ConWebWatch home
ConWebBlog: the weblog of ConWebWatch
Search and browse through the ConWebWatch archive
About ConWebWatch
Who's behind the news sites that ConWebWatch watches?
Letters to and from ConWebWatch
ConWebWatch Links
Buy books and more through ConWebWatch

The MRC's Summer of Hunter Biden Derangement

The Media Research Center spent the summer of 2022 pushing right-wing narratives attacking President Biden's son -- and desperately searching for more Hunter sleaze and complaining his ex-wife's memoir lacked sufficient dirt.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 2/15/2023

The Media Research Center has spent the past few years suffering a collective outbreak of Hunter Biden Derangement Syndrome, which focused largely on the the contents of Hunter's laptop, which the MRC repeatedly whined wasn't covered before the 2020 election -- even though its its pro-Trump promoters never offered independent verification of it at the time.

Let's go back in time and see how the MRC continued to peddle the bogus spin that the story was unjustly "censored" by the media. Geoffrey Dickens wrote in an April 18 post:

It was a bombshell story that could have swayed the 2020 presidential election.

Just weeks before Election Day, the New York Post printed an explosive story on the morning of October 14, 2020, that alleged Hunter Biden had corrupt business dealings with Ukraine and Joe Biden knew about them.

The Post story was full of stunning revelations. The “No.3 exec” of the Ukrainian firm Burisma (the firm that was paying Hunter $50,000 a month) asked Hunter Biden for to help the company. “The blockbuster correspondence” countered Joe Biden’s assertion that he “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” The “correspondence” came from emails found in a laptop dropped off at a Delaware computer store. Also found in the laptop was video evidence of Hunter’s sexual behavior and drug use.

It wasn't until the eight paragraph of his item that Dicken recited the entirely reasonable justifications for downplaying the story:

A deep dive of the coverage shows that when the Big Three networks bother to mention the scandal they do so largely to knock it down, using dismissive verbiage like “dubious” “questionably-sourced story,” “old line of attack” and “unverified.”

But rather than blame the New York Post for not providing independent verification that might have overcome reasonable accusations that the claims were questionably sourced -- and they arguably were, given the Post's status as a pro-Trump newspaper owned by Fox News' Rupert Murdoch and pro-Trump lackey Rudy Giuliani among the story's biggest promoters -- Dickens attacks the non-right-wing media for not running with a clearly partisan story that could not be verified. Still, Dickens went on to whine:

It all worked. Research conducted by The Polling Company for the Media Research Center after the 2020 election found that the media’s censorship of Biden scandals had a significant impact on the election. The survey found that 45.1% of Biden voters in seven key swing states said they were unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son, Hunter. According to our poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, which would have given the former president 311 electoral votes.

That, of course, is the MRC's version of Trump's Big Lie about the election purportedly being stolen from him. Dickens didn't mention that The Polling Company was founded by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, raising reasonable questions about bias and trustworthiness.

Dickens did not explain why the media is obligated to treat as true a story it cannot verify and for which no verification has been provided.

An April 20 post by Brian Bradley was devoted to whining that "big tech" had "suppressed" the story:

Twitter and Facebook worked in lockstep to restrict the flow of the Hunter Biden laptop story just before the 2020 presidential election. These platforms stifled the spread of that story at the same time that Big Media did, as MRC research found.

Facebook’s suppression broke the platform’s own fact-checking policy, and Twitter’s attempt to cancel the story so outrageously violated content moderation norms that it drew criticism from the likes of leftist Poynter Institute fact-checkers. Even then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey criticized his platform after the fact.

Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone announced the platform had preempted third-party fact-checks on the Hunter Biden story the day it broke on Oct. 14, 2020, and limited its spread moving forward. Stone has a long history working directly for Democrats, and Facebook’s hair-trigger, broad-brush blackout blatantly broke the platform’s content moderation policy.


Twitter responded to the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden report by disabling the link to the story on the day it was released, and claimed: “Warning: this link may be unsafe.” Twitter then restricted the Post account from Oct. 14 to Oct. 30.

As with Dickens, Bradley's rage is misdirected. He did not demand that the Post offer independent verification of the story. Instead, he continued to whine:

Facebook “fact-checker” Lead Stories released at least 15 so-called “fact-checks” in direct support of Joe and Hunter Biden in the two weeks before the Nov. 3, 2020, Election Day. Those “fact-checks” sought to rebut claims of Hunter’s alleged drug use and alleged sexual misconduct, along with assertions that corporate media didn’t give the Hunter Biden story enough coverage.

