MSM BEAT THE BIDENS to declare laptop leak ‘Russian disinformation’ – when did the media shilling get this obvious?

It’s not the media’s job to cover for Joe Biden. Yet the New York Times and its ilk have fallen over themselves to call the damaging leaks “Russian disinformation,” while also awkwardly publishing the FBI’s denial of the claim.

As President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden geared up to debate on Thursday night, the cable TV commentariat wondered how Trump would bring up the “laptop from hell.” Recovered from a Delaware repair shop last year and handed to Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, the laptop – which allegedly belonged to Joe’s son, Hunter – contained a tranche of emails that implicated the Biden family in numerous foreign graft schemes, all while Joe was in the White House.

Before the debate kicked off, the New York Times quoted the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) as saying: “No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation,” and the FBI as seconding this claim.

For the Times, it was a dramatic turnaround. Just days earlier, before the FBI and DNI could weigh in, a headline in the nation’s paper of record read, “Is the Trump campaign colluding with Russia again?” 

Quoting only a Senate Democrat, the Times alleged that Giuliani had been cultivated as an “asset” by the Kremlin, and “any information proffered by Rudy Giuliani is likely compromised.” The Washington Post sang from the same hymn sheet, using the usual anonymous “former officials” to tie Giuliani to Russia. Even before the media settled on Russia as the culprit, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough called the scandal “made up” and a “hokey story,” while NBC’s Hallie Jackson described it as “dubious” and “questionably sourced.”

As the Times and Post rang the Russia alarm last week, neither the FBI nor DNI had commented on the laptop. DNI John Ratcliffe would do so on Monday, and the FBI followed suit a day later. In fact, as these articles hit the presses, the only people who had fingered Russia for the stunt were a collection of Biden’s aides and advisors, who gave no evidence to support their claims. The Biden campaign itself didn’t embrace the Russia excuse until several days later.

It’s one thing to cover a candidate sympathetically. It’s another to work as his preemptive press corps. Joe Biden is supposed to deny and deflect attention from damaging information. He’s a politician, after all – it’s his job. The press is supposed to do the exact opposite.

This isn’t the Pyongyang Post we’re talking about. This is the New York Times, the shelves of which groan under the weight of the Pulitzer Prizes it’s collected over the years. But the dogged pursuit of truth has evidently fallen by the wayside when there’s a “Russian asset” to evict from the White House. Besides, the Times is too busy these days discussing the racial connotations of wearing a mustache.

At least these outlets formed an opinion on the story, however hackish and partisan. National Public Radio on Thursday flat out refused to cover it at all, calling it “pure distraction” and a “non-story.” For this taxpayer-funded outlet, lurid allegations of Chinese grift and Ukrainian influence-peddling are clearly less important than write-ups about TikTok stars drinking juice.

With less than two weeks to go until election day, this is where we are: the mainstream media has either ignored the Hunter Biden story, or called it “Russian disinformation,” despite the fact there is literally zero evidence for this claim.

Outside the media, the only people who have written the story off as a Russian ruse are Biden, his spokespeople, and irredeemable Russiagaters such as Adam Schiff. However, after three years of non-stop Russia-related hysterics from the California congressman, any journalist treating Schiff as a trustworthy source needs to be relegated to covering Little League games.

The newspapers didn’t even take their marching orders from Team Joe. They beat him to it.

Over the past four years, the mainstream media hasn’t missed an opportunity to hammer Trump for his failings, both real and imagined. But if Biden wins next month’s election, how can the public ever expect fairness from journalists who clearly see themselves as mouthpieces for Uncle Joe?

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!