(PresidentialInsider.com)- After the Washington Post belatedly conceded that the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop were authentic, the paper’s editorial board offered a disingenuous mea culpa, claiming the Hunter Biden story is “an opportunity for a reckoning” in the media.
But even as the editorial board was pretending it learned its lesson, the board still defended Joe Biden and tried to justify its “reluctance” to report on the story back in October 2020 when the New York Post first broke it.
Throughout the piece, the editorial board repeatedly stressed President Joe Biden’s innocence in the scandal, even going so far as to claim that the contents of Hunter’s laptop vindicate the Big Guy.
In short, the Post’s editorial gives Americans a sneak peek at how the media will shift the narrative surrounding Hunter’s laptop to continue providing cover for Joe Biden, namely, Hunter may have used his father’s name to profit from shady foreign deals, but Joe Biden had nothing to do with it.
So much for a “reckoning.”
The Washington Post has no interest in any kind of “reckoning.” This is damage control.
The narrative that the laptop was “Russian disinformation” has been completely obliterated. So now, the narrative has to change, but the purpose – to protect Joe Biden – remains the same.
Even as they claimed it was a “reckoning,” the Post editorial board made excuses for why media outlets refused to report on the New York Post’s exclusive story before the 2020 election.
The board claimed it was “only prudent to suspect” that Hunter’s laptop was “Russian disinformation,” especially in light of the lessons learned during the 2016 election. The board wants readers to believe that 2016 taught them to “err on the side of setting aside questionable material in the heat of a political campaign.”
Are they kidding?
Does anybody believe that the Washington Post would have shown similar restraint if the abandoned laptop in question belonged to Donald Trump Junior?
On Twitter, Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald blasted the ridiculous editorial, saying it was “filled with self-justifying caveats” explaining why the Washington Post “was reasonable” for getting the story so wrong.