On Thursday night, Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson continued to reiterate the mounting evidence of corruption by the Biden family, two days after his interview with Tony Bobulinski and two days into the “complete media blackout” that raises questions about how we can “maintain a democratic system when reality itself has been banned.”
Carlson said that, “until recently, no one debated” whether the Biden family was selling access based on their family name, but “since Joe Biden received the Democratic nomination,” “anyone in the media has claimed otherwise” with the Bobulinski blackout being the latest.
And, as NewsBusters reported Thursday night, CNN and MSNBC have shown far more interest CNN contributor Miles Taylor going public the anti-Trump author Anonymous than Bobulinski.
After showing a clip from Cheddar of a Biden spokesperson calling Bobulinski’s claims a “distraction” not even worth giving an answer to, Carlson pointed out how, despite what “our professional class” might say about it being Russian disinformation, “it is a story and it’s not going away.”
But sadly, Carlson noted the baseless claim of Hunter Biden’s corrupt professional life being a Russian plot has taken root in polling as a Harris survey “found that 51 percent of respondents — majority — believe the New York Post is disseminating ‘Russian disinformation.’”
Referring to ABC’s The View and NBC’s Today as two examples, Carlson made the broader point: “[I]t's not harmless. They’re liars and their liars have consequences. How do you maintain a democratic system when reality itself has been banned? That's something we’re going to have to figure out.”
Carlson tied this censorship into the news that Glenn Greenwald resigned the site he founded (The Intercept) because editors insisted he remove all criticisms of Biden from a piece he had intended to publish pertaining to the Hunter Biden e-mails.
As the FNC host explained, Greenwald announced his resignation in a post on Substack and then not only published the draft article, but also e-mails from Intercept editors backing up his claims of censorship.
Greenwald spoke with Carlson about a number of topics, but here he was explaining what led to his resignation as well as how someone else’s article about the Biden family was deemed fit for publication (click “expand”):
GREENWALD: [T]he news organization that I co-created was in 2014 at the height of the Snowden reporting. I left The Guardian to do it because I was seeing that there were a lot of constraints imposed on journalism and their ability — our ability to report freely against governments, against power centers, against all kinds of institutions that wield authority and the premise of the news outlet, the core overarching premise, the reason why it was created was to ensure that journalists would always have complete journalistic independence and editorial freedom...[T]hat is what makes it so amazing that, at the very outlet that I co-created that was built on my reputation, my credibility, my journalistic accomplishments then tried to intervene to censor me six days before an election because I wanted to publish a reporting and analysis about the evidence that raises serious questions about the conduct of the candidate that all of the editors at that outlet vehemently and enthusiastically support.
CARLSON: I would imagine that some of our viewers don't read The Intercept. You live outside of our country, which is one of the reasons why I think you say what you think is true. Tell us what this portends for the future here in the United States.
GREENWALD: So, The Intercept was actually, for a while, a unique publication and I think the vision I just described was one reason. But another was that it was intended above all else to be highly skeptical of the claims of intelligence agencies and the time that we were doing the reporting, the attacks were coming from the NSA, the CIA, the Deep State, against me, against my source, Edward Snowden, and against the reporting. And I'm so embarrassed and....angered that the media outlet that I created along with two other excellent journalists to do that, the only article I published about all of these documents that have emerged about Joe Biden other than a column of mine where I denounced Facebook and Twitter for censoring it, was an article in reference in passing to those documents, very snidely and dismissively to say that no one should pay attention to it because it was a Russian disinformation and it cited a letter from John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden and the rest of the goons from the CIA and intelligence community asserting it. And worse still, that letter said we have no evidence that Russia is involved in any of this. The Intercept omitted that phrase, simply cited that letter to try and encourage people to ignore this evidence on the grounds that Russia had manufactured it and that the evidence was fabricated, even though there’s never been any evidence that that has been true and everything since has disproven it[.]
If it wasn’t clear to you already, what happened to Greenwald was anything but a display of journalistic ethics or in keeping with the profession’s mission to educate and inform the public (while holding those in power accountable).
Rather, it’s an example of how corrosive the American media ecosystem has become that someone with Greenwald’s prestige could go from hero to enemy based not on any misconduct, but simply holding views contrary to their assumed ideology.
To see the relevant FNC transcript from October 29, click “expand.”
FNC’s Tucker Carlson Tonight
October 29, 2020
8:00 p.m. EasternTUCKER CARLSON: It’s been obvious for really decades that the Biden family has gotten rich from selling influence abroad. Joe Biden held a series of high-level jobs in the U.S. government, Senator and vice president. Based on that fact and that fact alone, Biden's son and brother approached foreign governments and companies: sovereign wealth funds, energy conglomerates, Third World oligarchs and dictators and they offered to exchange favors from Joe Biden for cash. The polite term for that practice is influence peddling. Sometimes, it's illegal under American law. Sometimes, it is not legal. But it has always been the economic engine of the Biden family. They've never done anything else. Until recently no one debated this fact. Several liberal news organizations, in fact, have written detailed stories about the Biden secret business dealings over the years. Look them up assuming you still can. It's only since Joe Biden received the Democratic nomination that anyone in the media has claimed otherwise. This week, we introduced you to one of the Biden family’s former business partners. A man called Tony Bobulinski. Bobulinski confirmed more conclusively than anyone ever has what the Bidens have been doing. On two separate occasions, Bobulinski met personally with Joe Biden to discuss the family's business deals in China. Biden repeatedly has denied knowing anything about those deals. Joe Biden is lying. Tony Bobulinski proved it. It was a major story and not just because it happened here. We only interviewed Tony Bobulinski in the first place because no one else would. There was a complete media blackout on his story and there still is. In the last three days, and we just checked, the name Tony Bobulinski has not been mentioned a single time on any other television network, not one time. Finally, it fell to an anchor on a small financial news channel called Cheddar to bring up the story. Here's his exchange with a Biden campaign spokesman.
