrative deal would be ‘interesting for my family’ 
  • A report about the emails did not include response from Biden or others involved

How much of this have you seen on the network news?  How many reports have talked about this at all – even to say “alleged but unconfirmed”?  How much of it appears in the New York Times, or Washington Post, or other major U.S. dailies?

We certainly heard about collusion between Donald Trump and Russia – for three years, with no solid evidence to back it up – culminating in the Mueller report not finding any.  The media of this country had no problem at all reporting that, did they?

Or, more recently, was there any hold-back on reporting that President Trump called fallen military “suckers” and “losers” – despite the fact that something like a dozen people who were within earshot, including military hawk/Trump hating John Bolton, stated he did not say it.

I could go on with many more examples, but I think – or, at any rate hope – you get the point.

Simply stated, there are two sets of criteria for covering possible bad news about the presidential candidates this year:  if damaging to Trump, full coverage no matter how little evidence there is; if damaging to Biden, little or no coverage no matter how evidence there is.

What is the cause of this? Is it just the culmination of decades of “journalism” taught in colleges and universities that offer the left a virtual monopoly on teaching positions?  Or is it something more recent, more sinister, involving the beyond-imagination rich leftists in places like silicon valley and which media they bankroll?  I don’t know.

But what I do know is that, politically speaking, most of what we call “mainstream media” do not operate as neutral providers of news.  They operate as propagandists.  As the “referees”who, in reality, are rooting for one side over the other.

I don’t know how the institutionalization of one-sided news will ultimately play out.  But, not to be grim about it, I do not see a good result for this country.

1 Comment

  • NewsFlash:

    Fuggeddabout da Russhin Collusion

    Just worry about da Chinese Collusion
    . . . . . . . . wu – wu – Wu-Han
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Wu Han Collusion – aka Bucks for the Bidens
    Contribute to Cocaine Hunter and Sleepy Joe

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *