A few elections back, there was a the “swift boat” controversy with John Kerry. Out of nowhere a bunch of people who worked with Kerry claimed his military experience was fraudulent in some way and the media ate it up, being one of the major factors that costed him the election.

Later on, and with more digging, people who were near him at the time confirmed that the controversy was all a sham. The people who previously claimed Kerry lied all suddenly claimed they misremembered, or gently admitted that they lied. There were just enough bits and pieces of facts to build a story, and BS was used to glue it all together.

I think people are seeing a repeat of that. Some things may be true, but a lot of overly convenient information is coming out to bind it together that’s hard to absolutely verify and will likely collapse under scrutiny.

No denial other than Joe Biden saying, "I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life," during the 3rd Presidential debate.

It's not Biden's to deny, it's Giuliani's to prove.

To be fair, the implication in the emails isn't that he took money directly, but that his son held it for him. So the answer given above doesn't actually answer the question on enrichment of office.

It's not only Biden's to deny, it's His brothers, His Sons, and the others named. Further, if the information wasn't true or not believe to be true, why is it being blacklisted / treated as it's true? Why was distribution banned?

That's the questions being asked that are being shut down.

Generally, unverifiable information is not given much airplay. Not even Fox News or the WSJ would touch this one.

Making an outrageous accusation and then demanding that the accused defend themselves against it is an old Glenn Beck technique. Sort of like the question, "Are you still beating your wife?"

>Not even Fox News or the WSJ would touch this one.

Fox New's most popular show, and as far as I know the most popular cable news show there is, dedicated their entire hour to an interview with one of the people involved in this story, and has been covering the story extensively for the last week. What you are saying here is absolutely wrong.

And I mean, just a quick google search also shows that WSJ was writing stories about this a couple of weeks ago: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hunter-biden-business-11602...

> Fox New's most popular show, and as far as I know the most popular cable news show there is

Carlson's show doesn't even pretend to be a news show, in the sense of something that communicates what is even purportedly actual facts about the subjects it discusses, it is a vehicle for presenting hyperbole and non-literal commentary which is recognized as such by any reasonable viewer.

That's not just me, that's Fox News's own successful argument defending the show against defamation claims.

To clarify the WSJ opinion section wrote articles including the one you linked that treat the allegations credibly. The newsroom wasn't as generous: https://variety.com/2020/politics/news/wall-street-journal-h...

I think what they were talking about is that before Rudy Giuliani approached the NY Post he tried to get Fox News to publish the story but they refused it.

I should have been clearer. The news departments of those two Murdoch entities would not touch the story. Anything goes in the oped department.

Responding to sibling comment.

Fox News’s most popular show is Tucker Carlson’s.

Note that Fox lawyers recently argued in court that Carlson has no obligation to tell the truth.

Fox News Argues Viewers Don't Assume Tucker Carlson Reports Facts

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fox-news-defends-t...

The New York Post is a 200 year old publication started by Alexander Hamilton, it's not some fringe media source.