Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Greenwald's idea that The Intercept is afraid to be critical of Joe Biden is laughable. They have been critical of him (from the left) pretty consistently. The editors just didn't want to repeat Trump campaign material uncritically, which is a responsible decision, especially a week before the election.

---

They were critical of him up until he won the nomination. There's a difference.

---

Not true, they posted plenty of Tara Reade stuff.

---

That happened in March. Not a lot of Tara Reade articles by them or anyone since.

---

April: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/30/joe-biden-thinks-we-should-believe-women-just-not-tara-reade/

May: https://theintercept.com/2020/05/10/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault/

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/06/donald-trump-joe-biden-and-the-politics-of-sexual-misconduct/

C'mon, man.

The story fell out of the news in general after that, in large part because a bunch of people stepped forward to question Reade's credibility. But the Intercept definitely wasn't shy about covering it after March.

---

You consider 4 articles a lot?

---

So you don't want them to cover it. You want them to harp on it, to the exclusion of other stories.

Sounds a lot like what Greenwald wants to do about Hunter Biden.

---

Why would I want them to harp on Tara Reade? That story is what it is. People didn't seem too interested in it, nor from an electoral standpoint is anybody going to care about Hunter Biden and Jim Biden trading on their dad's name when Trump's family does the same thing. The issue is one more about the role the media is playing on this than the story itself, which is what some of the more independent journalists are saying.

---

So what's the issue? Greenwald claims The Intercept was afraid to cover Biden negatively. History suggests they are not. But your further argument is that they didn't cover his potential scandals enough.

How much is enough?

---

4 articles on Tara Reade doesn't seem like a lot to me compared to the number of articles written about Benghazi or private e-mail servers by other publications. They broke the story (nobody touched it before them), followed up on it, and nobody seemed to care much about it. I think that's as much to do with coronavirus being the number one thing on everybody's mind as it is to the veracity of her story, to be honest. Whether it got covered or more isn't particularly a concern of mine. And the people who wrote these articles are not the people who were attempting to block Greenwald's article, so I don't really feel like the two are related.

I don't really care about the story per se. The Republicans will keep looking into it after the election and it will be the Benghazi of the next four years. How much meat there is to the story will be revealed in time. I'm more concerned with the fact that the left-oriented media is now engaging in stuff that only used to happen on the right-wing in terms of suppression of stories and just flat out lying about certain things for political purposes. I'm concerned that the cable news networks are essentially extensions of the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm concerned that Jeff Bezos wants to buy CNN. I think we are morphing into a state where the media is becoming much more like propaganda and less investigative. Ideally, we as a society should want our media and our politicians to have different motivations. Politicians lie and the media tries to find out the truth.

The current direction we are heading in concerns me greatly.

---

How many articles has the Intercept written about EJean Carroll? Do you even know who that is without looking it up?

okaydo said:

---

Basically, Greenwald was out the door already.

Oh, and anbbody who's vaguely familiar with The Intercept knows that they're not fans of Obama or Biden.

---

What a pitiful article. Perfect for twits like you.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Most of journalism is a bunch of self- obsessed 30 somethings tweeting bull**** back and forth at each other fantasizing that they are in some "resistance" to the fascist takeover of Trumpkin instead of pathetic losers they are. The bull$It is canonized by other insecure misfits until it reaches here via Okaydo.

Whatever one thinks of Greenwald and the Biden caper his work with Snowden and in Brazil was courageous journalism with a lot of risk to him. He broke the global surveillance story, won a Pulitzer and Academy Award that earned him a lot of enemies, death threats in Brazil and attacks on his sexuality. He's a serious investigative reporter not a trivial self- aggrandizing talking head which makes me give him the benefit of the doubt- though in truth the Hunter Biden story to me only confirms that which is intuitive-come January some relatives of a President- either one- will be feasting at the banquet.

---

Greenwald was once a serious reporter. In recent years he's become a self-aggrandizing talking head like the rest of them.

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Most of journalism is a bunch of self- obsessed 30 somethings tweeting bull**** back and forth at each other fantasizing that they are in some "resistance" to the fascist takeover of Trumpkin instead of pathetic losers they are. The bull$It is canonized by other insecure misfits until it reaches here via Okaydo.

Whatever one thinks of Greenwald and the Biden caper his work with Snowden and in Brazil was courageous journalism with a lot of risk to him. He broke the global surveillance story, won a Pulitzer and Academy Award that earned him a lot of enemies, death threats in Brazil and attacks on his sexuality. He's a serious investigative reporter not a trivial self- aggrandizing talking head which makes me give him the benefit of the doubt- though in truth the Hunter Biden story to me only confirms that which is intuitive-come January some relatives of a President- either one- will be feasting at the banquet.

---

Greenwald was once a serious reporter. In recent years he's become a self-aggrandizing talking head like the rest of them.

---

Probably because you disagree with his conclusions.

