Well lets start with the fact you dismiss media outlets you disagree with, so I’m not sure why you have an issue when I choose to do the same. But frankly if the article was widely corroborated I would give it my time.
those of us who still believe in science and truth are at a distinct disadvantage because we generally tend to give time to these articles for the sake of debate. Well for my part I accept the fact that you see what truth you want to see so why go into a lengthy debate about it. I don’t really see we have much of a factual baseline anymore. It is what it is
Federberg - read your own article.
The sources are unnamed.
Biden's son is not denying the authenticity of the emails.
Now... you claim to be "stunned". Presumably you are not stunned by the actual emails, but the fact that a political opponent has tried to dig up some dirt.
So, tell me this...
Is digging up dirt on a political opponent a new revelation? (By the way, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Guliani did source that information in the manner outlined - but what's so stunning about it?). You never seemed particularly stunned by other unverified leaks, in fact you feasted on them. What's with the 180 turn?
Are the emails authentic? That's the real story, not who leaked them.
Most mainstream media outlets are sourced back to a small cabal of powerful owners with an agenda. Yes, I retain a healthy skepticism about them, because they flood the outlets with narratives.
If you recall, we had a discussion about Wikileaks years ago. I liked Wikileaks because it gave the raw data as opposed to information baked in narrative and agenda. Losing control of the accepted "truth" isn't something they can countenance and explains why Assange was so feared.
CNN aren't the truth - or even journalists for the most part, they are political activists. Ditto most major MSM. Yes, including Fox and The Murdoch media. Now we can add Big Tech to the list. Regardless of what political persuasion you are, surely you can see this?