Bradley offered no evidence that there was anything inaccurate about Lead Stories' fact-checks -- something you'd think he would want to do if he's accusing Lead Stories of falsely besmirching the story. Also: Fox News is part of a large corporation; why doesn't Bradley consider it part of the "corporate media"?

Of course, the MRC will never blame its fellow members of the right-wing media bubble for failing to offer independent verification of the story so that it could have been taken more seriously. If the "liberal media" can be blamed, it will be -- even if they were following good journalistic practice by raising questions about a story that lacked verification that its promoters refused to provide.

Indeed, the MRC continued to manufacture "scandals" regarding Hunter Biden that it demanded must be covered outside its right-wing media bubble, declaring every single negative attack, no matter how small, as its own "scandal." A June 8 item by Geoffrey Dickens complained under the headline "Seven NEW Hunter Biden Scandals the Networks Refuse to Report On":

The scandalous hits from Hunter Biden keep coming, but you wouldn’t know it if you get your news primarily from the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) broadcast networks.

From very serious allegations of corruption that that could hurt President Joe Biden’s credibility (Hunter’s business partners visiting the White House) to the kind of salacious headlines that would dominate the news cycles if this was a son of a Republican president (Hunter allegedly cavorts around with an illegal gun while with a hooker) the nets have been completely silent.


The following are just a FEW of the Hunter scandals that have been revealed since March 16 and how ABC, CBS and NBC have covered or, more accurately, not covered them:

Dickens ramped up the numbers in a July 12 post headlined "Ten NEW Hunter Biden Scandals the Networks Are CENSORING":

ABC, CBS and NBC still refuse to cover the latest Hunter Biden scandals, even as they pile up on an almost daily basis.

Because they are so in the tank for the Biden administration the broadcast networks remain stubborn in their refusal to report on evidence that links directly to the President himself like Joe Biden’s voicemail to Hunter that disproves his claim he “never” spoke to Hunter about his “business dealings. The networks have also been completely silent on the kind of salacious headlines (Hunter may face federal prostitution charges) that would dominate the news cycles if this was a son of a Republican president.

Of course, Dickens and the MRC would be vociferously denying such scandals if this was "a son of a Republican president" and accusing the media of "liberal bias" for reporting them, so perhaps Dickens' rhetoric is not terribly based in reality.

Dickens ran up the numbers to an almost logic-defying extent in an Aug. 30 post under the screaming headline "Ten BRAND NEW Hunter Biden Scandals the Nets Are Censoring":

When will the dam break?

ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening and morning news programs continue to hold back from their audiences the latest shocking revelations surrounding Hunter Biden’s various scandals.

Not even the stunning news that whistleblowers claimed FBI officials told employees (prior to the 2020 election) to slow-walk the Hunter Biden laptop investigation and Mark Zuckerberg’s confession that the FBI told Facebook to censor Hunter’s laptop scandal got the Big Three networks to break their ongoing blackout.

A new poll underlines how the liberal media elites may have turned the tide of a presidential election with 79 percent of respondents saying “truthful” coverage of Hunter’s laptop scandal would have changed the 2020 outcome.

Because they are so in the tank for the Biden administration the broadcast networks remain stubborn in their refusal to report on evidence that links directly to the President himself like e-mails from Hunter’s laptop and White House visitor logs that disprove his claim he “never” spoke to Hunter about his “business dealings.”

In between (and a little before) all that dubious inflation -- 27 separate "scandals"? Really? -- the MRC continued to blare every attack on Hunter it could find over the spring and summer of 2022 and whine that non-right-wing outlets weren't as obsessed with them as it was. For example:

Many of the Hunter attacks the MRC is hyping come from highly biased anti-Biden bubble outlets like Fox News, the Daily Mail and the Washington Examiner -- outlets that are just as biased and dubious as the New York Post. The MRC did not explain why these outlets deserve to be trusted at face value given their obvious biases.

This attitude surfaced again in the lead of a Sept. 7 post by Brian Bradley:

Two liberal rags pooh-poohed a letter sent Thursday by House Republicans to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that seeks more information from Facebook about its communication with the federal government that led to censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Headlines Thursday from both Bloomberg News and The Hill screeched that a letter from 35 House Republicans requesting records of communication between Zuckerberg and the FBI reflected a House GOP effort to “target” Facebook as part of a ploy to nab Hunter Biden.

