The MRC's Hunter Biden Derangement, Winter 2024, Part 2

A lot of the wind was taken out of the Media Research Center's Hunter-hating sails when a key informant turned out to be be a liar -- but it still won't tell its readers that it altered dozens of NewsBusters posts to reflect that information.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 7/24/2024

• ABC/CBS/NBC CENSOR Latest Hunter Art Deal Bombshell
• Missing The Point: Kimmel Claims House Produced More X-Rated Hunter Pics Than Bills (Comedy cop Alex Christy huffed in response: “Yes, there have been some X-rated pictures of Hunter Biden shown by members of Congress, but the influence peddling is why he is at the center of their investigation.”)
• FINALLY! DOJ Confirms Hunter’s Laptop Was Real But ABC/CBS/NBC Censor

And Tim Graham got all snarky in a Jan. 7 post:

Friday’s New York Post had fun with the front-page news that Hunter Biden’s so-called “sugar brother,” Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris, is backing a “gauzy” Hunter Biden documentary.

Reporters Melissa Koenig and Ryan King reminded readers that according to IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler, Morris has given Hunter $4.9 million — covering expenses including overdue tax bills, legal fees, housing, and car payments. “At least one loan to Hunter from Morris, for at least $1.2 million in 2020, carried interest and requires repayment beginning in 2025.”

Hunter sued Ziegler and another IRS whistleblower, Gary Shapley, in September, accusing them of trying to “target and “embarrass” him.

Graham didn’t explain why Hunter should not be allowed to defend himself — indeed, the MRC gets irrationally angry whenever he does.

But after the revelation that informant Alexander Smirnov was arrested for telling the FBI the lie that a Ukrainian company had paid Hunter and President Biden $5 million each in bribes — which forced the MRC to alter dozens of posts, though it still has refused to tell its readers it has done so — the torrent of Hunter-hate from the MRC slowed down considerably. It initially tried to find its footing in complaining that all the Hunter-hate — and its apparently ulterior motive of driving him to suicide in order to destroy his father — was called out.

On the day Smirnov was arrested, MRC executive Tim Graham huffily tweeted:

We’re updating any NewsBusters posts we had alleging Joe and Hunter Biden took $5M bribes, adding the Weiss indictment news.

We can notice news that Democrats like. Democrat media outlets tend to only notice news that Democrats like.

Surprisingly given its track record, the MRC did address this, appending this “editor’s note" to a whopping 47 posts: “On February 15, Justice Department Counsel David Weiss indicted FBI informant Alexander Smirnov on two felony counts of making a false statement and creating a false and fictitious record for claims made to the bureau. The charges are in relation to June 2020 FD-1023 form alleging President Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden received a combined $10 million in a bribery scheme involving the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma.” What it didn’t do, however, is inform its readers that it did this — it placed no notice of the correction on the NewsBusters front page, even though it routinely insists that non-right-wing outlets give their corrections the same prominence that gave to the original incorrect claims.

Even though The Smirnov revelations were so major that it had to correct dozens of posts, the MRC complained that non-right-wing media covered Smirnov. Graham returned to huff in a Feb. 22 post:

If you expected ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and NPR would offer a sober and substantive story on James Biden testifying behind closed doors in the House impeachment inquiry on Wednesday night, you’d be deeply disappointed. These networks all aired a story, but the narrative was overwhelmingly focused on indicted FBI confidential informant Alexander Smirnov and his unproven claims that Joe and Hunter Biden were offered $5 million each in bribes.

Overall, the networks offered 920 seconds of coverage focused on Smirnov, and 143 seconds on James Biden. So that’s 86.5 percent for Smirnov, 13.5 percent for Uncle Jimmy. 

— ABC offered 44 seconds of James Biden, to 141 seconds on Smirnov. Anchor David Muir opened: “As our Pierre Thomas tonight asks Republicans in the House, how do you move forward if the main informant was lying?”

[...]

— CBS spent two minutes and five seconds on Smirnov and how he put the impeachment inquiry “in jeopardy,” and just 18 seconds on James Biden, all preposterous denial:

[...]

— PBS presented eight minutes and 22 seconds with a Democrat expert, but seven minutes was devoted to Smirnov, and the rest on Ukraine. The taxpayer-funded network story didn’t even mention James Biden!   

— NPR interviewed their congressional reporter, and only 50 seconds was devoted to James Biden (mostly denials), and the other 204 seconds focused on Smirnov.

