The media is in a state of collapse, hastened by their inability to separate fact from their desired fictions.

Lest we forget, Barack Obama had journalists spied on, and the media worshipped him. Donald Trump mocks the media as “fake news,” and they scream about “attacks on the free press” as if criticism is an attack on their ability to print news and report freely.

By that logic, if criticism of the press is the same as attacking it, then the New York Times posting this story about how the New York Post’s newsroom was all upset about publishing the Hunter Biden email story in the first place with dubious sources by using their own anonymous sources is, well… the circular reasoning can only be pulled off by someone who believes that they are a journalist because they work for the New York Times.

Let’s start with the facts. Someone dropped off this laptop in Delaware and never came back for it. The shop owner, who is apparently legally blind, has now testified to Congress that it was Hunter Biden who abandoned the MacBook Pro at his shop. The Biden campaign and Biden himself, who had a complete hissy fit over Bo Erickson of CBS News having the temerity to ask him about the New York Post story, have not denied the authenticity of the emails themselves. In fact, the veracity of the emails should be the first priority of a curious investigative media, as Fox News proved when they got a confirmation from another one of the emails’ recipients that these are real. However, by and large, we do not have a curious investigative media in this country’s mainstream any longer. We have a kiss-ass leftist media dedicated to one thought only – ORANGE MAN BAD – and anything that gets in the way of that needs to be forgotten, immediately.

Twitter and Facebook, by attempting to pre-emptively censor the story in their best Stalinist impression, only drew more eyes to the story, which moved from Ukraine to China rather rapidly, and raises a lot of as-of-yet unanswered questions about how Hunter Biden has made his money over the past several years.

The New York Times understands that a more classic misdirect is needed in order to discredit the Post story. Drawing on their own vast experience of anonymous sources and publishing unverified leaked material – *cough*Trump tax records*cough* – the Times is running with a story from two anonymous sources from the Post about the chaos and turmoil surrounding the publication of the Hunter Biden emails story. This has nothing to do with the actual authentication of the emails. This Times story is all about the FEELINGS of those in the Post newsroom. Because for the publisher of the ahistorical “1619 Project,” FEELINGS are the new facts. And those poor darlings at the Post had their feelings all in a tizzy about publishing those emails, the Times claims.

The New York Post’s front-page article about Hunter Biden on Wednesday was written mostly by a staff reporter who refused to put his name on it, two Post employees said.”

Bruce Golding, a reporter at the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid since 2007, did not allow his byline to be used because he had concerns over the article’s credibility, the two Post employees said, speaking on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.”

Coming late in a heated presidential campaign, the article suggested that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used his position to enrich his son Hunter when he was vice president. The Post based the story on photos and documents the paper said it had taken from the hard drive of a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden.”

Many Post staff members questioned whether the paper had done enough to verify the authenticity of the hard drive’s contents, said five people with knowledge of the tabloid’s inner workings. Staff members also had concerns about the reliability of its sources and its timing, the people said.”

So, the story is not whether the emails are real. The story, per the NYT, is that the STAFF of the New York Post was worried about their credibility if the story was published, according to TWO ANONYMOUS SOURCES. And naturally, this kind of fact-laundering makes it way around. CNN, like the obedient little lapdogs of the left that they are, dutifully followed up with their OWN hit on the Post story, brought forward by media laughingstock Brian Stelter, who so badly wants to believe that this is all just “Russian disinformation,” as others have casually spun out there.

The Post, for their part, is having none of the Times’s attempt to misdirect. In an editorial published late Sunday night, they excoriated the Times for their sanctimonious attitude.

It’s particularly rich that The New York Times has fixated on the “unverified” excuse, since it’s spent much of the Trump era offering supposed dirt from anonymous sources — which, by definition, makes the info unverifiable.”

A simple but striking case of that is The Atlantic’s “reporting” that President Trump spoke contemptuously and insultingly of US troops during his trip to France for war-memorial ceremonies. Its claims were based purely on anonymous sources — but contradicted by a number of on-the-record sources, including ex-National Security Adviser John Bolton, who has absolutely no reason to lie to protect the man who fired him.”

Yes, the Times and other outlets “confirmed” the story — but only with anonymous sources of their own. What are the chances that these are the same people who talked to the Times anonymously?”

More significantly, this is true of the Times and Washington Post reporting that built vast hysteria over “Russiagate” in the administration’s first days.”

There is a very simple solution to this, as Stephen Miller of Spectator USA points out. The New York Times simply needs to prove that the emails are fake. Why aren’t they doing that?

There are lots of stories about the story. Those are neat. But not a lot of work checking to see if the story is accurate or not. Not a lot of journalists seem interested in confronting that one, which is itself a fascinating media story @benyt

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 19, 2020

It seems to me that the easiest way to make the New York Post eat shit on this is not through anonymous gossip or innuendo, but to prove the information they reported on is completely false. But we're not seeing that @benyt

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 19, 2020

Twitter just slapping a “misleading” label on a story without explaining what in the story is misleading and nothing proving to be misleading should be unacceptable to any journalist who cares about their own work or reputation. But they are just siding with Twitter. Why is that?

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 19, 2020

You can file those questions under “things the New York Times doesn’t want to talk about because ORANGE MAN BAD.”

Per the rationale employed by the media, when the credibility of the press is undermined, then it is an attack on the press itself. So, congratulations, New York Times! You are attacking the credibility of the media, so you are attacking freedom of the press by attempting to misdirect the Biden story by undermining the New York Post. Enjoy that hole you’ve dug for yourselves, along with the same kind of journalistic blind eye that earned Walter Duranty a Pulitzer.

Despite censorship by social media, and desperate redirection tactics, Hunter Biden’s emails are not going to fade away. Joe Biden is going to be in hiding for the next few days, his campaign having already called a “lid” on his public appearances until the last debate. Do they really need that long in order to get their story straight on Hunter’s emails, and helping Joe memorize what to say?

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Featured image via Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license