It's a testament to just how far-right the MRC is that it thinks any media outlet not as right-wing as them is a "liberal rag."Indeed, Bradley labeling either of those outlet as "liberal rags" is utterly ridiculous. According to AllSides, the right-leaning checker that is apparently the only bias-checker the MRC trusts, The Hill is rated in the "center," though one could make a case that it leans farther right given that its most prominent writer is right-wing "media critic" Joe Concha, whom the MRC loves so much he's a featured guest on their upcoming Mediterranean cruise. AllSides lists Bloomberg as "leans left," though given AllSides' bias, that means it's quite center. Further, given Republicans' (and the MRC's) obsession with Hunter Biden, it's entirely reasonable to believe that Republicans targeting of Facebook is all about trying to "nab" Hunter.

Bradley's factually deficient tirade came in the wake of Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg stating on Joe Rogan's podcast that Facebook limited the spread of the New York Post story making claims about Hunter Biden's laptop because the FBI warned it to be aware of misinformation being spread online. Of course, the MRC had its own biased framing of this story, screeching that "Facebook censored the Hunter Biden laptop." This leaves out the important fact that the New York Post refused to provide independent verification of the story in a way that would suggest it was anything other than an October surprise that had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation of the kind that was found to have happened in the 2016 presidential election.

Bradley eventually got to the nub of his attacks on Bloomberg and The Hill -- complaining that they wouldn't push the right-wing narrative on this story:

Rather than focus on alleged corruption between Facebook and the government, Bloomberg focused on political ramifications of Republicans retaking the House next year. The rag warned the GOP would “focus heavily” on censorship, potentially by using its “subpoena power” and presenting a “risk” to tech companies “reviled by conservatives.”

The Hill wasn’t much better. That publication ignored the impact of Big Tech’s and Big Media’s censorship of the Hunter Biden scandals, which helped steal the 2020 election for Joe Biden. The Hill largely skirted the election issue, opting to portray the reduced distribution of the Hunter Biden story merely as being “argued” by House Republicans as preventing Americans from seeing the full picture of the Bidens’ alleged corruption.


Media Research Center revealed in November 2020 that Big Tech and Big Media’s censorship of the Biden family scandals helped steal the election for Joe Biden.
Again, the only thing the the MRC "revealed" was that it used Trump's own pollster to further its own version of Trump's "Big Lie" about the election being stolen.

The MRC also tried to further inflate that purported scandal list with an Oct. 13 piece by Geoffrey Dickens declaring, "Eight Brand New Hunter Biden Scandals the Nets Are CENSORING." That inflated the number of MRC-declared Hunter "scandals" to 35.

The fact that the MRC is still citing this ridiculously biased conspiracy theory -- and its silly dismissal of reputable publications who refuse to blindly push right-wing narratives as "liberal rags" -- shows just how unserious and untrustworthy the MRC has become in putting partisan attacks ahead of any sort of real "media research."

Thirsting for Hunter sleaze

You don't have to be Hunter Biden to be obsessively attacked by the MRC -- merely having the Biden name will do. A June 1 post by Scott Whitlock tried to attack the president's brother:

If you thought that Hunter Biden was the only First Family member with disturbing financial dealings and foreign connections, you would be wrong. But you could also be forgiven for not knowing about James Biden, brother to the President. Just like his son Hunter, the networks have mostly failed to ask questions about this sibling.

James Biden has concerning associations with Chinese businesses linked to the country’s Communist Party. But even though Joe Biden announced his presidential run back on April 25, 2019, it wasn’t until April 2022 when CBS realized there might be some questionable connections.

Until then, CBS was silent on James Biden. ABC and NBC still have failed to investigate him. On April 6 and 7, 2022, the CBS Evening News and CBS Mornings devoted a combined five minutes and 51 seconds to James. That's the network total in more than three years.


When will the networks start investigating James Biden? Hunter Biden? Their connection to Joe Biden? When Donald Trump was president, journalists saw it as their job to speak truth to power, to make sure democracy didn’t die in darkness. But with the ethically-challenged Biden family, no journalistic skepticism is allowed.

It’s time for ABC, CBS and NBC to do their jobs. Fully investigate all questionable Biden family members and all their connections.