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Most of journalism is a bunch of self- obsessed 30 somethings tweeting bull**** back and forth at each other fantasizing that they are in some "resistance" to the fascist takeover of Trumpkin instead of pathetic losers they are. The bull$It is canonized by other insecure misfits until it reaches here via Okaydo.

Whatever one thinks of Greenwald and the Biden caper his work with Snowden and in Brazil was courageous journalism with a lot of risk to him. He broke the global surveillance story, won a Pulitzer and Academy Award that earned him a lot of enemies, death threats in Brazil and attacks on his sexuality. He's a serious investigative reporter not a trivial self- aggrandizing talking head which makes me give him the benefit of the doubt- though in truth the Hunter Biden story to me only confirms that which is intuitive-come January some relatives of a President- either one- will be feasting at the banquet.

---

Greenwald was once a serious reporter. In recent years he's become a self-aggrandizing talking head like the rest of them.

---

Probably because you disagree with his conclusions.

---

No, it's because of his recent behavior. Outside of the Brazil story, his writing has become almost all opinion with little actual reporting in it. He is also a literal talking head now, making regular appearances on Tucker Carlson's show and others.

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Most of journalism is a bunch of self- obsessed 30 somethings tweeting bull**** back and forth at each other fantasizing that they are in some "resistance" to the fascist takeover of Trumpkin instead of pathetic losers they are. The bull$It is canonized by other insecure misfits until it reaches here via Okaydo.

Whatever one thinks of Greenwald and the Biden caper his work with Snowden and in Brazil was courageous journalism with a lot of risk to him. He broke the global surveillance story, won a Pulitzer and Academy Award that earned him a lot of enemies, death threats in Brazil and attacks on his sexuality. He's a serious investigative reporter not a trivial self- aggrandizing talking head which makes me give him the benefit of the doubt- though in truth the Hunter Biden story to me only confirms that which is intuitive-come January some relatives of a President- either one- will be feasting at the banquet.

---

Greenwald was once a serious reporter. In recent years he's become a self-aggrandizing talking head like the rest of them.

---

Probably because you disagree with his conclusions.

---

No, it's because of his recent behavior.

---

What is it about his behavior that makes him an unreliable journalist?

Free speech is not a leftist value, it used to be a liberal value but the lines are blurring.

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Greenwald's idea that The Intercept is afraid to be critical of Joe Biden is laughable. They have been critical of him (from the left) pretty consistently. The editors just didn't want to repeat Trump campaign material uncritically, which is a responsible decision, especially a week before the election.

---

They were critical of him up until he won the nomination. There's a difference.

---

Not true, they posted plenty of Tara Reade stuff.

---

That happened in March. Not a lot of Tara Reade articles by them or anyone since.

---

April: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/30/joe-biden-thinks-we-should-believe-women-just-not-tara-reade/

May: https://theintercept.com/2020/05/10/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault/

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/06/donald-trump-joe-biden-and-the-politics-of-sexual-misconduct/

C'mon, man.

The story fell out of the news in general after that, in large part because a bunch of people stepped forward to question Reade's credibility. But the Intercept definitely wasn't shy about covering it after March.

---

You consider 4 articles a lot?

---

So you don't want them to cover it. You want them to harp on it, to the exclusion of other stories.

Sounds a lot like what Greenwald wants to do about Hunter Biden.

---

Why would I want them to harp on Tara Reade? That story is what it is. People didn't seem too interested in it, nor from an electoral standpoint is anybody going to care about Hunter Biden and Jim Biden trading on their dad's name when Trump's family does the same thing. The issue is one more about the role the media is playing on this than the story itself, which is what some of the more independent journalists are saying.

---

So what's the issue? Greenwald claims The Intercept was afraid to cover Biden negatively. History suggests they are not. But your further argument is that they didn't cover his potential scandals enough.

How much is enough?

---

4 articles on Tara Reade doesn't seem like a lot to me compared to the number of articles written about Benghazi or private e-mail servers by other publications. They broke the story (nobody touched it before them), followed up on it, and nobody seemed to care much about it. I think that's as much to do with coronavirus being the number one thing on everybody's mind as it is to the veracity of her story, to be honest. Whether it got covered or more isn't particularly a concern of mine. And the people who wrote these articles are not the people who were attempting to block Greenwald's article, so I don't really feel like the two are related.

I don't really care about the story per se. The Republicans will keep looking into it after the election and it will be the Benghazi of the next four years. How much meat there is to the story will be revealed in time. I'm more concerned with the fact that the left-oriented media is now engaging in stuff that only used to happen on the right-wing in terms of suppression of stories and just flat out lying about certain things for political purposes. I'm concerned that the cable news networks are essentially extensions of the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm concerned that Jeff Bezos wants to buy CNN. I think we are morphing into a state where the media is becoming much more like propaganda and less investigative. Ideally, we as a society should want our media and our politicians to have different motivations. Politicians lie and the media tries to find out the truth.

The current direction we are heading in concerns me greatly.

---

Actually, I need to apologize a bit. In some of these responses I had you confused for Yogi's new alias (Kid Quick - both begin with a K). He definitely harped on the Reade story a lot.

