Kaworu said: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.sycasey said: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.Kaworu said: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.sycasey said:Kaworu said:You consider 4 articles a lot?sycasey said:Kaworu said:That happened in March. Not a lot of Tara Reade articles by them or anyone since.sycasey said:Not true, they posted plenty of Tara Reade stuff.Kaworu said:They were critical of him up until he won the nomination. There's a difference.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.
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.
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.
How much is enough?
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?