NPR and saying the quiet part out loud

[brenthutch 416]

55 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Here you post saying Hunter wasn't covered.

Here you post emphasizing he was covered.

 

I know, this stuff gets really hard when you have to think for yourself and you can't just regurgitate.

Decker you are far too bright (I hope) to believe in that nonsense.

You’re surely aware of the difference between critical coverage and sycophantic coverage. 

 

[SkyDekker 1,278]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Decker you are far too bright (I hope) to believe in that nonsense.

You’re surely aware of the difference between critical coverage and sycophantic coverage. 

 

You said they covered Hunter and his laptop. And you said NPR published it was a Russian hoax.

So, show what they published. Find an article or radio transcript where they do what you claim they did.

Show those "facts" you keep claiming you are all about.

[jakee 1,330]

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No Hunter was covered. NPR claimed it was a Russian hoax.

You sure about that? I really doubt it.

[jakee 1,330]

.

Edited April 12 by jakee

[normiss 721]

10 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

You said they covered Hunter and his laptop. And you said NPR published it was a Russian hoax.

So, show what they published. Find an article or radio transcript where they do what you claim they did.

Show those "facts" you keep claiming you are all about.

He can't.

[ryoder 1,538]

11 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

You said they covered Hunter and his laptop. And you said NPR published it was a Russian hoax.

So, show what they published. Find an article or radio transcript where they do what you claim they did.

Show those "facts" you keep claiming you are all about.

My best chuckle yesterday on another forum arguing this topic:

"Apparently, Hunter's laptop is some sort of Rosetta stone for true conservatives."

[brenthutch 416]

13 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

You said they covered Hunter and his laptop. And you said NPR published it was a Russian hoax.

So, show what they published. Find an article or radio transcript where they do what you claim they did.

Show those "facts" you keep claiming you are all about.

I’ll do better than that, why don’t you read the whole article I linked to. It is not what I said it is what a twenty year NPR staff member said. 

Edited April 12 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,278]

Just now, brenthutch said:

I’ll do better than that, why don’t you read the whole article I linked to. It is not what I said it is what a twenty year NPR staff member said. 

So you can't. As usual you post bullshit and you can't back it up when you are challenged. Appears a tax bracket isn't the only thing you aren't maxing out.

[brenthutch 416]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

So you can't. As usual you post bullshit and you can't back it up when you are challenged. Appears a tax bracket isn't the only thing you aren't maxing out.

Obviously didn’t read the article 

[brenthutch 416]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

 Appears a tax bracket isn't the only thing you aren't maxing out.

Still have 2% to go

8 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

[SkyDekker 1,278]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Obviously didn’t read the article 

I am starting to feel sorry for you if you think the opinion piece you posted says that the NPR covered the Hunter Biden laptop story and called it a Russian hoax.

[SkyDekker 1,278]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Still have 2% to go

lol, the top tax bracket doesn't have a maximum....maybe I really should feel sorry for you.

[jakee 1,330]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I’ll do better than that, why don’t you read the whole article I linked to. It is not what I said it is what a twenty year NPR staff member said. 

I read it. You’re lying.

[brenthutch 416]

4 minutes ago, jakee said:

I read it. You’re lying.

“Schiff, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, became NPR’s guiding hand, its ever-present muse. By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. During many of those conversations, Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion. The Schiff talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports.

But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming. 

It is one thing to swing and miss on a major story. Unfortunately, it happens. You follow the wrong leads, you get misled by sources you trusted, you’re emotionally invested in a narrative, and bits of circumstantial evidence never add up. It’s bad to blow a big story…

In October 2020, the New York Post published the explosive report about the laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer shop containing emails about his sordid business dealings. With the election only weeks away, NPR turned a blind eye. Here’s how NPR’s managing editor for news at the time explained the thinking: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” 

But it wasn’t a pure distraction, or a product of Russian disinformation, as dozens of former and current intelligence officials suggested. The laptop did belong to Hunter Biden. Its contents revealed his connection to the corrupt world of multimillion-dollar influence peddling”

when you are a mouthpiece for a liar you are complicit in the lie 

Edited April 12 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,278]

This is what you continue to refer to:

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

In October 2020, the New York Post published the explosive report about the laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer shop containing emails about his sordid business dealings. With the election only weeks away, NPR turned a blind eye.

To somehow try and prove this statement you made:

23 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No Hunter was covered.