I think there are issues with news media becoming less investigative in recent years. I don't think The Intercept is generally a problem in this regard, but cable news sure is. But that's why we need to do a good job separating trustworthy outlets from non-trustworthy, and it seems to me that good editorial boards are finding that the sources behind this Hunter Biden story are not very trustworthy. Some others are just running with it and don't really care about that.

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Most of journalism is a bunch of self- obsessed 30 somethings tweeting bull**** back and forth at each other fantasizing that they are in some "resistance" to the fascist takeover of Trumpkin instead of pathetic losers they are. The bull$It is canonized by other insecure misfits until it reaches here via Okaydo.

Whatever one thinks of Greenwald and the Biden caper his work with Snowden and in Brazil was courageous journalism with a lot of risk to him. He broke the global surveillance story, won a Pulitzer and Academy Award that earned him a lot of enemies, death threats in Brazil and attacks on his sexuality. He's a serious investigative reporter not a trivial self- aggrandizing talking head which makes me give him the benefit of the doubt- though in truth the Hunter Biden story to me only confirms that which is intuitive-come January some relatives of a President- either one- will be feasting at the banquet.

---

Greenwald was once a serious reporter. In recent years he's become a self-aggrandizing talking head like the rest of them.

---

Probably because you disagree with his conclusions.

---

No, it's because of his recent behavior. Outside of the Brazil story, his writing has become almost all opinion with little actual reporting in it. He is also a literal talking head now, making regular appearances on Tucker Carlson's show and others.

---

So he is invalidated because he has opinions? He is invalidated because he appeared on Fox negating the Russian Trump-Putin hoax based on his opinions of the evidence backed up by his experience.

But why do you think he wasn't asked on MSNBC or CNN to do same? It's obvious why. Because it doesn't conform with their and your beliefs, and, more importantly their business model to drive traffic with a sensational but false story to drive ratings.

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Most of journalism is a bunch of self- obsessed 30 somethings tweeting bull**** back and forth at each other fantasizing that they are in some "resistance" to the fascist takeover of Trumpkin instead of pathetic losers they are. The bull$It is canonized by other insecure misfits until it reaches here via Okaydo.

Whatever one thinks of Greenwald and the Biden caper his work with Snowden and in Brazil was courageous journalism with a lot of risk to him. He broke the global surveillance story, won a Pulitzer and Academy Award that earned him a lot of enemies, death threats in Brazil and attacks on his sexuality. He's a serious investigative reporter not a trivial self- aggrandizing talking head which makes me give him the benefit of the doubt- though in truth the Hunter Biden story to me only confirms that which is intuitive-come January some relatives of a President- either one- will be feasting at the banquet.

---

Greenwald was once a serious reporter. In recent years he's become a self-aggrandizing talking head like the rest of them.

---

Probably because you disagree with his conclusions.

---

No, it's because of his recent behavior. Outside of the Brazil story, his writing has become almost all opinion with little actual reporting in it. He is also a literal talking head now, making regular appearances on Tucker Carlson's show and others.

---

So he is invalidated because he has opinions? He is invalidated because he appeared on Fox negating the Russian Trump-Putin hoax based on his opinions of the evidence backed up by his experience.

But why do you think he wasn't asked on MSNBC or CNN to do same? It's obvious why. Because it doesn't conform with their and your beliefs, and, more importantly their business model to drive traffic with a sensational but false story to drive ratings.

---

You have it backwards, of course

dajo9 said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Greenwald's idea that The Intercept is afraid to be critical of Joe Biden is laughable. They have been critical of him (from the left) pretty consistently. The editors just didn't want to repeat Trump campaign material uncritically, which is a responsible decision, especially a week before the election.

---

They were critical of him up until he won the nomination. There's a difference.

---

Not true, they posted plenty of Tara Reade stuff.

---

That happened in March. Not a lot of Tara Reade articles by them or anyone since.

---

April: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/30/joe-biden-thinks-we-should-believe-women-just-not-tara-reade/

May: https://theintercept.com/2020/05/10/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault/

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/06/donald-trump-joe-biden-and-the-politics-of-sexual-misconduct/

C'mon, man.

The story fell out of the news in general after that, in large part because a bunch of people stepped forward to question Reade's credibility. But the Intercept definitely wasn't shy about covering it after March.

---

You consider 4 articles a lot?

---

So you don't want them to cover it. You want them to harp on it, to the exclusion of other stories.

Sounds a lot like what Greenwald wants to do about Hunter Biden.

---

Why would I want them to harp on Tara Reade? That story is what it is. People didn't seem too interested in it, nor from an electoral standpoint is anybody going to care about Hunter Biden and Jim Biden trading on their dad's name when Trump's family does the same thing. The issue is one more about the role the media is playing on this than the story itself, which is what some of the more independent journalists are saying.

---

So what's the issue? Greenwald claims The Intercept was afraid to cover Biden negatively. History suggests they are not. But your further argument is that they didn't cover his potential scandals enough.