JD DURKIN [on Cheddar]: There were more accusations made this week on that most-watched Fox News interview a couple nights ago with Tucker Carlson. Did those meetings happen as they had been alleged when Joe Biden was a private citizen?
JAMAL BROWN [on Cheddar]: We’re not going to waste any time on this smear campaign because it's just another distraction to distract — again — away from four years of Donald Trump's reckless policy and failed leadership. And I’m not going to accept the premise of the question. We have five days to keep our eyes on the prize and again, that is to vote Joe Biden as the next president of the United States.
DURKIN [on Cheddar]: Okay, fair enough.
CARLSON: “We’re not going to waste any time on this smear campaign,” says the spokesman. In other words we don't feel like answering a simple fact-based question of relevance to voters in the days before an election so we’re not going to. We’re not embarrassed to admit that we’re not going to because no one has the courage to make us answer, including you. “Fair enough,” says the anchor. There you have it. The state of the American news media in October 2020. Keep in mind the anchor that you just saw, Mr. “Fair Enough” is still one of the bravest people in journalism. At least he asked, sort of. The rest of them pretend it’s not really a story. But it is a story and it’s not going away. Tonight, James Rosen of Sinclair confirmed that the FBI opened a criminal investigation into the Biden family, “Hunter Biden and associates” last year, apparently on suspicion of money laundering. That investigation is still underway tonight. Less than a week before the election, we learn this. What else will we learn? Well, very little if the people in charge have their way. Our professional class has dismissed from day one the revelations about the Biden family as part of a Russian intel operation. There’s no evidence for that, no matter how many people repeat it. There never has been evidence. There never will be evidence. It is totally untrue. And yet the public is buying it anyway, we’re sad to report. Voters have been cut off from the facts which of course is the point of shutting down the free flow of information. When all the news you receive is manufactured propaganda, you are apt to believe it and why wouldn't you believe it? You have no alternative. Here are the effects. A new Harris survey out today conducted by longtime democratic pollster Mark Penn had found that 51 percent of respondents — majority — believe the New York Post is disseminating “Russian disinformation.” It's hard to imagine a scarier only depressing result in that. You assume that Today show and The View and the rest of it is just harmless garbage but it's not harmless. They’re liars and their liars have consequences. How do you maintain a democratic system when reality itself has been banned? That's something we’re going to have to figure out. Glenn Greenwald has thought a lot about that question. Greenwald is a traditional leftist. He’s committed above all to forcing transparency on people who hold power. Years ago, Greenwald co-founded a news site called The Intercept. Today, he resigned. In a statement, Greenwald explained why: “The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I removed all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based editors involved in this effort at suppression.” And he went on. Greenwald’s full statement is up tonight at an internet platform called Substack, which has not yet censored. No matter who you plan to vote for next week, we recommend that you read it. Glenn Greenwald joins us tonight. Glenn, thanks so much for coming on. The idea of you resigning from a news organization he helped found is — is — is stunning. Tell us why you did?
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, the news organization that I co-created was in 2014 at the height of the Snowden reporting. I left The Guardian to do it because I was seeing that there were a lot of constraints imposed on journalism and their ability — our ability to report freely against governments, against power centers, against all kinds of institutions that wield authority and the premise of the news outlet, the core overarching premise, the reason why it was created was to ensure that journalists would always have complete journalistic independence and editorial freedom. Never have to pull punches journalistically or pay homage to pieties because of the preferences, the partisan, or ideological preferences of editors or anyone else. That was the corresponding idea and vision and then that is what makes it so amazing that, at the very outlet that I co-created that was built on my reputation, my credibility, my journalistic accomplishments then tried to intervene to censor me six days before an election because I wanted to publish a reporting and analysis about the evidence that raises serious questions about the conduct of the candidate that all of the editors at that outlet vehemently and enthusiastically support.
CARLSON: I would imagine that some of our viewers don't read The Intercept. You live outside of our country, which is one of the reasons why I think you say what you think is true. Tell us what this portends for the future here in the United States.
GREENWALD: So, The Intercept was actually, for a while, a unique publication and I think the vision I just described was one reason. But another was that it was intended above all else to be highly skeptical of the claims —
CARLSON: Yes.
GREENWALD: — of intelligence agencies and the time that we were doing the reporting, the attacks were coming from the NSA, the CIA, the Deep State, against me, against my source, Edward Snowden, and against the reporting. And we knew they were lying constantly and disseminating propaganda in a very powerful way. So, we set out to say we’re going to investigate them, we’re going to be skeptical of them, we’re going to subject their assertions to critical scrutiny. And I'm so embarrassed and angered that the media outlet that I created along with two other excellent journalists to do that, the only article I published about all of these documents that have emerged about Joe Biden other than a column of mine where I denounced Facebook and Twitter for censoring it, was an article in reference in passing to those documents, very snidely and dismissively to say that no one should pay attention to it because it was a Russian disinformation and it cited a letter from John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden and the rest of the goons from the CIA and intelligence community asserting it. And worse still, that letter said we have no evidence that Russia is involved in any of this. The Intercept omitted that phrase, simply cited that letter to try and encourage people to ignore this evidence on the grounds that Russia had manufactured it and that the evidence was fabricated, even though there’s never been any evidence that that has been true and everything since has disproven it, showing Russia was not involved in any of this and nobody, certainly note even Joe Biden, disputes that these emails and other text messages are completely real and authentic.
CARLSON: That's horrifying.
