OH, NOW THEY BELIEVE US: The New York Post points out in this story that:

“People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity,” the Times writes. “Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.” […] But wait, it doesn’t end there. In October 2020, the Times cast doubt that there was a meeting between Joe Biden and an official from Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company for which Hunter was a board member. “A Biden campaign spokesman said Mr. Biden’s official schedules did not show a meeting between the two men,” the Times wrote, acting as a perfect stenographer.”

Jonathan Turley’s post last year about the mainstream media stealthily admitting that yes, the material found on Hunter Biden’s laptop was the real thing. We’ve known ( and by “we” I mean anyone with a good sense of skepticism) for months that the lapdogs in DC and NY newsrooms made sure the laptop was toxic: Russian disinformation, a GOP trick, you name it. If there was a reason to ignore it and make it toxic to even talk about, they did it. Professional liar and shameless mutant Jen Psaki continued to push the narrative as far and as hard as she could, from the bully pulpit of the White House.

The facts about the final, inevitable but snail’s crawl to acceptance of its accuracy speaks volumes about the way DC newsrooms operate. In fact, few folks know that John Solomon’s “JustTheNews.com” had revealed the laptop and its contents’ authenticity as far back as 2020. I know this first hand, because I performed the legal review and “backread” of the story. This episode highlights a deeper, more persistent problem: the toxification of center-right, right-leaning or other news organizations that are designed for more conservative (or open minded) readers.

How many times in raising a point with someone have you cited Fox News or OAN only to be met with dismissal: “Oh, Fox, yeah, right.” It’s a form of deflection, and it works. Once the source has been broadbrushed as “unreliable” the substantive conversation stops.

Herein lies the problem with that latest play toy of the media crowd, namely “disinformation.” To be sure, people from across the social and political spectrum have posted knowingly false or at best, poorly researched stories. But even though I am not a classical scholar, I’ll bet you that during elections in the Rome of Octavian (around 27 B.C.) there were whispering campaigns accusing candidates of terrible things. It’s old wine in a new bottle. We’ve just developed louder, faster, and broader ways of spreading falsities. (Gratuitous plug for Glenn’s book that touches on this topic).

Reporting about disinformation has become a cottage industry. Several newsrooms have assigned reporters (usually very young, very inexperienced, and very liberal) to a “disinformation beat.” Eventually, Parkinson’s Law will come into play. Work and personnel expand to consume the available resources. To keep their beat (and their jobs) there is a built-in incentive to “over-label” other newsrooms (especially those with a conservative readership).

Worse yet, leave it to old time dead-tree publishers to try to cash in on the “disinformation” business. Veteran publisher Steve Brill (with whom I admit having a few unpleasant exchanges) has come up with NewsGuardTech.com, a website that touts itself as the be-all and end-all of cataloging “bad” news organizations. Imagine Snopes on steroids with a journalism degree.

A look at the advisors and investors is used as a selling point for why the public should trust them, and why corporations should pay for their reporting service. In fact, I think it does the opposite. One of their advisors is Jimmy Wales, the creator and Lord Ruler of Wikipedia. Res ipsa loquitur. Another is Retired General Michael Hayden, who as head of the CIA expanded the agency’s surveillance on American citizens, including members of the U.S. Senate. He seems nice. 

The ownership and advisors are also chock full of people straight from the C-suites of the advertising and lobbying industry. Advisor Israel Mirsky describes himself as “a Madison Avenue technologist with a background in computer science.” And oh yeah, among the investors is Publicis Groupe, a vampire squid among “governmental relations” and advertising agencies. Incidentally, Publicis gave Joe Biden almost $100,000 in campaign donations. And we’re supposed to believe there is an ethic of neutrality (let alone honesty) there? If enough ad agencies can be persuaded that a newsroom is “fake” then you have successfully executed them.

I’m kind of hoping that this latest fad dies out. It’s the latest iteration of everyone screaming “FAKE NEWS” and until mainstream media starts to admit and publish facts that they don’t like, this is going nowhere.

I’m not holding my breath, though.

**CORRECTION: Lede updated to show NYT’s recent admission was reported in the NYP yesterday and Turley’s post was from last year. I apologize for the confusion.***