> Those issues could be addressed in the article. In open debate.

We learned this doesn't work all that well with the Comey letter eleven days before the 2016 election. "We've reopened the Hillary investigation" turned into "oops, nothing new" a few days after the election.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

Comey's letter wasn't a lie. The timing was bad but it accurately represented what the FBI was doing at the time.

I'm not saying the Comey letter was a lie; I'm saying media organizations made mistakes in how they covered it. If you prefer:

"A fact that's missing critical context can travel half way around the world while the full context is putting on its shoes."

The same fundamental concept is at play here.

It was against FBI policy to declare that so close to an election

Supposedly Comey violated it because some FBI agents were already illegally leaking it to Guliani and he was sure Clinton would win anyway

And then he was fired. :D

Biden could have addressed this story months ago. He knew about it. You'd think the democrats would have learned not to nominate a second clinton who refuses questions. They still think its easy to stomp on a story than address it.

He could/should have addressed this back in the primaries. They were running stories about it. He said nothing.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/09/james-biden-health-...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-bi...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukr...

What do you mean he knew about it months ago? The point is that this is all just a fabrication, there is no story to address.

> Biden could have addressed this story months ago.

If the story is true. If it's a fabrication - as they allege, and given that Fox News passed on it (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio...) and the Post's reporter didn't want his byline on it (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-p...), seems reasonably likely - they didn't hear about it until last week.

> Those issues could be addressed in the article. In open debate.

It's a non-tabloid newspaper. What I want and expect from such a publication is to only see stories for which the basic underlying facts have already been verified. There might still be disagreements over the implications of those facts and how to act on them, which I want and expect to see covered.

The first amendment has nothing to do with activities outside Congress making laws.

You’ve gotten some downvotes so figure I’d paste the actual text of the first amendment here so people know exactly what you’re referring to:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

huh? it's an inalienable right of us all. It either applies to all of us or it is meaningless.

You might want to actually read the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law [emphasis added] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(In various ways that aren't very relevant to the current discussion, this generally applies to states as well.)

So if the intercept refuses to publish my story, they are infringing upon my first amendment rights?