SPIKED: NY Times, WashPost, and Wall St. Journal Have NO Hunter Story in the Paper

March 21st, 2024 9:04 AM

How much do the "professional" journalists hate reporting on Biden scandals? A deep dive into the newspapers that arrived at our headquarters on Thursday finds that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal have NO article on the contentious House hearing on Wednesday over the Biden family business scandal.

It's on the front page of The Washington Times, a report by Susan Ferrecchio: 

Two former Biden family business associates testified Wednesday that President Biden, his son Hunter Biden and his brother James Biden lied when they claimed Mr. Biden was not involved in their business deals dating back to his days as vice president.

Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner, said Mr. Biden’s involvement in the deals was so important that it drew the attention of Chinese President Xi Jinping, according to a 2017 electronic message from Hunter Biden that was read aloud at an impeachment hearing of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

Ferrecchio noted Hunter Biden was invited but refused to testify, so they left an empty chair for him at the witness table. The slavishly pro-Biden media promoted Hunter's demands for a public hearing, and then skipped the actual hearing, just like Hunter. 

What was on the front pages today? The Wall Street Journal had Biden administration PR: "Carmakers Get More Time to Phase Out Gas Engine."

The top of The New York Times is border-focused, with a story on "Nail-Biting Wait as Texas Statute is Reconsidered: U.S. Is Furiously Trying to Block the State's New Migrant Law." But this one is worse: "Seeking Clicks, And Influence, In Jungle Pass: Right-Wing Backdrop for Migrant Debate. Reporting from Panama, Ken Bensinger is offended as "right-wing activist" Laura Loomer is asking a Somali migrant if they support Ilhan Omar and Joe Biden. (The answer was Yes.)

This one's also remarkably partisan: Rebecca Davis O'Brien reports on the "Democratic Party" trying to keep third parties off the ballot: "It amounts to a kind of legal Whac-a-Mole, a state-by-state counter-insurgency plan ahead of an election that could hinge on just a few thousand votes in swing states."

The top of The Washington Post is also Biden's plans to phase out gas-powered cars, and the Texas border-enforcement case. Below the fold, there is an interesting piece headlined "Gaza War protests snarls Democrats' messaging." These newspapers don't typically  "snarl" Democrat messaging. They enhance Democrat messaging. 

Follow this story by Ashley Parker and Tyler Pager inside to A-10, and there's this funny headline: "Protests seen by some as 'part of the democratic process.'" By some?

The Post finds recent polls "ominous for Biden" and expresses alarm that "Some Democrats are also growing anxious about the party's convention this summer in Chicago and the prospect of mass protests interfering with the four-day event." Echoes of 1968??