The purpose of stories like the recent NYT piece is to dampen the charge that conservatives make that the MSM doesn't cover stories on Democrats. So the times, WaPost writes a story that no one talks about. But when it comes up later, the progressive liberal line is, but that was reported.
Durham's indictments I fear are part of a similar PR strategy. Couple three four scalps and it's move on. We are living in a PR world, not a constitutional republic world, not a rule of law world (alas), nor a meaning in history world (alas). I think PR types like Trump intuit that, but few others on the conservative side of the spectrum do/can/find it a comfortable world.
If what you are implying were the case, I would have to commend the criminal cabalist's efforts at verisimilitude; I mean, my CGI Biden would speak in coherent sentences.
That's not even a serious question, anymore. Most of them (in addition to having no moral principles) have enough survival instinct to know not to throw stones in glass houses.
The purpose of stories like the recent NYT piece is to dampen the charge that conservatives make that the MSM doesn't cover stories on Democrats. So the times, WaPost writes a story that no one talks about. But when it comes up later, the progressive liberal line is, but that was reported.
Durham's indictments I fear are part of a similar PR strategy. Couple three four scalps and it's move on. We are living in a PR world, not a constitutional republic world, not a rule of law world (alas), nor a meaning in history world (alas). I think PR types like Trump intuit that, but few others on the conservative side of the spectrum do/can/find it a comfortable world.
Makes one wonder if the majority of journo-fisters™ are ALSO on the payroll of the CCP. That would explain their curious silence.
On the payroll...or on the same side.
Payroll of CCP, USG, Soros, NYT, et al: same, same.
Esp. the DS.
If what you are implying were the case, I would have to commend the criminal cabalist's efforts at verisimilitude; I mean, my CGI Biden would speak in coherent sentences.
That's not even a serious question, anymore. Most of them (in addition to having no moral principles) have enough survival instinct to know not to throw stones in glass houses.