How much is enough?

---

4 articles on Tara Reade doesn't seem like a lot to me compared to the number of articles written about Benghazi or private e-mail servers by other publications. They broke the story (nobody touched it before them), followed up on it, and nobody seemed to care much about it. I think that's as much to do with coronavirus being the number one thing on everybody's mind as it is to the veracity of her story, to be honest. Whether it got covered or more isn't particularly a concern of mine. And the people who wrote these articles are not the people who were attempting to block Greenwald's article, so I don't really feel like the two are related.

I don't really care about the story per se. The Republicans will keep looking into it after the election and it will be the Benghazi of the next four years. How much meat there is to the story will be revealed in time. I'm more concerned with the fact that the left-oriented media is now engaging in stuff that only used to happen on the right-wing in terms of suppression of stories and just flat out lying about certain things for political purposes. I'm concerned that the cable news networks are essentially extensions of the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm concerned that Jeff Bezos wants to buy CNN. I think we are morphing into a state where the media is becoming much more like propaganda and less investigative. Ideally, we as a society should want our media and our politicians to have different motivations. Politicians lie and the media tries to find out the truth.

The current direction we are heading in concerns me greatly.

---

How many articles has the Intercept written about EJean Carroll? Do you even know who that is without looking it up?

---

I'm not really sure what your issue is with me or what point it is you think I'm making that I'm not seeing, but this is the second time you've come at me pretty hard. And I don't see what relevance the number of articles written by the Intercept about the woman who accused Moonves and Trump of assaulting her has to do anything.

And yes, I did have to look it up. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the bad things Trump has ever done.

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Most of journalism is a bunch of self- obsessed 30 somethings tweeting bull**** back and forth at each other fantasizing that they are in some "resistance" to the fascist takeover of Trumpkin instead of pathetic losers they are. The bull$It is canonized by other insecure misfits until it reaches here via Okaydo.

Whatever one thinks of Greenwald and the Biden caper his work with Snowden and in Brazil was courageous journalism with a lot of risk to him. He broke the global surveillance story, won a Pulitzer and Academy Award that earned him a lot of enemies, death threats in Brazil and attacks on his sexuality. He's a serious investigative reporter not a trivial self- aggrandizing talking head which makes me give him the benefit of the doubt- though in truth the Hunter Biden story to me only confirms that which is intuitive-come January some relatives of a President- either one- will be feasting at the banquet.

---

Greenwald was once a serious reporter. In recent years he's become a self-aggrandizing talking head like the rest of them.

---

Probably because you disagree with his conclusions.

---

No, it's because of his recent behavior. Outside of the Brazil story, his writing has become almost all opinion with little actual reporting in it. He is also a literal talking head now, making regular appearances on Tucker Carlson's show and others.

---

So he is invalidated because he has opinions? He is invalidated because he appeared on Fox negating the Russian Trump-Putin hoax based on his opinions of the evidence backed up by his experience.

But why do you think he wasn't asked on MSNBC or CNN to do same? It's obvious why. Because it doesn't conform with their and your beliefs, and, more importantly their business model to drive traffic with a sensational but false story to drive ratings.

---

It's pretty obvious you like Greenwald because he validates your own beliefs, but moving on from that point . . .

I didn't say he couldn't have opinions. That's fine. I said his opinions don't count as reporting. They are punditry. My contention is that Greenwald has been sliding away from being a reporter and into being a pundit (a.k.a. a talking head, as you described). Him leaving The Intercept for another outlet that will give him a nice payday to deliver his punditry unchecked is further evidence of that IMO.

Not sure what the comparison to CNN or MSNBC is supposed to prove. Yes, those networks have plenty of their own talking heads too. I'm not trying to claim any of them as great reporters either. I can't stand cable news in general.

Kaworu said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Greenwald's idea that The Intercept is afraid to be critical of Joe Biden is laughable. They have been critical of him (from the left) pretty consistently. The editors just didn't want to repeat Trump campaign material uncritically, which is a responsible decision, especially a week before the election.

---

They were critical of him up until he won the nomination. There's a difference.

---

Not true, they posted plenty of Tara Reade stuff.

---

That happened in March. Not a lot of Tara Reade articles by them or anyone since.

---

April: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/30/joe-biden-thinks-we-should-believe-women-just-not-tara-reade/

May: https://theintercept.com/2020/05/10/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault/

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/06/donald-trump-joe-biden-and-the-politics-of-sexual-misconduct/

C'mon, man.

The story fell out of the news in general after that, in large part because a bunch of people stepped forward to question Reade's credibility. But the Intercept definitely wasn't shy about covering it after March.

---

You consider 4 articles a lot?

---

So you don't want them to cover it. You want them to harp on it, to the exclusion of other stories.

Sounds a lot like what Greenwald wants to do about Hunter Biden.

---

Why would I want them to harp on Tara Reade? That story is what it is. People didn't seem too interested in it, nor from an electoral standpoint is anybody going to care about Hunter Biden and Jim Biden trading on their dad's name when Trump's family does the same thing. The issue is one more about the role the media is playing on this than the story itself, which is what some of the more independent journalists are saying.

