So, the skepticism of Biden's claim is non-existent, unless there is evidence he is lying? LOL. That's great.

Great, thank you. Let's dive into your link. What about this article is an example of something that's untrue, let alone embarrassing to have reported on and shows clear hypocrisy when contrasted with Hunter Biden stories?

I'm not diving into anything with you. I only cited my post because it was one of the first few post ITT and that you obviously did not read (the post).

So that's a no on providing any hard evidence for the point you're trying to make? Wow, I'm so shocked.

Just kidding, it's exactly what I expected: that all of this crying is based on your insane partisan hysterics, that you have no real argument for whatsoever. I was being a bit glib earlier when I paraphrased your argument as "WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH" but that's really all there is to it, endless tears that the selection of stories covered by the media doesn't reflect exactly what you want to see.

It's amusing that you complain so much about the moderation of this forum when good lord do they give you a long leash to spill written diarrhea all over to your heart's content. Lie after lie after lie after lie after lie, always gish galloping from one post to the next, never stopping to take a breath.

Okay.

There is a very specific reason I limit my conversations with you. You've been told it many times, but continue to lie about why.

Hmm, fact check shows this to be bullshit. For example:

This was written at 10pm on September 21st, a little before you then wrote over 20 more replies to me that night. It's not clear that you even went to sleep, given that your longest posting break through the next afternoon was under 3 hours long. You like to pretend you "limit your interactions" with me, but either that's a lie you make up to avoid facing hard facts about your shitty arguments, or you completely lack any self-control and posting on the internet is the utmost Serious Business for you.

In any case, you should try to avoid being a #toxiccult narcissist who always makes it about the other person and consider addressing the fact that you've provided zero good examples as evidence of your thesis. It's literally just crying that NPR covered the Covington kids but won't give the kind of attention you want to Steve & Rudy's 2020 version of BUT HER EMAILZZZZZ.

You, as in you, the person behind the keyboard, claimed Biden is lying. You have shown neither that Biden was lying nor that any of your accused media outlets have published anything suggesting that the alleged lie was either true or even credible when it was not. You haven't even shown that Biden's claim is untrue at all, let alone that he knowingly was spreading that untruth. It appears that you're so deeply invested in your thesis being true that you've resorted to inventing new claims out of thin air.

Most voters will be thinking

Did Hunter capitalize off his father's name? Of course he did
Did Joe get any direct funds? Nope
Did Joe know about his sons business interests ? Of course he did

I think Joe be better off saying Did my son capitalize off my name? Sure looks that way. Did I benefit ? Nope Did it influence my decisions? Nope
None of my family will be serving in my administration like Trumps kids and Son in Law. Nor will they benefit while I am in office like Trumps kids and son in law

If you're going to speak for "moist [sic] voters," most voters are going to be thinking "Who the **** is Hunter Biden?" if they're thinking of Hunter Biden at all.

Really? Even all us CDN's know the Hunter thing . Moist is corrected damn me

Where is the suppression.

Viewing nonsense as a non story publicly is not suppression in any shape or form.

I am reading with bated breath to see if HIV finally realizes the difference between reality and fantasy.

That is never how evidence works.

NP, HIV and others, I demand you prove this laptop does not exist or admit that what Wookie is saying is true.

Lol, the rightwing can't prove the laptop even exists, but they're all over the media to report on it and the contents that allegedly come from it just because it (in their minds) will be bad for Biden. If it were a laptop with an email from Trump getting hookers to give him golden showers in Moscow they'd **** their pants trying to get it suppressed.

Note all all the partisan lefties wanting to debate the veracity and substance of the story. The issue raised in OP isn't really concerned with the actual veracity or substance, but how the media has handled the story.

Goofy wants debate the merits of each unsubstantiated, unverified story I could post, and he won't ever conceed the complete lack skepticism in any of them, despite all of them having unverified and unsubstantiated claims, that were not treated skeptically. Not to mention that in the Kavanaugh situation, if you treated Ford's allegation skeptically you're considered a sexist by the left, and the media. Let's not forget M. Avenetti.

Marksman wants proof.

Dino uses it to laugh at the right.

Original Position is the only one who actually contended with the actual argument, and he also at times fell into trying to debate the merits of the story. The rest of you were just regurgitating the media's narrative about the story.

The media treats news differently depending on the narrative, not the veracity. It's amazing, in 2020 you have a whole bunch of lefties defending corporate media.

And?

Wait a minute now. My allegations that Trump molests and rapes teen girls most definitely fit the narrative, and as yet, it has not gotten wall to wall coverage on CNN.

You've made specific claims about how the media has handled this story vis a vis others. When asked to defend your claim that this story is analogous to the others that, according to you, demonstrate media hypocrisy, you retreat into a shell and cry about bullshit snowflakery like "you're too mean for me to defend my claim".

Why should the response to this be anything other than laughing at you and your partisan hysterics?

As HIV descends into his typical manic editing-fest, here's a great example of the kind of claim he's resting his entire case on that he's just decided to share with us:

lol, wow. Care to show us some examples of NPR, NYT, etc. - you know, the kinds of media outlets that you think are being unfair by not covering Hunter Biden's EMAILZZZZZ - saying "hey, world, you're sexist for being skeptical about Ford's allegation"?

(in b4: "no, I won't, because you're mean, and not because this is obviously some bullshit that I made up")

You have named cases that you claim had unsubstantiated stores, but you haven't shown that they were not. Ford's claim, in particular, had corroboration. And you haven't shown that they were treated uncritically. You just assert it to be so. And when called out on this, you retreat back into your shell screaming "it's not about the veracity" when of course it's about the veracity. Stories that are more credible than the Rudy caper get more credibility in the media, even if you don't want Ford's testimony to be true, and you really want Rudy's caper to be true. That doesn't mean that they are equally true, however.

The problem aren't the other posters here, it's your thesis. You claim there is a big scandal. But you have failed to show the media doing anything wrong. You falsely claimed the MSM was ignoring the story and then you falsely claimed the story implicated Joe Biden when he was VP as well. All you are left with is the claim the MSM should be more credulous towards the Trump campaign oppo dumps. I disagree. Trump is a liar, his press people are liars, his campaign staff and surrogates are liars, and this is an obvious attempt to drop chum in the water when there isn't enough time left to vet the information. Anyway, this isn't a scandal. If you disagree with NYT editorial standards, great, go start your own newspaper.

You keep going back to this. You should say "I don't think that's wrong" instead of repeatedly stating I have not shown anything. The propagation of the various claims Avanetti made during his bright but short tenure as a media darling that to this day are unverified, and unsubstantiated and were NOT treated with skepticism. People who were skeptical about Ford's claims against Kavanagh were called sexist, and that story is still unverified and unsubstantiated.

The media is clearly selling narratives, not the truth. They talk about veracity when the story is inconvenient/unpopular to their readership, and ignore it when their readership likes the story. If you don't think that's a problem, then well...good for you.

Someone witnessed the assault? The answer to that is no, so you need to stop saying it was corroborated. Every single piece of information about the assault has come from Ford's mouth. It's a single source, who happens to be the accuser, who waited until the most critical time in a Kavanagh professional life to tell the tale. The issue isn't the veracity of her claims, it's the lack of skepticism the media had for them, and Avanetti's.