the Intercept, the media's unwillingness to cover the story at all (although I think the actual dispute was over specific inferences made about Joe Biden's role.) His main point though was that media outlets put forth dubious reasons for exempting Biden from all questioning, that 1) the archive was unverifiable and 2) it was "Russian disinformation", neither of which were the case.

I didn't really follow the Hunter Biden story too closely, but did read that piece. One thing I agreed with him on was the publicized letter by ex-CIA claiming "the story is Russian disinformation, we do not have evidence, but it seems like it" was strange.

--

"The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.

A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored."