[Leer en español]
Last night, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas’ legal efforts -supported by 17 other states- to delay the appointment of presidential electors in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin while evidence of “voter fraud” is investigated. A giant setback for President Trump’s legal team that virtually defines the legal battles in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.
So, with the pro-Democrat counts -and the Republican side’s legal efforts greatly weakened, it is very important to identify the moments when this election was defined. Both in political decisions and in public opinion there is something that needs to be analyzed -in the latter- very carefully: how the media systematically ignored the stories related to Hunter and Joe Biden’s shady deals.
The New York Post‘s great scoop on Hunter and Joe Biden
While it was not the first story in chronological order, it was the most serious and compelling story -to date- regarding Hunter Biden’s business abroad.
The traditional New York outlet, one of the longest running in the country, published an article on October 14th revealing emails showing that Hunter Biden introduced his father – the then Vice President Joe Biden – to a top executive of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. All this less than a year after Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian government officials to fire a prosecutor investigating the company.
The story had much potential for exploitation, not only because the son of the former vice president and presidential candidate was involved with a company with corrupt ties, but because of the whole context: the country was just days away from a presidential election.
Much of the national and international press focused on ignoring or disqualifying The New York Post’s investigation. More attention was paid to who provided the hard drive from which the emails were taken, than to the content of the emails themselves.
According to the Post, the emails were obtained from a computer hard drive that Hunter Biden reportedly left for repair at a Wilmington, Delaware store in April 2019, and which he never removed. The store’s owner theoretically made a copy of the hard drive and provided it to Giuliani’s attorney and former Trump advisor, Steve Bannon.
This origin led many to disqualify The New York Post‘s story as false (or “fake”), unfounded or right-wing extremist propaganda. But the facts, and the inexorable judge that is time, gave reason to the Conservative media that had the courage to publish the article regardless of the media disqualification that was sure in coming.
Big Tech censorship on The New York Post
Twitter and Facebook were also important pieces in these elections, since they acted openly in favor of one of the sides: the Democrats.
Hours after the Post published the story of the emails related to Hunter and Joe Biden, social networks, especially Twitter and Facebook, openly censored it or stuck a warning label on it.
Twitter went further and did not let the Post‘s story spread, and the reason was because the collection of the emails allegedly violated its security rules. According to Twitter, the article on The New York Post was based on a “pirated” collection of content, which also included “personal information.”
This, of course, is nonsense. In fact, the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, was exposed in the U.S. Senate by Senator Ted Cruz. At the same time, the platform itself was criticized for censoring the Post’s story about Hunter Biden, but allowing the dissemination of The New York Times‘ investigation into Trump’s taxes where, it is worth emphasizing, the information was obtained from private tax returns. In that case, it didn’t matter how the information was obtained.
Even though Twitter torpedoed the dissemination of the story, it seems that the effect was just the opposite: more people read about Hunter’s story.
But, at the same time, there was a particular issue that few media outlets dared to point out: the censorship by Big Tech that played a role in Joe Biden’s favor.
The big mass media -for the Democrats- did not stand in solidarity with The New York Post; on the contrary, just as they had ignored Hunter and Joe Biden’s story about their emails, they did the same by openly censoring one of the longest-lived media in the United States.
The first reports on the FBI investigation into Hunter Biden
Yes, now the media is giving coverage to the officialization of the investigation against Hunter Biden. According to reports, Hunter Biden negotiated a contract with a Chinese energy group called CEFC China Energy -a company with ties to the People’s Liberation Army- to invest in energy products in the United States.
What the U.S. Attorney’s Office is studying is whether the son of the former vice president, and his associates, violated tax and money laundering laws during their business dealings abroad.
But this is not new. Before the elections there were already reports on this subject, and they were once again systematically ignored.
We have to go back to last October 30th, when one of the journalists from the Sinclair Broadcast Group, James Rosen, shared an exclusive story on his Twitter account explaining that Justice Department officials confirmed that in 2019 the FBI opened an investigation against Hunter and associates. In addition, reports had indicated that the investigation was still open and active.
According to Rosen, Tony Bobulinski – a former partner of Hunter – revealed to the Sinclair Broadcast Group that he was interrogated on October 23rd by the FBI for five hours. In addition, he was included as a “material witness” in an ongoing investigation focused on Hunter Biden and his business partners.
But the media dismissed the story. The Washington Post actually published an analysis entitled “We’ve reached the stage of the Tony Bobulinski campaign.”
The article suggests that “If your opponent’s son’s former partner can’t turn your campaign around, what can?” explaining, basically, that Biden’s son’s scandals are exploited as an election strategy more than anything else. Well, going by that logic and its counterpart, the suppression of the story itself is an electoral move.
It is curious, since the same article admits to a lack of willingness to cover the story: “Trump’s defenders will argue that voters don’t know Bobulinski’s name because most of the media have not drilled down into the story enough to cover that level of nuance. This is largely true, in part because most of the media (including initially, Fox News) were unwilling to cover the initial allegations reported by The New York Post given the inability to access and verify the material.
The previous paragraph demonstrates unequivocally how the media -mostly akin to the American Liberal side- did not have the interest to cover the story. They give the excuse that they did not have the capacity to access or verify the material that was published, but isn’t this replicated every time a newspaper publishes an important exclusive – with documents included?
The Post showed evidence and, as days went by, proved that it was on the right track. The media’s decision to ignore it was more political than anything else, since they could choose to cover it by questioning the testimony or information, but chose to ignore it, to suppress it.
The business scheme whereby Hunter promotes a Joe Biden relationship
Biden’s eldest son, in a business scheme presented by his consortium with CEFC China Energy, promoted the relationship of the former U.S. Vice President with former Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos in an attempt to get the Chinese company to invest and enter the Latin American market through Colombia.
According to the Daily Caller, Hunter Biden’s group of partners sought to reach a $10,000,000 investment agreement with CEFC China Energy. Therefore, they made a business pitch whereby they directly promoted Biden’s close and great relationship with Santos.
The document recalled, among other things, President Santos’ visit to Washington in 2013; the Obama Administration’s support for the peace agreement with FARC terrorists -including Biden’s accompaniment in the process- and also how the U.S. government had focused its foreign policy in Latin America to “improve relations” with the region.
The story, too, was ignored in the mainstream liberal American media.
“A study published by MRC News Busters detailed how an estimated 17% of 1,750 Biden voters in swing states would have changed their voting intent with less biased media coverage,” reads an earlier installment of The American.
This polling company found that a large majority (82%) of those who voted for Biden were unaware of at least eight issues buried by the media linked to the presidential election. Five percent said they did not know about the eight issues used in the poll. One of these topics was Hunter Biden’s businesses abroad.
“This lack of information proved to be crucial: one in six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate if they had known the facts about one or more of these stories,” the study reads.
The conclusion is clear: the liberal mass media systematically ignored stories related to Hunter and Joe Biden. And that is unacceptable, because they failed Americans in their reporting of the news.
It is difficult to say whether, with more even-handed and objective treatment, this would have changed the course of the election. But it allows for a clearer analysis and evaluation of the role of mass media, and how, from now on, they must be read: without prejudice and with great care, bearing in mind that there are an alternate and reliable media willing to truthfully tell stories.