Graham censored the fact that the website for which he serves as executive editor corrected dozens of posts because Smirnov was revealed to be a liar.

The next day, Clay Waters similarly complained that PBS covered the “new Russian-interference angle” of Smirnov instead of its preferred right-wing narratives:

On Wednesday, President Biden’s brother James testified in the House impeachment inquiry. The PBS NewsHour aired an eight-minute segment on the Biden impeachment that never mentioned James Biden once. 

Instead, they obsessed over a new Russian-interference angle. 

Recent news that former FBI informant Alexander Smirnov made false allegations about Joe Biden and his son Hunter accepting $5 million bribes from the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma caused much smug rejoicing. In fact, the NewsHour also hammered on this Democrat theme on February 15. 

Waters then switched to whataboutism mode:

On Wednesday, White House reporter Laura Barron-Lopez used a “reliable” guest (from the Obama-Biden administration!) to help condemn the Republicans as willing dupes of Russian disinformation as a presidential election looms. But does Barron-Lopez really not remember the media’s own history of being conduit of Russian disinformation during the Trump years, especially the infamous Trump dossier

[...]

Speaking of disinformation: Remember the infamous dossier falsely alleging Trump ties to Russia, leading to myriad articles accusing Trump of “collusion” with Russia? One infamous article after the game was up, from New York Times’ legal reporter Charlie Savage, insisted “Discredited Steele Dossier Doesn’t Undercut Russia Inquiry.”

Yet the Smirnov revelation evidently not only “undercuts” the Republican impeachment inquiry into Biden, it has Goodman seeing “Reds under the bed”:

Waters didn’t explain how the “Smirnov revelation” doesn’t undercut Republican attacks on the Bidens — and he censored the fact that his employer corrected dozens of posts due that same “Smirnov revelation.”

Nicholas Fondacaro whined in a Feb. 28 post:

In an interview with Axios earlier this week, Hunter Biden suggested that the scrutiny congressional Republicans had him under was “maybe the ultimate test for a recovering addict;” the outlet also shared President Biden’s private fear that they could cause his son to relapse. And during CNN’s Inside Politics on Wednesday, host Dana Bash and Justice correspondent Evan Perez took the concern as legitimate and wagged their proverbial finger at Republicans on Capitol Hill.

According to Hunter, the future of America hinged on his ability to maintain sobriety. “I have always been in awe of people who have stayed clean and sober through tragedies and obstacles few people ever face. They are my heroes, my inspiration (...) I have something much bigger than even myself at stake. We are in the middle of a fight for the future of democracy,” he told Axios.

[...]

Of course, all of this was said in the shadow of Hunter finally giving closed-door testimony to Congress about his shady business dealings.

Fondacaro failed to mention the dozens of MRC posts that had to be altered to address Smirnov’s false testimony. Graham whined further about this in his podcast that day:

As Hunter Biden headed into closed-door testimony in the Biden impeachment inquiry, Axios reported Hunter thinks there are “profound consequences” in his staying sober. “I have something much bigger than even myself at stake. We are in the middle of a fight for the future of democracy.” Nobody wants to rest democracy on those chances.

MRC Director of Media Analysis Geoffrey Dickens joins the show to discuss his latest list of shocking Biden influence-peddling stories that drew “ZERO seconds” of air time. Why do they ignore it? So they can run these preposterous denials like Hunter Biden claiming “I did not involve my father in my business.”

Graham then hyped how “the New York Post and other media outlets have reported stories the networks energetically ignored” — but his writeup censored any mention of Smirnov’s false testimony.

After Hunter offered closed-door testimony to a hostile House committee, Jorge Bonilla insisted in a Feb. 29 post — with the ridiculous headline “The Praetorian Media Line Up to Protect the Prince and the Precious” — that the Smirnov arrest didn’t undercut Republican attacks on the Bidens:

Hunter Biden went to the Capitol for his closed-door deposition with the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. This is his makeup day for the depo he blew off in order to deliver a tirade from behind a podium before stomping off the Capitol grounds. The network newscasts fell in formation today, focused on protecting the Bidens and disqualifying the proceedings.

Coverage was nearly identical across the Big Three, touching on some of the same thematic points: a quote from Hunter’s statement denouncing the investigation and calling for it to end, a brief summation of what the investigation is about, and some version of the Smirnov Hoax, to wit: that the controversial FBI FD-1023 (record of confidential informant meeting with agent) with its allegedly false statements contained therein is the entirety of the evidence upon which the impeachment inquiry hinges. 