[brenthutch 416]

46 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

This is what you continue to refer to:

To somehow try and prove this statement you made:

Hunter was covered for.

[jakee 1,330]

49 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

when you are a mouthpiece for a liar you are complicit in the lie 

When you tell an outright lie, you’re lying. 
 

You explicitly and deliberately made the point that they did not ignore the story. This may be a surprise to you, but you cannot back that statement up by providing evidence that they did ignore the story, no matter how much of that evidence you have.

And of course, the reason you said they did not ignore it was because you were deflecting from the Jared Kushner equivalence. How much time did NPR spend covering the nepotism and corruption in the Trump White House? In any fair and balanced world that should have been front page news every single day since Trump deliberately installed his own family members into positions of power in the Administration where they would be able to talk to foreign decision makers about their international businesses with the whole weight of the US government behind them. It certainly should have been on every channel every hour of every day after Jared received BILLIONS from the Saudi crown despite their own advisors saying there was no good business sense for it.

Now unless you can show that constant coverage from NPR you’ll just have to deal with the fact that when it comes to nepotism and influence peddling they, like the rest of the US and global media, have been enormously biased in favour of the Trump clan.

[jakee 1,330]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Hunter was covered for.

It is also an outright and obvious lie to claim that was what you meant. 
 

It’s amazing that after so many years in this site you still don’t appear to realise your previous posts remain visible for people to read.

[billvon 2,691]

56 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

This is what you continue to refer to: NPR turned a blind eye.

To somehow try and prove this statement you made: No Hunter was covered.

Perhaps he meant Hunter was covered with, say, a blanket?  Yeah that's the ticket!  He was covered with a BLANKET!  Not like that lying NPR claimed!  Stupid libs!

[SkyDekker 1,278]

39 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Hunter was covered for.

[brenthutch 416]

51 minutes ago, jakee said:

When you tell an outright lie, you’re lying. 
 

You explicitly and deliberately made the point that they did not ignore the story. This may be a surprise to you, but you cannot back that statement up by providing evidence that they did ignore the story, no matter how much of that evidence you have.

 

“With the election only weeks away, NPR turned a blind eye. Here’s how NPR’s managing editor for news at the time explained the thinking: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

they cover for Hunter and covered up the truth, so I guess there was some covering going on, my bad

 

 

Edited April 12 by brenthutch

[jakee 1,330]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“With the election only weeks away, NPR turned a blind eye. Here’s how NPR’s managing editor for news at the time explained the thinking: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

they cover for Hunter and covered up the truth, so I guess there was some covering going on, my bad

Yes it was your bad to claim they covered the Hunter story by proclaiming it a Russian hoax, and then continue lying about it in such a transparent manner long after it was clear that you could not support the claim. 
 

Now can you address how much they covered the real nepotism and influence peddling White House scandal of Trump, Jared and Ivanka?

[brenthutch 416]

“The laptop story was discredited by US intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations,” the book review by Ron Elving, senior editor of the publicly funded media organization, initially claimed.

The correction on the Thursday article now says, “A previous version of this story said US intelligence had discredited the laptop story. US intelligence officials have not made a statement to that effect.”

This is where they falsely claimed US intelligence said it could be Russian disinformation 

 

 

[jakee 1,330]

59 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

This is where they falsely claimed US intelligence said it could be Russian disinformation 

A book review that they corrected within a day (and doesn’t even mention Russia but whatever). Ok so NPR’s literature department is biased but is subject to fair and balanced oversight. Is that the point you were trying to make?

But again, what about their coverage of Jared, Ivanka and Trump giving them access to all the strings of US government power and influence while allowing them to exempt themselves from all ethics requirements? Did they do that story justice or did they display the same pro Trump bias as every other news organisation?

Edited April 12 by jakee

[brenthutch 416]

25 minutes ago, jakee said:

A book review that they corrected within a day (and doesn’t even mention Russia but whatever). Ok so NPR’s literature department is biased but is subject to fair and balanced oversight. Is that the point you were trying to make?

But again, what about their coverage of Jared, Ivanka and Trump giving them access to all the strings of US government power and influence while allowing them to exempt themselves from all ethics requirements? Did they do that story justice or did they display the same pro Trump bias as every other news organisation?

Your Trump derangedment not withstanding, the bias of NPR was not my point, rather the point of a twenty year veteran of the NPR staff, I just shared it.