Yea. I haven't followed the "election theft" narrative too closely, but the active, seemingly-coordinated censorship of this story is probably the best case for it.
That's ridiculous circular logic. The story is valid because it's not being covered? Millions of stories are not covered by the news every day. A functionally infinite number of non-stories are not covered by the news every day. The non-coverage of a story has no bearing on its validity.
Your claim is also invalid on its face—the election theft narrative is being spoken about endlessly. Trump's claims are headline news every single day. A significant fraction of the population believe it. So to claim that the story is being "censored" is simply wrong on the facts.
First of all, it was not "not covered", but censored. The Hunter story is valid, simply because it's valid. The same media that decided not to cover the story before the election, confirmed its validity since then and decided that it was in fact news-worthy. Also the FBI launched the investigation into this.
Hate to be the person to point that out, but let's be honest with ourselves, if it was Trump Jr. who was taking pictures of him putting his dick into a pizza while smoking crack with random hookers, it would be probably retweeted by @jack himself lol.
Your claim is also invalid on its face—the election theft narrative is being spoken about endlessly. Trump's claims are headline news every single day. A significant fraction of the population believe it. So to claim that the story is being "censored" is simply wrong on the facts.