In an article yesterday, the New York Times put a dishonest twist on the campaign to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop and smear the Twitter Files.
The article alluded to and defended the 50 former and current intelligence officials who claimed in a letter that they believed deeply that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation.
The Times article also sought to explain why the government needs to control speech. The propaganda outlet is following the playbook it used in 2020 and 2022 and will undoubtedly get another Pulitzer for it.
The authors subtly demonized the Twitter Files, Elon Musk, Michael Shellenberger, and anyone who told the truth about government spying and censorship.
It’s a very dishonest article. Matt Taibbi responded to it on his substack; you can read it here. It comes as the Supreme Court hears the Murthy v. Missouri free speech case. The government wants to be able to censor the speech of the American people.
Sadly, too many people think the Times is a legitimate news source.
The 50 so-called intelligence officers wrote in 2020, just before the lection:
“Perhaps most important, each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections, not foreign governments,” the officials wrote in a widely covered letter. “All of us agree with the founding fathers’ concern about the damage that foreign interference in our politics can do to our democracy.”
“It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” they continued.
Intelligence services knew that the Hunter laptop was real for over a year when that letter was written. The New York Times is still carrying the government’s water to lie and pretend the 50 intel officers were legitimately concerned about the Russians. These people never get tired of Russian conspiracies.
The New York Times wrote yesterday:
Social media, with its pipeline to tens of millions of voters, presented powerful new pathways for antidemocratic tactics but with far fewer of the regulatory and legal limits that exist for television, radio, and newspapers.
The pitfalls were also clear: During the 2020 campaign, platforms had rushed to bury a New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s laptop out of concern that it might be tied to Russian interference. Conservatives saw it as an attempt to tilt the scales to Mr. Biden.
Administration officials said they were seeking a delicate balance between the First Amendment and social media’s rising power over public opinion.
“We’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure,” said Jen Easterly, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, whose responsibilities include protecting the national voting system. “Building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important.”
As Michael Caputo put it, they got a Pulitzer for it.
This is the NYT regime scribes’ hilariously muted view of how the paper happily cooperated with the 50 lying NatSec Dems who called Hunter’s laptop “Russian disinformation” to help hide the massive corruption of the Biden family before the election.
NYT gets Pulitzers for lying. pic.twitter.com/T3sm9LGgjW
— Michael R. Caputo (@MichaelRCaputo) March 18, 2024
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
