In the July 2 New York Times, they suddenly decided to put the story of Hunter Biden’s controversial four-year-old daughter on the bottom of the front page of the Sunday paper.
The bizarre headline on a Katie Rogers piece: “Hunter Biden and the Politics of Paternity in the Media’s Glare.” There has been almost no media glare, at least on inside the Democrat media bubble. They lament the story’s “ubiquity” in conservative media.
The occasion for this sudden acknowledgment of reality was a child-support settlement after a “years-long court battle” – outside the media glare. Try finding any mention of the mother, Lunden Roberts, or the child, Navy Joan Roberts, in any “mainstream” media source. Searching for “Lunden Roberts” on the Times website gives you three results, two of them in the last few days. The name “Lunden Roberts” doesn’t appear until six paragraphs into the article, and only five paragraphs were on the front page.
Roberts gave up her demand that her little girl Navy Joan be named Biden, and the Biden camp agreed to turn over a number of art pieces from Hunter’s “second career as a painter whose pieces have been offered for as much as $500,000 each.” This verbiage, apparently, is supposed to signal Biden generosity and not Biden corruption.
The Times mourned that this was too political: “Both Hunter Biden, the privileged and troubled son of a president, and Ms. Roberts, the daughter of a rural gun maker, have allies whose actions have made the situation more politicized. There is no evidence the White House is involved in those actions.”
It’s beyond ludicrous to assume that the Bidens aren’t “involved” in the politics of Hunter's messes. But of course, “Democratic groups dedicated to helping the Biden family have disseminated information about Mr. [Garrett] Ziegler and the Roberts family, seeking to highlight their Trump ties.”
Liberal journalists should acknowledge it’s natural that people wronged by the Bidens would be welcomed by the conservative media, just as Trump-haters (like angry niece Mary Trump) would be celebrated by the liberal media.
This line about Biden was the worst: “His public image is centered around his devotion to his family — including to Hunter, his only surviving son. In strategy meetings in recent years, aides have been told that the Bidens have six, not seven, grandchildren, according to two people familiar with the discussions.”
So there’s “no evidence” this is being politicized, but the “devoted” grandpa’s team will deny the existence of a seventh grandchild. That's cold.
The Times also aggressively downplayed the “stripper love child” tones. Roberts “moved to Washington to study forensic investigation at George Washington University” and “Along the way, she met the son of a future president who was sliding into addiction and visiting Washington strip clubs.”
Rogers quoted ex-GOP strategist Stuart Stevens to represent the viewpoint of journalists up until now, that focusing on the dissolute son is “just anger in search of an argument.” Then she turned to pollster Frank Luntz to claim it’s a “waste of time” for Republicans to focus on Biden family scandals instead of issues like inflation. Earth to Luntz: did the liberal media skip Trump scandals to focus on the issues? The issues were always sublimated to scandal.
Liberals want to protect Biden’s image as a “devoted family man,” no matter how false it is, insisting Republicans shouldn’t try to focus on what’s blatantly obvious. The Biden family is a sprawling reality show of misbehavior, like the Kennedys, and just like the Kennedys, the newspapers who boast they are the bold guardians of “truth” are exposed as hardened partisan operatives.
