Should CNN cover the story about Hunter's laptop?

CNN can cover or not cover whatever they want. I don’t particularly care what CNN reports about since I’ve never watched it.

I do find it disturbing that Twitter and Facebook censored the story though. It’s one thing for a news outlet to not cover the story; it’s another for a social media platform to prevent people from sharing or discussing the story.

I asked about this yesterday: https://www.fluther.com/223460/what-is-your-opinion-of-this-news-piece-about-hunter-biden/

@Demosthenes I am bothered by both events. I think, whatever a news organization’s political slant is, it should cover all stories.

@jca2 My question is totally different from yours .

Should CNN cover this story? Yes.

”...can CNN decide that you should not even know about them?”
I actually think it is reasonable for the media to exercise editorial discretion for a variety of reasons. Having said that, the editorial team and corporate leadership should be held accountable with real consequences when they get this privilege wrong or abuse it. This case seems worth reporting on.

Disinformation spreading on Facebook and Twitter is used by conservatives to attack democracy. They are debasing the public discourse and undermining the foundations of a free and fair society. We have had gunmen with Republican support in state capitols threatening legislators. The president makes deceitful claims about election fraud and has stated he does not have to abide election results.

Right wingers are opposed to democracy and should not be given its freedoms to use as weapons against us.

” The Paradox of Tolerance is a concept advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper which claims that unlimited tolerance necessarily results in the destruction of the tolerant by the intolerant, resulting in a society in which tolerance is no longer possible. Therefore, while paradoxical to the concept of free speech, it is necessary to be intolerant of intolerance”

The first question involving anything breaking first in the Post is ALWAYS “what reputable outlet (if any) collaborates or authenticates the alleged scoop. Unfortunately, the rag has for decades had the reputation for dissembling which conservatives currently ascribe to publications otherwise distinguished for upholding their reputations.

Why not allow the news reporters to decide the legitimacy of a story?
If they report a story they know is bullshit, you would have a constant flow of “Trump ate my baby” or “Biden is a dementor inhaling people’s souls” stories.

CNN is being responsible in not reporting on fake news. If they were to cover it, they should cover the right wing attempt to spread a false story. Just like 2016 Russian disinformation, there is no verified substance to the allegation.

Biden has no record in his official calendars or in the memory of his advisors of meeting the representative of Burma. And, like the “great unmasking” that Bill Barr was supposed to release this week, there is no substance to the allegations other than Rudy Giuliani rambling his head off.

Even asking this question on fluther is nothing more than spreading false information and should be taken down.

Fluther is not a tool of QAnon.

Why are conservatives always so eager to buy into the bullshit that tabloids print?

@Call_Me_Jay I understand you wanting to try spreading the leftist talking points, but really, you make no sense. Here is a story that has potentially huge impacts on our nation. It apparently has much more actual evidence than the entire Russian Collusion fiasco ever had. We also have Joe Biden bragging about threatening to withhold aid if they didn’t get rid of the prosecutor that was looking into Burisma. He even implicated President Obama by telling them they could call him to get verification that they would withhold the aid. You didn’t have these concerns about spreading disinformation when the press was passing all the lies about Russian collusion so your claims now are just bogus.
But please, enlighten us all. How does reporting a story that could be one of the biggest examples of corruption we have ever seen qualify as disinformation? How does talking about it constitute disinformation? I guess if you start with the conclusion that it never happened and Biden is as pure as the driven snow and work backwards, creating the story as you go, you could get to those conclusions.
You talk about Right-wingers using the rights afforded them by our Constitution and saying they have no right to use them against “us”. That sounds amazingly like you don’t consider right wingers, or really anyone that might actually disagree with your radical thoughts, to be unworthy of existing in this country, that they certainly don’t qualify for the rights they have, and only you and your equally bizarre cohorts should be able to make all the decisions for everyone. Here’s a thought for you: there are more people that identify as conservative than there are those that identify as liberals. There are more moderates than liberals. so it sounds like you are saying that only the minority should be allowed to have and voice opinions. How very fascist of you!
Here’s another thought for you: This country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. We have fought and died to keep that ideal alive. And now you, speaking on behalf of your fellow cohorts, are trying to say that all men are NOT created equal…only lefties are. And they want a country where those rights are not confirmed and anyone speaking out is threatening that dream.

@Darth_Algar Oh I don’t know. Why are lefties so ready to discount a source instead of dealing with the actual content of a story?

CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, OAN, Newsmax, and every other news agency ought to be digging into this story. Anyone that says this is a bogus story is trying to distract from the realities or potential realities since they don’t really have any facts to say it is false. They need to be reporting this story at least as much as they did the Russian Collusion and the government should be digging in just as hard. If it is a bogus story, that will come out in time. If it isn’t, then we managed to bring justice back to our politics.

@seawulf575

When the source in question has a history of sensationalism, inflammation and making shit up why should anyone take anything they say at face value?

@Darth_Algar Because CNN, MSNBC, or the New York Times is never guilty of that…

Who is to say that reputable sources aren’t looking into the story or haven’t already. The fact that not a single outlet has verified or even given credence to the so called news is one thing. But the actual blockage of this on social media is particularly interesting. I would rather watch and see how this shakes out. Meanwhile, it’s past behavior grants the Post the sort of accountability I reserve for the National Enquirer,

Rudy Guiliani’s ridiculous crap hunt in the Ukraine and his sleazy friends has been reported on. That’s where the dumbass story is from. Anybody who doesn’t know what a clown he is isn’t paying attention.

It doesn’t even matter if the story is true. As one article I read pointed out, the fact that there is a story with the words “Biden” and “emails” in it right before the election is all that was needed.

@gorillapaws

Never claimed they weren’t, chief. Do you have a point?

I haven’t done any extensive looking into this but their story just doesn’t hold up well under even fleeting attention. Just too many unlikely things would have had to happen, first of which would have had to be Hunter Biden being incredibly stupid, which he doesn’t appear to be. Not buying this scenario.

@Darth_Algar So….if the NY Post, CNN, MSNBC and the NYT are all guilty of that, I guess you just get your facts and stories from the ether? It comes to you in visions? Wow. You are good.

@AlaskaTundrea Ummm….I’m gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Crackhead, getting strippers pregnant…doesn’t show the brightest bulb in the cabinet. The things that make me think it probably IS true are the details that it has, all of which could easily be verified or debunked. Things like the shop owner says he gave the laptop to the FBI. There is a solid piece of evidence there…kinda hard to fake. He, the shop owner, found a sex tape with Hunter on the hard drive. Kinda hard to fake that. Lots of stuff that just looks to verifiable for this to be a hoax.

WHOA! So much emotion.

@gorillapaws As you probably know, the story is picking up additional info. I saw a report yesterday of another email dated Nov 2015 urgently requesting help from Hunter. The firing of the prosecutor followed just one month later!

@Call_Me_Jay Your inability to distinguish between election pandering and possible facts is becoming rather obvious. Therefore, I shall hereafter stop responding to you.

@stanleybmanly You say: “what reputable outlet (if any) collaborates or authenticates the alleged scoop.” In other words, until CNN reports on the story, you are obliged to ignore it?

@zenvelo You have been on thin ice as far as your ability to participate in a rational discussion. I am going to give you one more chance. You just have to present a more rational argument than: “If they were to cover it, they should cover the right wing attempt to spread a false story. Just like 2016 Russian disinformation, there is no verified substance to the allegation.”

You point to Biden’s official records. You think even Biden is stupid enough to give the meeting official status??????

@seawulf575

No, I simply don’t rely on the dipshits in the talking picture box to feed my opinions to me. Christ, I haven’t even had a cable connection since I moved out of my parent’s house nearly two decades ago.

@crazyguy

You know, if you decide to just completely ignore people who say a couple of things you don’t like then you’re quickly going to run out of people to communicate with here. Might as well just click that log-out button now.

(And yes, I realize that I’m probably on your list, but you can still read me so I’m saying it anyway.)

@Darth_Algar So if you don’t have any input for stories, how can you decide what is and isn’t a reliable source?

I’ll just put this here again to see if the raving loonies are capable of self-awareness (LOL as if).

Former US Rep. (R-IL) Joe Walsh:
”.. I asked dozens of people a very simple, straightforward question: “Has President Trump ever told a lie to the American people?” And every single person said, “No.” Never mind that thousands of his misstatements have been meticulously documented. No, they said, he’s never lied…”

”... three people said that Trump has never golfed since he’s been president. No one said that they thought he did anything wrong with Ukraine. No one knew that our annual deficits just blew past $1 trillion. Everyone believed hundreds of miles of new wall had been built. (Fact check: False!) When I asked whether they thought Mexico was paying for the wall, most people said yes but were at a loss to explain how…”

”...They’d say no president has been attacked like Trump has or no president has had to deal with such hatred and opposition. (Again: Not true!) They’d get defensive and throw out more lies and half-truths: China is paying for the tariffs, Joe Biden was covering up for his son, and Russia didn’t do anything in the 2016 election were all popular. On and on it went: I ended my two hours of phone time each day pretty bummed out by the mis- and disinformation I’d heard.”