---

So what's the issue? Greenwald claims The Intercept was afraid to cover Biden negatively. History suggests they are not. But your further argument is that they didn't cover his potential scandals enough.

How much is enough?

---

4 articles on Tara Reade doesn't seem like a lot to me compared to the number of articles written about Benghazi or private e-mail servers by other publications. They broke the story (nobody touched it before them), followed up on it, and nobody seemed to care much about it. I think that's as much to do with coronavirus being the number one thing on everybody's mind as it is to the veracity of her story, to be honest. Whether it got covered or more isn't particularly a concern of mine. And the people who wrote these articles are not the people who were attempting to block Greenwald's article, so I don't really feel like the two are related.

I don't really care about the story per se. The Republicans will keep looking into it after the election and it will be the Benghazi of the next four years. How much meat there is to the story will be revealed in time. I'm more concerned with the fact that the left-oriented media is now engaging in stuff that only used to happen on the right-wing in terms of suppression of stories and just flat out lying about certain things for political purposes. I'm concerned that the cable news networks are essentially extensions of the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm concerned that Jeff Bezos wants to buy CNN. I think we are morphing into a state where the media is becoming much more like propaganda and less investigative. Ideally, we as a society should want our media and our politicians to have different motivations. Politicians lie and the media tries to find out the truth.

The current direction we are heading in concerns me greatly.

---

How many articles has the Intercept written about EJean Carroll? Do you even know who that is without looking it up?

---

I'm not really sure what your issue is with me or what point it is you think I'm making that I'm not seeing, but this is the second time you've come at me pretty hard. And I don't see what relevance the number of articles written by the Intercept about the woman who accused Moonves and Trump of assaulting her has to do anything.

And yes, I did have to look it up. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the bad things Trump has ever done.

---

The point is you know all about Tara Reade and Hunter Biden. And you are lamenting that Tara Reade and Hunter Biden aren't covered like Benghazi and Her emails.

In the meantime, you don't even know who E Jean Carroll is.

So, what stories are underreported? Who is the media helping and hurting?

dajo9 said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Greenwald's idea that The Intercept is afraid to be critical of Joe Biden is laughable. They have been critical of him (from the left) pretty consistently. The editors just didn't want to repeat Trump campaign material uncritically, which is a responsible decision, especially a week before the election.

---

They were critical of him up until he won the nomination. There's a difference.

---

Not true, they posted plenty of Tara Reade stuff.

---

That happened in March. Not a lot of Tara Reade articles by them or anyone since.

---

April: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/30/joe-biden-thinks-we-should-believe-women-just-not-tara-reade/

May: https://theintercept.com/2020/05/10/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault/

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/06/donald-trump-joe-biden-and-the-politics-of-sexual-misconduct/

C'mon, man.

The story fell out of the news in general after that, in large part because a bunch of people stepped forward to question Reade's credibility. But the Intercept definitely wasn't shy about covering it after March.

---

You consider 4 articles a lot?

---

So you don't want them to cover it. You want them to harp on it, to the exclusion of other stories.

Sounds a lot like what Greenwald wants to do about Hunter Biden.

---

Why would I want them to harp on Tara Reade? That story is what it is. People didn't seem too interested in it, nor from an electoral standpoint is anybody going to care about Hunter Biden and Jim Biden trading on their dad's name when Trump's family does the same thing. The issue is one more about the role the media is playing on this than the story itself, which is what some of the more independent journalists are saying.

---

So what's the issue? Greenwald claims The Intercept was afraid to cover Biden negatively. History suggests they are not. But your further argument is that they didn't cover his potential scandals enough.

How much is enough?

---

4 articles on Tara Reade doesn't seem like a lot to me compared to the number of articles written about Benghazi or private e-mail servers by other publications. They broke the story (nobody touched it before them), followed up on it, and nobody seemed to care much about it. I think that's as much to do with coronavirus being the number one thing on everybody's mind as it is to the veracity of her story, to be honest. Whether it got covered or more isn't particularly a concern of mine. And the people who wrote these articles are not the people who were attempting to block Greenwald's article, so I don't really feel like the two are related.

I don't really care about the story per se. The Republicans will keep looking into it after the election and it will be the Benghazi of the next four years. How much meat there is to the story will be revealed in time. I'm more concerned with the fact that the left-oriented media is now engaging in stuff that only used to happen on the right-wing in terms of suppression of stories and just flat out lying about certain things for political purposes. I'm concerned that the cable news networks are essentially extensions of the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm concerned that Jeff Bezos wants to buy CNN. I think we are morphing into a state where the media is becoming much more like propaganda and less investigative. Ideally, we as a society should want our media and our politicians to have different motivations. Politicians lie and the media tries to find out the truth.

The current direction we are heading in concerns me greatly.

---

How many articles has the Intercept written about EJean Carroll? Do you even know who that is without looking it up?