By contrast, when Donald Trump's sister Mary Trump came forward to make credible charges about Donald's dealings with his family, the MRC tried (and failed) to discredit her. In other words, it doesn't always consider presidential siblings to be important.

The MRC even lashed out at Hunter Biden's ex-wife not hating him to the extent it (and the rest of the right-wing media bubble that's equally and bizarrely obsessed with Hunter). Tim Graham whined in a June 14 post that an interview with the ex wasn't salacious enough for the demands of right-wing media (and perhaps his own personal proclivities):

ABC’s Good Morning America put Hunter Biden into the news – a rare event – with an interview with his ex-wife Kathleen Buhle, who has a new memoir out on their turbulent life together.

The interviewer was Amy Robach, and the questions were preposterously vague, and the answers look carefully curated. The infamous laptop came up, for just seconds. In laptop videos, Hunter was doing drugs and making porn with prostitutes, and Robach just said he was "looking disheveled"?


If this sounds like someone trying to stay in the First Family, you should know her daughter Naomi has a White House wedding coming up. In an almost seven-minute interview, it took them more than four minutes to get to Hunter cheating with his brother Beau’s widow, Hallie.

Curtis Houck similarly demanded more porn and sleaze in a June 16 post:

Two days after ABC’s Good Morning America and co-host Amy Robach aired what our Tim Graham called an interview with Hunter Biden’s ex-wife Kathleen Buhle featuring “preposterously vague” questions and “carefully curated” answers, Thursday’s CBS Mornings sunk lower in ignoring topics such as Hunter’s infamous laptop and his alleged child out of wedlock.

Instead, Mason — who, like Robach, previously interviewed Hunter — focused on Hunter’s spiraling after his brother Beau’s death, his affair with said brother’s widow, and vague discussions about Hunter’s “finances.” Worse yet, co-host Tony Dokoupil falsely claimed that Hunter’s “become a frequent headline in the news.”


The closet Mason and Buhle got to Hunter’s life of corruption was her insistence she was in the dark on the family’s finances and, while she wasn’t subpoenaed or called before the grand jury as part of the U.S. Attorney in Delaware’s probe, she “talked to certain investigators”

In the promotion for his June 17 podcast, Graham whined further that his sleaze demands weren't satiated by the interviews with Buhle:

Excerpts from a new memoir from Kathleen Buhle, Hunter Biden's ex-wife, were posted by People magazine on June 1, but ABC and CBS didn't air their softball interviews with Kathleen until this week.

Hunter's still mostly getting off the hook. Kathleen insists she knew nothing about the mysterious family finances, and that she's make a terrible witness for the federal investigation of Hunter going on right now.

Both ABC and CBS eventually raised the embarrassing revelation that Hunter cheated on Kathleen not just with a conga line of prostitutes, but even with his brother Beau's widow, Hallie. Joe and Jill Biden even put out a statement of support for Hunter and Hallie's affair. How weird is that?

Not as weird as Graham demanding constant mention of porn every time Hunter's name comes up. Is there something Tim would like to share with the class?

Graham spent a June 18 post being mad at the Washington Post for pointing that Buhle's book is seemingly for right-wing Hunter obsessives like himself though it lacks the dirt people like him have been demanding, and as usual, he has nothing but whataboutism to offer in return:

On Friday, The Washington Post published a book review of Kathleen Buhle's memoir about being married to Hunter Biden. But Post writer Karen Heller didn't like the book -- or the audience she thinks is interested in it.

She warned "And obsessive Hunter gatherers out there, be warned, the book contains nary a mention of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma or the infamous laptop left at the Delaware repair shop."


So Kathleen is a sap. She's so dumb she can't even see Hunter cheated with his brother's widow, and that is recounted in the awful anti-Biden press. "The affair goes public in the New York Post, the tabloid that will turn Hunter’s lobbying exploits and role as a Burisma board member into something of a full-time beat."

There's zero shame that ahem, The Washington Post has made the Trump family's finances a full-time beat.

Graham then huffed that it is "a very partisan question" for the reviewer to ponder if Buhle's tome is "really a book the public is asking to read." For sleaze-hunters like Graham, it clearly was -- though he went on to attack Lena Dunham's memoir from way back in 2014.

Send this page to:

Bookmark and Share
The latest from

In Association with
Support This Site

home | letters | archive | about | primer | links | shop
This site © Copyright 2000-2023 Terry Krepel