Former US Rep. (R-IL) Joe Walsh: Challenging Trump for the GOP nomination taught me my party is a cult – Real conservatives think for themselves. Trump Republicans have been brainwashed.

@crazyguy I’m asking you why the obligation falls on CNN specifically. Has ANY other news outlet shown the slightest interest in the Post “scoop”? Doesn’t it seem rather odd that the Post ALONE would cover this?

@seawulf575

Clearly the only sources of information in the world…

Anyway, I will no longer respond to this inane line of badgering.

Has ANY other news outlet shown the slightest interest in the Post “scoop”?

Washington Post – October 15, 2020 – “U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence, according to four former officials familiar with the matter.”

“The warnings were based on multiple sources, including intercepted communications, that showed Giuliani was interacting with people tied to Russian intelligence during a December 2019 trip to Ukraine, where he was gathering information that he thought would expose corrupt acts by former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter…”

”...Several senior administration officials “all had a common understanding” that Giuliani was being targeted by the Russians, said the former official who recounted O’Brien’s intervention. That group included Attorney General William P. Barr, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and White Counsel Pat Cipollone.”

Here’s another link in case you get stopped by the WaPo paywall.

@Call_Me_Jay Whatabout Trump! Whatabout Trump!

@Darth_Algar I think the point is that since you cannot articulate what source you consider to be valid, when you attack a source it is YOU that is badgering. Or perhaps trolling…I’ll let you decide which is the better term.

But this is worse than merely attacking a source. THAT all by itself would at least brew up a chance of for noisy controversy. This amounts to an open declaration that no one will risk taking the bait only to find egg on their face down the road.

@Call_Me_Jay As promised, I will give you one more chance.

Your latest post does have a link, and an alternate link. You are right that I cannot get beyond the WaPo firewall; so I went to the HuffPost article. I was struck by use of the words “Russian disinformation”. Admittedly, the emails may have originated from a foreign source; however, what exactly in the emails is disinformation? If there is any truth in the emails, should we just dismiss them because of the source?

@Demosthenes As a believer in free speech, I totally agree with your statement that “CNN can cover or not cover whatever they want.” However, if you see a pattern in the stories they decline to cover, you can draw conclusions about why. To me, it is rather obvious that CNN stands to lose (I am not sure what exactly, but I expect it is related to advertising revenue). I think any news network should cover all newsworthy stories. It is their prerogative to determine the amount of coverage, but totally ignoring something does not make it go away.

@gorillapaws I agree 100%. I think any privately owned corporation is responsible only for following the laws that apply to their universe. And in the arena of journalistic freedom, there are no laws that determine what stories are required to be reported on. Therefore CNN’s decision is perfectly aligned with their raison d’être.

However, CNN’s pattern of ignored stories may lead one to believe that they fear a significant loss of revenue by reporting on certain types of stories. By not reporting the story, CNN acc,plishes two objectives:

1. Hopefully keep their target audience in the dark.
2. Hope the story will die if they refuse to acknowledge its existence.

In this case, neither objective is likely to be met.

@Call_Me_Jay Your post about quotes from Jim Walsh is close to being irrelevant on this thread, but I’ll respond anyway.

I do think for myself. And I have come to the conclusion that, unlike all past Presidents, Trump is unwilling to let it be just because it is too much trouble to shake the tree.

@stanleybmanly Unlike your normal posts, your response to @seawulf575 leaves me completely baffled. Please clarify.

I’m telling you once again that it is not only CNN which has decided the story is bogus. NO ONE will take the bait. The outlets have UNANIMOUSLY rejected the story and this time even the internet platforms refuse to play ball in allowing fictional controversy to disseminate out of control. It’s actually rather extraordinary, and gives me some hope that freedom of the press does not always mean a license for gullible stupidity.

@stanleybmanly I think any responsible news organization should report what it knows about a story and let its readers or viewers decide if the story is bogus or not.

I am glad to see that at least one major social media platform has changed its mind about regulating the story.

@crazyguy “I think any responsible news organization should report what it knows about a story and let its readers or viewers decide if the story is bogus or not.”

And where do the limits of credulity kick in? Should they report any and every story that might hit the internet or gossip pages? If some rag runs a story that, say, Mike Pence is a reptilian alien, should they report on that and let the viewer decide if it’s real or not?