For over a year, the New York Times allowed the false narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation to permeate the public debate, when they had evidence to the contrary. Even after the New York Post published a bombshell report on the emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop discussing a potential business deal with Chinese executives, the Times waited more than 500 days to report they had authenticated the emails.
Now, a new poll shows that seventy-one percent of Americans believe accurate reporting of the “Laptop from Hell” could have altered the 2020 presidential election.
The emails, which included details of “remuneration packages” for six people involved in an unspecified business venture, showed Hunter Biden was identified as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” an apparent reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co. His pay was pegged at ‘850’ and the email also noted that ‘Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.’
The emails also outlined a ‘provisional agreement’ under which 80 percent of the ‘equity,’ or shares in the new company, would be split equally among four people whose initials correspond to the sender and three recipients, with ‘H’ apparently referring to Biden. The deal also listed ’10 Jim’ and ’10 held by H for the big guy?’ Neither Jim nor the ‘big guy’ was identified further.
Ken Vogel, a reporter for the New York Times, was told that the email was authentic, that Joe Biden was indeed the ‘Big Guy,’ and that he could attribute that information to a recipient of the email. However, he waited more than 500 days to report it.
The Times finally said it had “authenticated” emails from the laptop in March 2022, 24 paragraphs into the article. The Times story does not even mention the Bobulinski emails, or much other material from the laptop.
The New York Times’s failure to report on the Hunter Biden laptop emails for over a year is a stark reminder of the media’s power to shape the narrative and to influence the public’s opinion. It is clear that the Times allowed the false narrative that the laptop was Russian disinformation to pervade the public debate, when they had evidence to the contrary. This is a disservice to the public, and a reminder of the importance of accurate and unbiased reporting.
Source: www.breitbart.com