Kimberley Strassel writes for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and she recently did an excellent piece outlining the charges against Hunter Biden related to his business dealings in China. Other media figures, however, pointed out how the Wall Street Journal’s news department had “debunked” Strassel’s piece and exonerated Joe Biden.
The news article explained that “text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski … don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.” Strassel explained in a Twitter thread how the news piece didn’t conflict with her column at all:
1) On this question of Joe Biden being somehow exonerated on the China deal, how so? WSJ news story correctly notes that his name isn't on documents. But those docs also suggest special care had been taken to make sure his name WASN'T visible.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 23, 2020
Strassel is out Tuesday with another thread calling out Twitter for its double-standard in slapping warning labels on news stories, particularly those regarding Hunter Biden:
1) I'd note a curious double-standard, namely that @Twitter hasn't slapped a warning label on the partisans/media outlets that falsely claimed WSJ news side had "debunked" the WSJ edit side on the Hunter Biden/China story.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
2)The word the partisans were searching for was "confirmed." Our editpage column went up first, then the news side story. Both pieces explain that: the China negotiations were real; Hunter was involved; a document suggests a stake was envisioned for Joe; the deal fell through.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
3) The only substantive difference: the news side correctly said Joe's name wasn't on official records. Our column correctly said emails/docs existed suggesting a deliberate effort to ensure his name wasn't on official records. We invited Joe to clear up the confusion.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
4) So those spreading the "debunk" line are engaging in– how best to put it?—disinformation. (Also vagueness, since "debunking" is the left's go-to putdown when it can't point to anything in a piece that is factually incorrect–as is the case here…)
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
5) Thanks to both WSJ pieces, the Biden family business story is in a whole new place. We delivered actual news to our readers and beyond, which is far more than can be said about those outlets now working to bury that reality with false claims of conflict.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
6) As a consummate free-speecher, I'm opposed to @Twitter censoring, even of the factually challenged. But the episode does say something profound about social media's unequal approach to stopping the spread of "misleading" information that relates to an election.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020
Do you think there might be a reason Hunter and company only referred to Joe Biden as “the big guy” or “the chairman”? Tony Bobulinski even produced a text he’d received saying, “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.” Guess that could have been any Joe, though.
Thank you for your great reporting on this story.
— Matthew Wilk (@mjwgoblue) October 27, 2020
Stay after 'em Kim!
— The Patriot (@ThePCPatriot) October 27, 2020
Twitter definition of disinformation: information that exposes the truth about Biden.
— fahagen (@fahagen1) October 27, 2020
This reminds us of the Biden campaign’s defense that all of those big cash payments from foreign countries didn’t show up on his income tax returns, as if he’d declare them.
Related:
Kimberley Strassel explains why the WSJ article DOES NOT exonerate Joe Biden https://t.co/mqCjNxU1CD
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) October 24, 2020