Of the three, ABC’s coverage was the most extensive and most partisan. Here’s correspondent Rachel Scott, dutifully reciting the Smirnov Hoax:

[...]

The impeachment inquiry was NOT built largely on the FD-1023. There is also the trove of documents contained within the laptop, the damning testimony of the IRS whistleblowers, testimony from Hunter’s several business partners, and the evidence collected in furtherance of Hunter’s indictment on tax charges. But suggesting that the whole thing hangs on the FD-1023 makes it easier to dismiss the whole thing as little more than a fake partisan sham. 

Scott carried the Democrats’ water during a gaggle with House Oversight Chair James Comer, by suggesting that Smirnov’s indictment somehow made the impeachment inquiry illegitimate. 

He too failed to disclose that the discrediting of Smirnov was, in fact, so important to his employer that dozens of posts had to be corrected. And if Smirnov is lying, why shouldn’t the possibility be raised that other informants may be lying as well? Bonilla doesn’t seem to want to talk about that.

In another post that day, Graham grumbled that non-right-wing media didn’t spread the Hunter-hate the way his beloved right-wing rag the New York Post did:

How can we know just how the major newspapers have a pro-Biden bias? When they present Hunter Biden as the hero and moral authority of his own testimony in the Biden impeachment probe.

First, they submerge the story, and then the framing is in contempt of the factual record. Hunter can say he’s never involved Joe in his business — when it should be obvious to a fifth-grader that this is a lie — but they run with it anyway. 

The New York Post offered the anti-Biden framing of Hunter’s evasive, sometimes laughable testimony yesterday, under the online headline for their cover story. 

Again, Graham was silent about Smirnov. It’s as if he doesn’t want to admit that the entire right-wing anti-Hunter narrative has been seriously undermined. At least he finally admitted that the New York Post's mission is to be "anti-Biden."

The public-testimony reboot

Another attempt by the MRC to reboot its anti-Hunter narrative came in mid-March, when Hunter was scheduled to give public testimony to a hostile Republican-led congressional committee after conceding to a session of private testimony. A March 14 post by Mark Finkelstein concern-trolled about discussion that Hunter would refuse to attend:

With Joe Scarborough having the day off from Morning Joe, there was no mocking of House Investigations Committee Chairman Jim Comer’s southern accent. No claims that Arnold the Pig from Green Acres could do a better job. No stereotypes of Kentuckians like Comer being hillbillies with “a squirrel fryer and a hound dog,” toting a “coonskin cap and a shotgun.”

Instead, the show settled for Mika calling the Republicans on the committee “crazy.” And they had “nothing” on Joe Biden! 

But two of the panelists actually suggested it was a mistake for Hunter, via his lawyer, to announce that he would not be appearing at a public hearing the committee has scheduled for next week. Elise Jordan said, “I really question the decision not to just show up,” given that “he was fighting for public testimony, I believe, just a couple months ago.”

Jonathan Lemire agreed, noting that Hunter’s decision not to appear represents “a bit of a surprising decision” and “a bit of an about face, because Hunter Biden and his team had been the ones really pushing for that public hearing.”

Finkelstein didn’t mention that Hunter rejected the biased committee’s invitation for public testimony because it was clearly an “attempt to resuscitate your Conference’s moribund inquiry with a made-for-right-wing-media, circus act,” not a “serious oversight proceeding,.”

Geoffrey Dickens spent a March 19 post whining that non-right-wing channels weren’t obsessing over Hunter’s no-show the way the MRC was:

Hunter Biden talked a big game about wanting a public testimony but it looks like he’ll be a no show at tomorrow’s scheduled hearing and the broadcast networks are letting him get away with it, as they continue to cover for him and the Biden family business.  

At least Hunter’s longtime business partner Tony Bobulinski is expected to show up and answer questions at Wednesday’s hearing but if recent history suggests don’t expect any bombshells from that testimony to see any airtime on ABC, CBS and NBC. Even a mention of Bobulinski’s testimony would be stunning, given his revelations have been almost completely ignored.

When Hunter delivered his closed-door testimony on February 28 he lied, evaded or contradicted himself on at least five separate occasions. At that time the networks played defense for Team Biden as NewsBusters’ Jorge Bonilla noted: “The network newscasts fell in formation today, focused on protecting the Bidens and disqualifying the proceedings.”

But Dickens’ source for those alleged claims of having “lied, evaded or contradicted” is Breitbart, hardly a objective or credible source.