---

I'm not really sure what your issue is with me or what point it is you think I'm making that I'm not seeing, but this is the second time you've come at me pretty hard. And I don't see what relevance the number of articles written by the Intercept about the woman who accused Moonves and Trump of assaulting her has to do anything.

And yes, I did have to look it up. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the bad things Trump has ever done.

---

The point is you know all about Tara Reade and Hunter Biden. And you are lamenting that Tara Reade and Hunter Biden aren't covered like Benghazi and Her emails.

In the meantime, you don't even know who E Jean Carroll is.

So, what stories are underreported? Who is the media helping and hurting?

---

I'm not lamenting anything. I don't know for sure whether Reade was assaulted and I don't know exactly how dirty Hunter Biden is. But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

And why you think it's a big deal that I can't remember every single person that Trump has screwed over (or screwed) makes no sense to me. Maybe you're one of those people who is so obsessive about Trump that you have a wall in your house where you keep press clippings of every bad thing he's done and so those things are top of mind for you. I'm just hoping for a big blowout loss on Tuesday and never having to think about him again until he gets arrested after January.

bearlyamazing said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Conservatives need to learn that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie.

---

Except that he's a noted liberal that liberals now hate because he dares to expose the left, too.

---

Don't conflate liberals with "the left". Liberals are folks like Greenwald with more progressive ideals than conservatives. "The Left" are dems like many of the ones on this board that are willing to put their ideals aside as long as it might help their party gain power.

And yes, the same can be said with conservatives and "the right".

calpoly said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Conservatives need to learn that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie.

---

Why would they did that? It would mean they would never get elected if they really told us what they plan to do.

---

You mean like with stacking the court?


Seriously, not that you said it, but it would be pretty naive to think the same couldn't be said for both parties.

Kaworu said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Greenwald's idea that The Intercept is afraid to be critical of Joe Biden is laughable. They have been critical of him (from the left) pretty consistently. The editors just didn't want to repeat Trump campaign material uncritically, which is a responsible decision, especially a week before the election.

---

They were critical of him up until he won the nomination. There's a difference.

---

Not true, they posted plenty of Tara Reade stuff.

---

That happened in March. Not a lot of Tara Reade articles by them or anyone since.

---

April: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/30/joe-biden-thinks-we-should-believe-women-just-not-tara-reade/

May: https://theintercept.com/2020/05/10/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault/

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/06/donald-trump-joe-biden-and-the-politics-of-sexual-misconduct/

C'mon, man.

The story fell out of the news in general after that, in large part because a bunch of people stepped forward to question Reade's credibility. But the Intercept definitely wasn't shy about covering it after March.

---

You consider 4 articles a lot?

---

So you don't want them to cover it. You want them to harp on it, to the exclusion of other stories.

Sounds a lot like what Greenwald wants to do about Hunter Biden.

---

Why would I want them to harp on Tara Reade? That story is what it is. People didn't seem too interested in it, nor from an electoral standpoint is anybody going to care about Hunter Biden and Jim Biden trading on their dad's name when Trump's family does the same thing. The issue is one more about the role the media is playing on this than the story itself, which is what some of the more independent journalists are saying.

---

So what's the issue? Greenwald claims The Intercept was afraid to cover Biden negatively. History suggests they are not. But your further argument is that they didn't cover his potential scandals enough.

How much is enough?

---

4 articles on Tara Reade doesn't seem like a lot to me compared to the number of articles written about Benghazi or private e-mail servers by other publications. They broke the story (nobody touched it before them), followed up on it, and nobody seemed to care much about it. I think that's as much to do with coronavirus being the number one thing on everybody's mind as it is to the veracity of her story, to be honest. Whether it got covered or more isn't particularly a concern of mine. And the people who wrote these articles are not the people who were attempting to block Greenwald's article, so I don't really feel like the two are related.

I don't really care about the story per se. The Republicans will keep looking into it after the election and it will be the Benghazi of the next four years. How much meat there is to the story will be revealed in time. I'm more concerned with the fact that the left-oriented media is now engaging in stuff that only used to happen on the right-wing in terms of suppression of stories and just flat out lying about certain things for political purposes. I'm concerned that the cable news networks are essentially extensions of the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm concerned that Jeff Bezos wants to buy CNN. I think we are morphing into a state where the media is becoming much more like propaganda and less investigative. Ideally, we as a society should want our media and our politicians to have different motivations. Politicians lie and the media tries to find out the truth.

The current direction we are heading in concerns me greatly.

---

How many articles has the Intercept written about EJean Carroll? Do you even know who that is without looking it up?

---

I'm not really sure what your issue is with me or what point it is you think I'm making that I'm not seeing, but this is the second time you've come at me pretty hard. And I don't see what relevance the number of articles written by the Intercept about the woman who accused Moonves and Trump of assaulting her has to do anything.

And yes, I did have to look it up. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the bad things Trump has ever done.

---

The point is you know all about Tara Reade and Hunter Biden. And you are lamenting that Tara Reade and Hunter Biden aren't covered like Benghazi and Her emails.

In the meantime, you don't even know who E Jean Carroll is.

So, what stories are underreported? Who is the media helping and hurting?

---

I'm not lamenting anything. I don't know for sure whether Reade was assaulted and I don't know exactly how dirty Hunter Biden is. But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

And why you think it's a big deal that I can't remember every single person that Trump has screwed over (or screwed) makes no sense to me. Maybe you're one of those people who is so obsessive about Trump that you have a wall in your house where you keep press clippings of every bad thing he's done and so those things are top of mind for you. I'm just hoping for a big blowout loss on Tuesday and never having to think about him again until he gets arrested after January.

---

You never stop to ask what's going on with the media that you expect to have endless coverage of anti Democratic stuff and you don't even know about an equivalent anti Trump story?

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

Bear With Me said:

---

calpoly said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Conservatives need to learn that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie.

---

Why would they did that? It would mean they would never get elected if they really told us what they plan to do.

---

You mean like with stacking the court?


Seriously, not that you said it, but it would be pretty naive to think the same couldn't be said for both parties.

---

Well they did not stack the courts when Obama was president so I guess you are the one being naive thinking that both parties do it.

Bear With Me said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Conservatives need to learn that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie.

---

Except that he's a noted liberal that liberals now hate because he dares to expose the left, too.

---

Don't conflate liberals with "the left". Liberals are folks like Greenwald with more progressive ideals than conservatives. "The Left" are dems like many of the ones on this board that are willing to put their ideals aside as long as it might help their party gain power.

And yes, the same can be said with conservatives and "the right".

---

The words "Right", "Left", "Liberal", "Conservative" have no real definitions because they have totally different meanings to everyone.

calpoly said:

---

Well they did not stack the courts when Obama was president so I guess you are the one being naive.

---

iirc The Supremes already had a R majority by Big Oh's inauguration.

calpoly said:

---

Bear With Me said:

---

calpoly said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Conservatives need to learn that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie.

---

Why would they did that? It would mean they would never get elected if they really told us what they plan to do.

---

You mean like with stacking the court?


Seriously, not that you said it, but it would be pretty naive to think the same couldn't be said for both parties.

---

Well they did not stack the courts when Obama was president so I guess you are the one being naive thinking that both parties do it.

---

The naive comment had to do with both parties not telling us what they really plan to do for fear of not getting elected. Biden not telling us what he plans to do in regards to court stacking is just a recent example. An Obama example would be the ramrodding of the ACA.

calpoly said:

---

Bear With Me said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Conservatives need to learn that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie.

---

Except that he's a noted liberal that liberals now hate because he dares to expose the left, too.

---

Don't conflate liberals with "the left". Liberals are folks like Greenwald with more progressive ideals than conservatives. "The Left" are dems like many of the ones on this board that are willing to put their ideals aside as long as it might help their party gain power.

And yes, the same can be said with conservatives and "the right".

---

The words "Right", "Left", "Liberal", "Conservative" have no real definitions because they have totally different meanings to everyone.

---

How convenient, just like the definitions of a man, woman, baby, white, and black can have totally different meanings to everyone. Because a celery stick can mean something totally different to you and than someone else, I suppose. No, these days, it's the crazy left and everyone else.

Bear With Me said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Bear With Me said:

---

calpoly said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Conservatives need to learn that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie.

---

Why would they did that? It would mean they would never get elected if they really told us what they plan to do.

---

You mean like with stacking the court?


Seriously, not that you said it, but it would be pretty naive to think the same couldn't be said for both parties.

---

Well they did not stack the courts when Obama was president so I guess you are the one being naive thinking that both parties do it.

---

The naive comment had to do with both parties not telling us what they really plan to do for fear of not getting elected. Biden not telling us what he plans to do in regards to court stacking is just a recent example. An Obama example would be the ramrodding of the ACA.

---

Obama definitely campaigned on remaking health care, so he certainly didn't lie about that. Do you mean getting the last bit through with reconciliation? I really doubt they planned that during the campaign. It only happened because Ted Kennedy died and they lost the supermajority.

Bear With Me said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Bear With Me said:

---

calpoly said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Conservatives need to learn that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie.

---

Why would they did that? It would mean they would never get elected if they really told us what they plan to do.

---

You mean like with stacking the court?


Seriously, not that you said it, but it would be pretty naive to think the same couldn't be said for both parties.

---

Well they did not stack the courts when Obama was president so I guess you are the one being naive thinking that both parties do it.

---

The naive comment had to do with both parties not telling us what they really plan to do for fear of not getting elected. Biden not telling us what he plans to do in regards to court stacking is just a recent example. An Obama example would be the ramrodding of the ACA.

---

Please tell me how the ACA was "ramrodded"? As was mentioned in other posts, Obama campaigned on having universal healthcare so you cannot say that it was a surprise.

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So he is invalidated because he has opinions? He is invalidated because he appeared on Fox negating the Russian Trump-Putin hoax based on his opinions of the evidence backed up by his experience.

