Yes now it is. It wasn't nearly as well known _before_ the election.

There were articles about the story published by many mainstream news organizations before the election -- including the Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, Vox, Techcrunch, CNN, CBS News, and USA Today, among others. I fail to see the "supression" of the story from the public discussion, based on the reality of the situation.

Edit: The point is that the story was part of the "public discussion" -- though I understand that some people disagree with some of the articles that were part of the public discussion. Disagreement is a normal part of "discussion." The original claim I was responding to was that this story was "suppressed" from "public discussion." It was not.

You're making no distinction between the content of the coverage. The Hunter Biden laptop story was widely covered pre-election in the context of it being false or disinfo.

Politico: "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say" source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-...

NPR: "Analysis: Questionable 'N.Y. Post' Scoop Driven By Ex-Hannity Producer And Giuliani" source: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionab...

Compilation of journalists calling it disinfo: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1440402740409110528

I honestly don't think I am following your argument at all. The fact that they wrongly reported on something without evidence is exactly the point.

It was extremely well known. What you're doing is how Foxnews, the number one cable news network in many situations, claims a story isn't being reported on by the "main stream media".

Streisand effect.