Definitely cause for concern. If the news is controlling a narrative like suppressing Biden’s son’s shady business to avoid hurting the election results that the media wants it’s a problem. When Biden does an interview talking about gun control in early 2020 and it isn’t released, it’s a problem. The news is controlling the information and not just reporting the information
1 Like
The fact you are mentioning it is proof that it wasn’t suppressed.
First off, see above.
Second, anyone who doesn’t know Biden’s position on guns is either an idiot, doesn’t know English, or is dead.
1 Like
I knew about it since I heard about the NY Post story being blocked on social media before the election and then other news sources disregarded the story as misinformation and then suddenly reported on it after the election that Hunter was under investigation for over a year! So yeah I heard about it but the story was still suppressed as damage control to help Biden.
While Biden has flip flopped on every position other than gun control the fact that an interview was done and then not released for a year is concerning that the news is trying to control what’s released to help a candidate and not just report the facts.
1 Like
Not the news media, unless you are 12.
If they disregarded it as misinformation, they still reported it. Otherwise, how would you know they called it misinformation? Or did the news sources you choose claim that other sources disregarded it?
Given the fact that his position on gun control is well known and given the fact that you can google many interviews and articles on Biden from last year in which he is asked about control, how does one interview matter? Why weren’t all interviews unreleased? Why did Biden even give interviews if they wanted his position to be a secret?
Finally, did you even read the interview? It seems you didn’t. Most of it doesn’t deal with guns. As far as guns, Biden says nothing radical as far Democrats feel about the matter.
1 Like
Numerous news outlets called Hunter Biden laptop story Russian misinformation when it wasn’t.
I didn’t mention which interview so how do you know what interview I am talking about? Anyways, I’m referring to the interview by the Las Vegas Sun before the Nevada caucus in January 2020 that was supposed to outline Biden’s policy positions on guns and other thing for the voters before the caucus and that interview was released in January 2021. Guess the Las Vegas Sun didn’t want to share that and inform primary voters. For someone in public office for about 50 years, there are of course many interviews but the Las Vegas Sun is a newspaper and not a historical archive. “Reporting” on a year old interview seems suspect along with the Time article about organizations trying to control the narrative. You can keep pointing out that you can search documents and people’s historical interviews but how and when the news covered these stories is what’s damning.
1 Like
Speaking about releasing all the interviews and documents, the University of Delaware didn’t want to release Biden’s senate papers. I’m guessing they are afraid of what skeletons are in his closet especially regarding him and Tara Reade, who Biden allegedly sexually assaulted. I’m sure there are other things that Biden originally supported decades ago that would be problematic today. But I guess let’s keep that from the people and have uninformed voters
1 Like
So am I. How did I know? I’m smart like that. I don’t need twitter to tell me the weather.
That article does not advance your case.
You wouldn’t need to guess if you read the article. Why is it people post articles they haven’t even read? Anyway, the university signed a contract with regard to when they could release them to the public. Think for a moment. It’s not whether or not they can release them, but when. If there were things that would damage Biden, why would he allow the university to release it?
1 Like
Glad you don’t need Twitter to tell the weather but it’s good we aren’t talking about the weather.
I have read the articles and using the term “guessing” was just rhetorical since we don’t know the full extent of what’s in those papers and files - whether it has anything racist in it, any cover up for sexually assaulting Tara Reade, or any number of possible opposition research opportunities. All we can do is speculate or guess since we don’t know. Biden gave his papers over to the University of Delaware and they originally were going to release his documents in 2019 since they had to wait 2 years until he left public office and then the University switched to releasing his documents when he leaves “public life” which is much broader.
Anyways, I get it that you are fine with media elites suppressing information and you are totally fine with factual manipulation. The original post was should we be concerned about institutions doing everything in their power to influence an election. Everything I have presented shows that issue being a concern and nothing you are saying changes those facts. I get it that’s just your opinion to disregard everything I am writing.
1 Like
Again, you didn’t read the article and you clearly haven’t kept current on the issue. The documents, if they exist, regarding Tara Reade, would not be among those at the university. They would be in the National Archives and Biden has already stated he is fine with them, again assuming they exist, being made public.
No. I’m not fine with the government ordering someone to release privately owned documents to the public because, you know, freedom. Imagine having to allow some weirdo from the daily caller the right to go shuffling through your property with his greasy fingers. Add to that they are going through the process of curating them.
You do know that when you use words like guessing and provide opinion pieces as news, you are not dealing with facts?
1 Like
I have this feeing that people do not live in reality. If you take notice that most, if not all, of the various news sources are biased as well as privately owned, then why ask stupid questions about why and what might not get covered by a particular news source.
Would we expect Hannity to broadcast anything negative about Trump, even if it were fact? Would we cry about it if he didn’t?
Almost every source for news has the same rule: don’t upset your audience.
The news is under no obligation to tell you anything.
3 Likes