But why do you think he wasn't asked on MSNBC or CNN to do same? It's obvious why. Because it doesn't conform with their and your beliefs, and, more importantly their business model to drive traffic with a sensational but false story to drive ratings.

---

It's pretty obvious you like Greenwald because he validates your own beliefs, but moving on from that point . . .

I didn't say he couldn't have opinions. That's fine. I said his opinions don't count as reporting. They are punditry. My contention is that Greenwald has been sliding away from being a reporter and into being a pundit (a.k.a. a talking head, as you described). Him leaving The Intercept for another outlet that will give him a nice payday to deliver his punditry unchecked is further evidence of that IMO.

Not sure what the comparison to CNN or MSNBC is supposed to prove. Yes, those networks have plenty of their own talking heads too. I'm not trying to claim any of them as great reporters either. I can't stand cable news in general.

---

Serious LOL at you pretending like you're so above cable news. You believe the exact same things the talking heads on those networks believe. You say the exact same things they say. If you disdain those shows, it's only because it's not the form you prefer to consume your news in, not because you have any issue with how completely biased those networks are because you keep yourself safely esconsed in the exact same bubbles.

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So he is invalidated because he has opinions? He is invalidated because he appeared on Fox negating the Russian Trump-Putin hoax based on his opinions of the evidence backed up by his experience.

But why do you think he wasn't asked on MSNBC or CNN to do same? It's obvious why. Because it doesn't conform with their and your beliefs, and, more importantly their business model to drive traffic with a sensational but false story to drive ratings.

---

It's pretty obvious you like Greenwald because he validates your own beliefs, but moving on from that point . . .

I didn't say he couldn't have opinions. That's fine. I said his opinions don't count as reporting. They are punditry. My contention is that Greenwald has been sliding away from being a reporter and into being a pundit (a.k.a. a talking head, as you described). Him leaving The Intercept for another outlet that will give him a nice payday to deliver his punditry unchecked is further evidence of that IMO.

Not sure what the comparison to CNN or MSNBC is supposed to prove. Yes, those networks have plenty of their own talking heads too. I'm not trying to claim any of them as great reporters either. I can't stand cable news in general.

---

Serious LOL at you pretending like you're so above cable news. You believe the exact same things the talking heads on those networks believe. You say the exact same things they say. If you disdain those shows, it's only because it's not the form you prefer to consume your news in, not because you have any issue with how completely biased those networks are because you keep yourself safely esconsed in the exact same bubbles.

---

It's pretty clear you have your own bubble, my friend. It's just one that prefers to brag and signal about how much it's outside the bubble.

sycasey said:

---

From reading Greenwald's screed it appears he doesn't think he should be edited at all. Then when editors attempted to do their jobs, he threw a tantrum and resigned in a huff.

Yawn.

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kid Quick said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Kaworu said:

---

But I do know that the establishment media has been doing everything they could to kill the Hunter Biden story (at least until the election - maybe they'll show more interest afterward) in the name of defeating Trump.

---

How do you "know" that? What's the proof?

And remember, you have two claims here that both must be supported: that (1) the media is deliberately killing the story and (2) that they are doing it specifically to hurt Trump (or help Biden).

---

Like I said, most intellectually dishonest person on this site and it isn't close. It's not like you have to look very far for journalists who are saying this very thing.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/the-media-and-social-media-drive-to-squelch-information-a-menace-no-matter-who-wins-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

---

I was asking Kaworu, not you. I know what you think, Yogi.

---

Well, he wasn't wrong. He's hardly the only one talking about this.

---

Okay, so what's your answer? You know the media is trying to kill the story because folks like Matt Taibbi say so?

---

Because we can see that it's happening. And it's been reported on. But apparently you only consider some sources worthwhile.

---

Believe it or not, I have read his arguments like Taibbi's before. He tends to cite maybe one or two instances (like Twitter blocking the link to the original NY Post story) and then spin that into a speculative argument that the media at large is trying to help the Biden campaign. It's possible they are, but IMO it hasn't really been proven with solid evidence. There are a lot of other possible reasons why this could be happening (if it even is happening) that have little to do with helping one campaign or another. Mainstream news outlets could be trying to "cover their a**es" from being blamed again for over-focusing on sideline scandals with no real proof of wrongdoing, as they were for Hillary's emails in 2016. What about the Trump-Russia stuff from earlier in his term? That wasn't happening in an election year, and the sourcing for it wasn't someone literally working for a rival candidate (Giuliani). I think the equivalence is a little false here.

Or it could be that various editors/reporters are attempting to review and confirm the evidence and aren't finding enough to warrant a major story. That seemed to be happening at the Wall Street Journal, which is typically no friend of Democrats. How do you know it's not one of those things and instead is media collusion to help Joe Biden, as Taibbi or Greenwald or any number of right-wing pundits claim?

I try to weigh various sources' arguments against one another to determine what I find worthwhile. At the moment I'm finding Taibbi's argument wanting.

---

I have an easier summary for the above.