Jorge Bonilla continued the fake outrage over the lack of non-right-wing obsession Hunter’s no-show in a March 21 post:

This is how you know we have a Biden regime media: two of the three major networks avoided providing any evening newscast coverage to the House Oversight Committee’s hearing in furtherance of its impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. And the one that did cover the hearing did its level best to make sure viewers heard nothing substantial- a smother job.

Bonilla pretended to read the collective minds of an entire news operation, asserting without evidence that NBC “wanted to air NO instances whatsoever of Bobulinski talking about crimes committed by anyone named Biden. Speaking of which, where was Hunter?” He then whined that NBC did a “strange interview with Lev Parnas, which seemed to serve no other purpose than to raise the specter of Russian propaganda operations.” Bonilla didn’t explain why that specter shouldn’t have been raised — after all, Parnas has pointed out that the Hunter narrative is false and driven by the Kremlin. Bonilla clearly wanted NO instances whatsoever of Parnas’ testimony being discussed — shouldn’t he be concerned that Republican politicians are forwarding Russian propaganda? Sounds like Bonilla is working media for a different regime.

Tim Graham had his own entry into this lack-of-coverage narrative in another March 21 post:

How much do the “professional” journalists hate reporting on Biden scandals? A deep dive into the newspapers that arrived at our headquarters on Thursday finds that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal have NO article on the contentious House hearing on Wednesday over the Biden family business scandal.

It’s on the front page of The Washington Times, a report by Susan Ferrecchio: 

[...]

Ferrecchio noted Hunter Biden was invited but refused to testify, so they left an empty chair for him at the witness table. The slavishly pro-Biden media promoted Hunter’s demands for a public hearing, and then skipped the actual hearing, just like Hunter. 

Graham failed to disclose that the Washington Times is a right-wing, pro-Biden rag, which would explain why Graham loves its coverage so much.

Graham regurgitated all of this in his March 22 column:

On March 20, the House Oversight Committee held public hearings that were supposed to feature live testimony by Hunter Biden. The GOP-led committee titled the hearing “Influence Peddling: Examining Joe Biden’s Abuse of Public Office,” which was already a turn-off for Biden-voter reporters.

That night NBC offered two minutes. ABC and CBS did nothing. In January, Hunter Biden pulled a stunt by showing up and demanding a public hearing, and the networks covered that. On February 28, Hunter showed up for a hearing behind closed doors, and the networks covered that. But when Hunter skipped the public hearing he allegedly wanted, they skipped the story?

Even those prestigious national newspapers – with the slogans about “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” and “Democracy Dies In Darkness” – offered a big fat zero in their print editions. Nothing on Joe Biden’s abuse of office was published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal.

Then consider “public” broadcasting – the ones who have automatic and undeserved prestige because of their “for the people” branding. The PBS NewsHour offered nothing, not ten hot seconds. They offered eight minutes on a potential government shutdown, so their journalists were working on Capitol Hill. 

[...]

I scrolled all the way down the homepage looking for a Biden-hearing story, to no avail. At the very bottom, there was this news from the insect world: “Scientists studied how cicadas pee. Their insights could shed light on fluid dynamics.” This makes it easy to describe the quality of NPR’s coverage of the Biden family scandals. It’s a warm bucket of cicada urine. 

The only reason the MRC wants such obsessive coverage of the Hunter story is the belief that it will hurt Joe Biden’s chances of re-election, not because it actually cares about journalism. Graham and Co. should be honest about that intent — which is its own bucket of warm cicada urine — instead of hiding behind their dishonest “media research” label.

Shortly thereafter, the MRC snuck in what at this writing is its final reference to Smirnov, in an April 9 post by Alex Christy complaining that Stephen Colbert mentioned him:

[Colbert and guest Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] discussed the GOP’s relationship with Russia. Ocasio-Cortez brought up the case of Alexander Smirnov, “We just went through an impeachment attempt on the president of the United States that was started with a source that Republicans used that was in communication with Russian intelligence. So, you have not just the bottom bench here. You have the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Representative Comer, take quote-unquote ‘evidence,’ an account from someone who was working with the– Russian intelligence and try to impeach and remove the president of the United States over it. This is serious.”

Colbert replied, “How did they not know that — or did they know that this was connected to the Russians? Or did they not figure out because they have been translated from the Cyrillic?”

Of course, Christy couldn’t be bothered to explain the meaning of “the case of Alexander Smirnov” or disclose that his employer stealth-corrected dozens of posts because of that “case.”