[fakedang]

Unfortunately, mainstream media won't pick on it, nor will the story gain traction because it is published in the NY Post. (if it is true)

Edit:- to the folks down voting me, please show me some major outlets (NYT, BBC, etc) reporting on this. As far as we are concerned, this kind of stuff should be news.

[shakna]

> Edit:- to the folks down voting me, please show me some major outlets (NYT, BBC, etc) reporting on this. As far as we are concerned, this kind of stuff should be news.

The story is only a few hours old. "Mainstream" media often requires a level of verification that may take a few more days before you see their stories happen.

[fakedang]

I get it, that's its the Post. But there are a lot of things going against the major outlets in this debate: a.) It's a federal case so except for identities, most of the damning information against Twitter is out there b.) Major outlets such as NYT like to brag about the size of their newsrooms, but don't seem to have the resources to cover stories of CP on Twitter and the lackadaisical attitude of its censors c.) Major outlets should not take days to investigate something like this and write it up, especially if all the content matter is out there. Else obviously openly biased outlets with an axe to grind, such as the Post will pick it up, obviously reducing the credibility of stories they output.

[icebraining]

How is "all content matter out there"? From what I can tell, all we have is allegations from the accusing party.

[fakedang]

It's a federal suit filed in DC, all the filings are public data, save for identities.

[Bud]

Real media don't make decisions on whether to publish based on whether something also appears in the NY Post. That's a ludicrous assertion.

What's actually happening: Murdoch rags like the Post have zero editorial standards, whereas others are attempting to actually vet this story before running it.

[isochronous]

There's more than one explanation as to why "mainstream media" might not run a story. The NY Post isn't exactly known as a bastion of credible journalism. That's why they ran the Hunter Biden laptop story when everyone else passed because they couldn't verify it.

[fakedang]

I know that it's the Post. My point is that if the Post was able to cover it, why couldn't a bigger outlet such as NYT or the BBC spare the resources to cover it too.

Not to mention, the Hunter Biden story was mostly speculative without proof. This one is a federal case with all details out in the open.

[aerosmile]

I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, but using the Hunter Biden laptop story as an example is an unfortunate choice. There's a popular view that politics had a lot to do with who picked up the story and who didn't, as opposed to just the strength of the case itself. I would recommend picking a less controversial example that highlights the shortcomings of NY Post's journalism, such as their reporting on the Boston Bombers [1].

[1] https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/the_new_york_posts_disgra...

[Applejinx]

Or, it could be a garbage story manufactured by liars, implying that of all the outlets not running it, there's a chance they had looked into it and decided it was a garbage story manufactured by liars.

Sometimes a thing that fails, fails because it's bad or disingenuous or both. It's possible this is a garbage suit that won't go anywhere because it's a garbage suit.

[isochronous]

Yeah, there are a lot of "popular views" that are complete and utter nonsense

[Bud]

Ahem. You mean alleged (by Rudy Giuliani, the least credible source in the continental United States) "Hunter Biden" laptop.

[briandear]

Couldn’t verify? Or refused to try?

[Bud]

Tried, hard, and found that it was not substantive.

[splaytreemap]

The mainstream media won't pick this up because they like Twitter. If Facebook had done this, WaPo and CNN would be all over it.