The media are committed to defending the first family, no matter what facts emerge.
The media are committed to defending the first family, no matter what facts emerge.
R arely have newsrooms committed so much effort to protecting men of such little character.
As recently as just four years ago, the New York Times and other news outlets would have jumped at the chance to investigate allegations that the president and his son operated an influence-peddling operation involving foreign nationals. Every editor at every major newsroom would be barking at his staff right now, demanding that they look into whether the president’s son had, in fact, leveraged the family name in return for huge sums of cash, whether the president got a cut of the action, and whether the president himself coordinated quid pro quos with well-heeled foreign interests.
But that was then. Now, there’s a Democrat in the Oval Office. For major media, most especially the New York Times, there’s not much value to the Biden family corruption story, which alleges President Joe Biden conspired with his son, Hunter, to rake in mountains of cash from foreign entities in return for certain preferred policies toward their countries. After all, according to the Times, the story is old news. It’s also none of your damn business.
Last week, after yet another fact emerged suggesting that Joe Biden had indeed been involved to some degree with his son’s overseas business dealings, contrary to what he himself stated unequivocally during the 2020 presidential election, the New York Times ran to the president’s aid with the classic “old news!” defense.
“It has long been known that the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with his son’s business partners,” the paper of record declared on Monday.
Is that so? This thing Joe Biden vigorously denied in the 2020 election has “long been known”?
Recall that Biden declared in the 2020 election, “I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period.”
“And what I will do is the same thing we did in our administration,” he added. “There will be an absolute wall between personal and private [business interests] and the government. There wasn’t any hint of scandal at all when we were there. And I’m going to propose the same kind of strict, strict rules. That’s why I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.”
That same year, during a campaign event in Iowa, Biden insisted again that he had never, ever spoken to his son about his business interests.
“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said. “I know Trump deserves to be investigated. He is violating every basic norm of a president. You should be looking at Trump. . . . Everybody looked at [allegations that I spoke with Hunter about his overseas business activities] and everybody looked at it and said there is nothing there. Ask the right questions.”
Later, after it became increasingly likely that Joe Biden had, in fact, interacted with his son’s business partners, the White House amended, ever so slightly, the president’s earlier assurances.
“The answer remains the same,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in July. “The president was never in business with his son. I just don’t have anything else to add.”
This is a cute revision. Biden’s initial claim was, “I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period.” Then, the line became, “The president was never in business with his son.” (Or, as Bill Clinton might’ve said, “it depends on what the meaning of ‘business’ is.”)
Now, courtesy of the New York Times, the new talking point is: Been there, knew that.
Of course. Silly us for reading that line — It has long been known that the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with his son’s business partners — and doing a spit take.
The New York Times’ charitable act of goalpost-shifting this week comes on top of all the other efforts by the news and entertainment industries to dismiss the obviously troubling Biden corruption allegations. It comes on top of that particularly noxious spin that says the entire story — from Joe Biden’s possible financial benefit to claims he interfered in U.S. foreign policy on behalf of foreign interests with very large wallets — is really one of a father’s enduring love for his son.
It comes on top of the fact that Hunter Biden confessed recently to receiving money from Chinese interests, despite his father claiming in the 2020 election, “My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China. I have not had . . . the only guy who made money from China is this guy [Donald Trump]. He’s the only one. Nobody else has made money from China.”
Then, of course, the New York Times spin comes on top of the fact that nearly every major newsroom in 2020 promoted the falsehood that the Hunter Biden laptop, the contents of which suggest that the younger Biden regularly traded on his father’s name to enrich the family, was likely the product of a Kremlin disinformation campaign. Joe Biden himself claimed that there was “overwhelming evidence from the intelligence community that the Russians were engaged” in the laptop “smear.”
Hunter admitted later that the laptop in question is indeed authentic, and that it does indeed belong to him.
So, for those of you keeping score at home, news media narratives regarding the Biden family’s alleged corruption have progressed thus:
The laptop is fake.
—Okay, the laptop is real.Joe Biden has never talked with Hunter about business.
—Joe Biden wasn’t involved in Hunter’s business.
—It has long been known that the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with his son’s business partners.
The next talking point will likely be something along the lines of “Joe Biden should be proud of his involvement in Hunter’s business. It’s what a loving father would do.”
It has long been known that this is how the media operate when the scandal involves a Democrat.