For some in the media, no allegations that could link President Joe Biden to unethical or even criminal behavior seem to be considered credible or worth investigating. Times have certainly changed. I remember when any hint of impropriety involving the White House administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and especially Donald Trump would catapult reporters into action, trying to discover if any of the wrongdoing suggested could be related to these presidents.
I had no problem with that. In fact, I strongly support the practice because that is the role of journalists, especially investigative journalists: to follow the facts to the truth, regardless of the personal feelings or prejudices the reporter may have toward a person or entity under research
Many people believe that the ethical and professional conduct of some journalists and news organizations went out the window with the dawn of the Trump era. Shortly after the New York City businessman announced his intention to seek the presidency in June 2015, many journalists began openly declaring their disdain, even hatred, for him.
Then, during the 2020 election, with seemingly little or no research, a report on the content found on Hunter Biden’s laptop was categorically labeled as “Russian disinformation” by the mainstream media, with a great help of more than 50 former US intelligence officials, the Biden White House and President Biden himself, who responded emphatically “Yes, yes, yes” when asked if he believed the laptop contained Russian disinformation.
Case closed, apparently. There is no need for the media to do their job.
Except, of course, the Russian disinformation label it turned out to be a lie. Many liberal-leaning news organizations were forced to reluctantly admit that the Hunter Biden laptop story was not Russian disinformation and that it could have tentacles beyond Hunter Biden.
Now, we have another story involving Hunter Biden, who allegedly received $260,000 from Chinese business interests during his father’s presidential campaign, with Joe Biden’s address on the wire transfer.
Is it a “bombshell” find, as some believe? Shouldn’t Joe Biden’s address on a wire transfer catapult reporters into action to try to connect, refute or explain any points related to this allegation? Apparently not, for too many journalists.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) revealed that Hunter Biden received two wire transfers from Chinese nationals, worth a combined $260,000, within a few months, multiple media outlets reported. after his father began his 2020 presidential campaign, and with the elder Biden’s Delaware home listed as the beneficiary’s address.
“Joe Biden’s abuse of public office for his family’s financial gain threatens our national security. What did the Bidens do with this money from Beijing?” said Comer. “Americans demand and deserve accountability for the corruption of President Biden and the First Family.”
Hunter Biden’s lawyer says wire transfers they were loans of a private individual, and that Joe Biden’s address was used because it was on Hunter’s driver’s license at the time. He accused House Republicans of “twisting the truth to mislead the people to further their fantasy political agenda.”
to eat published in X (formerly Twitter): “The first payment of $10,000 came from a person identified as Ms. Wang Xin on July 26, 2019. The second took place about a week later on August 2, 2019 for 250,000 dollars from Li Xiang Sheng, which goes from Jonathan Li.
to eat more pointed“When Joe Biden was vice president, he spoke on the phone and had coffee with Jonathan Li in Beijing, and later wrote a college recommendation letter for his children.”
The Biden White House responded by attacking House Republicans. White House spokesman Ian Sams said: “Extreme House Republicans are spewing half-baked innuendos and conspiracy theories that, once again, show no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.” a statement provided to The Messenger“just more discredited personal attacks on him and his family, in a sad effort to distract from his chaotic inability to govern that is bringing us to the brink of a dangerous government shutdown.”
So that’s it. Like the original Hunter Laptop story first published by the New York Post in 2020, will much of the mainstream media take the White House at its word, or will they do their job to change and investigate these latest allegations?
Comer is correct in his assertion that Hunter Biden’s business dealings, if proven true, could adversely affect US national security. It is a possibility that journalists should acknowledge. And they should be willing (if not eager) to investigate, to find the truth, and to reveal it to the American people, whether it proves the truth of President Biden’s denials or the Republicans’ accusations. Protecting or harming either political side should not be part of the equation.
But by apparently turning a deaf ear and turning a blind eye to allegations of possible wrongdoing involving some members of the Biden family, could some in the media be seen as figurative props after the fact? Findlaw defines an accessory as: “The defendant assisted that person with the specific purpose or design of hindering or preventing the apprehension, trial, or punishment of that person.”
Instead of doing their jobs, do some reporters choose to hinder news investigations out of loyalty to Biden, the Democratic Party, or their personal biases? Maybe, but one thing is for sure: Journalism in the age of Trump has changed for the worse.
Douglas MacKinnon served in the White House as a staff writer to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush and then in a joint command at the Pentagon.
English 
Español de Venezuela 