It quickly became clear that in their attempts to stifle Hunter Biden’s story, two giants on social media let themselves gasp for air.
Twitter and Facebook took basic steps to suppress the New York Post, but in the end they paid much more attention to it than if they had done nothing and allowed their millions of users to share it freely.
In particular, on Twitter, if you had to come up with a plan to intensify conservative complaints about his liberal leanings, you could hardly do better than the technology giant closing the Trump campaign account. Not to mention press secretary Kaylee McEnnany.
Hashtag: # Failed
In fact, Twitter boss Jack Dorsey tweeted that the company̵
TWITTER CONCLUDES OFFICIAL TRUMP CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT OVER HUNTER SHARED VIDEO
Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook was only slightly more restrained, limiting the spread of Post’s history through its covert algorithm, while directing it to an external fact-check – the results of which are not yet available. to be silent, regardless of the source?
No wonder President Trump said at a rally in North Carolina yesterday that “Bidens got rich while America was robbed … Big Tech censored these stories to try to get Biden out of this impossible jam.”
It was a gift from the gods on social media.
And do you know who else obscures the story? CNN and MSNBC, except for a few mentions in parentheses, and Joe Scarborough briefly quarreled with the two technology companies to block the story.
As for the Post’s story itself, well, it’s weird.
First of all, the business that Hunter Biden did or was trying to do in Ukraine and elsewhere while his father was vice president was embarrassing. He won a family relationship that may be common in Washington, but no less irritating. He admitted a mistake months ago in an interview with GMA, insisting he had done nothing unethical.
But that was pretty much aired during the Trump impeachment saga, and I think a lot of the public came to the conclusion that Joe Biden hadn’t taken explicit steps to help his son (yes, he got the prosecutor fired, according to him as anti-corruption driving), but probably looked different.
Now, less than three weeks before the election, Rudy Giuliani receives and gives Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid an email exchange with Hunter, in which the CEO of the Ukrainian company Burisma (Hunter served on the board) thanks him for the opportunity to meet with his father and then the vice president.
Biden’s campaign said such a meeting did not take place, then went back slightly to say it was possible, but it was unlikely there was a brief greeting at one point.
How the president’s personal lawyer received these emails is an intricate story involving John Makisaak, who runs a computer repair service in Wilmington. He told reporters that he was legally blind and believed, but he was not sure that Hunter Biden had brought three laptops with hard drive problems and never returned to pick them up. Makisaak, a Republican, says he found some of these emails and eventually reported them to the FBI, keeping a copy when the bureau called him.
Giuliani told Sirius XM yesterday that Hunter was drunk when he brought the laptops. The “post” was reported by Steve Bannon, who is accused in an unrelated case.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIF OF THE BEST STORIES OF THE DAY
Separately, the New York Times, which reported that Burism had been hacked by Russian intelligence, said yesterday that U.S. intelligence analysts had risen to believe that the stolen Burism emails would expire in the form of an “October surprise.” There were not enough intrigues just in case.
The Post reports separately Hunter’s correspondence with Chinese executives, in which Hunter Biden earned millions from a deal – but those emails are from 2017, after his father left office.
In an interesting twist, two reporters who questioned the initial Twitter post – Maggie Haberman of the New York Times and Jake Sherman of Politico – got hot on the left for daring to mention its existence.
Liberal Times columnist Michelle Goldberg, for example, writes, “Are you really going to help Giuliani and Bannon drink this bull in the news series?” MSNBC senior producer Lawrence O’Donnell urged people not to share or link to the story.
The better journalistic response to a story that is viewed with suspicion is to do more reporting.
Attempts to delete it from the digital square, as established by Twitter and Facebook, can have a big impact.