Before getting into the interview with WASHINGTON POST writer Philip Bump that shows us what’s wrong with journalism today, I’d like to show you the kind of story that would be lost on him, at least the part he’s in denial about; namely, Joe Biden’s involvement in the Biden family scandal. His mind simply will not permit him to “Bump” up against the evidence for that.
Matt Vespa, on the other hand, shows how easy it is for evidence and common sense to take us there in a new opinion piece for TOWNHALL. Yes, we did say what he calls his “tipsheet” expresses his personal opinion, but it’s opinion based on inescapable facts. (At least they’re inescapable for people whose minds don’t work like the minds of Bump and other mainstream “journalists.”) Our readers will be familiar with most of what he says here about the reluctance --- EXTREME reluctance --- of the DOJ/FBI to investigate Hunter and, by extension, the Biden family, but his report provides a good summary of what we know. Also, here’s something about the timeline that the Huckabee researchers did not know. From Vespa:
“The Secret Service warning spoiled plans to interview Hunter and other witnesses as part of a proposed “Day of Action” set for Dec. 8, 2020, days after the first son received Secret Service protection following Joe Biden’s election to the presidency.”
In other words, even though the FBI had months and months --- years, really --- to talk to Hunter, the timing of their proposed interview just happened to fall right AFTER Hunter had received Secret Service protection. Reading between the lines, it looks as though they waited until he had this wall of security around him, and then used it as an excuse to tip off Hunter’s team. After all, they couldn’t very well just go up to Hunter’s door and knock without notifying the Secret Service first, could they? (Actually, they could, but this is the excuse they’ve been using.)
Now that you’ve read a piece that dares to “go there” --- to the doorstep of the White House --- it’s time to see the interview with a WAPO so-called journalist who demonstrates that journalism, if not dead, is barely registering a pulse thanks to a few real investigators. He’s not so much a reporter of facts as he is an advocate for the President. In fact, if he were a defense attorney for Joe Biden, he’d probably be saying a lot of the same things, albeit in a calmer and more measured way instead of frantic and desperate.
You’ll notice --- and, if you’re like us, be amused by this --- that as the interview goes on, the pitch of his voice slides from tenor to soprano.
Make time for this interview if you can; it’s about an hour and ten minutes long. The write-up by Ian Schwartz at REALCLEAR POLITICS has this but also includes an edit with the best part, which is when Bump is confronted with EVIDENCE of Joe Biden’s involvement, in the form of a text Hunter wrote to his daughter about having to give half his income to their father. Bump puts up incredible resistance; at this point, if his voice got any higher, only dogs would be able to hear it.
The interview is with Noam Dworman, the owner of the Comedy Cellar in New York City, who also is a very impressive podcast host. We gather from this one interview that he won’t take any nonsense from anyone, left or right. He’s looking for direct answers and can see right through evasiveness and spin. If only we had more critical thinkers like him in media.
Bump is billed as the smartest and most knowledgeable person about the Hunter Biden investigation who believes Joe Biden was not involved at all. (Apparently when Dworman was looking for that person to interview, Bump’s name came up over and over, so he invited him on.) But when Dworman presents him with the text from Hunter about giving his father all that money, Bump freaks out. That’s not hyperbole on our part, but really the most accurate way to describe his reaction.
The wall goes up when Bump is confronted with this, and he says, “I have no idea what that means. I don’t. I have no idea what that means.” He calls it “circumstantial evidence.” When asked if anyone has asked Biden’s daughter about this, he professes not to know. When asked if someone SHOUILD ask her about it, he says he doesn’t know and has nothing to say about it. He finally throws up his hands and quickly says, “Okay, that’s evidence.”
But at that point, Bump, cornered, stammers that it feels as though Dworman wanted him to leave, though the host has given no indication of that. On the contrary, what Dworman wanted was answers from Bump to his questions about this evidence. Bump actually does get up and leave, rather than discuss this text. Quite a scene.
Dworman asks rhetorically, “Is this the standard, really? This is the way that the WASHINGTON POST handles people that disagree with them?”
Bump later tweeted (X’d?): “He cobbles together an interview, ‘splicing in new arguments after the fact.’ It gets little traction. And then suddenly ends up in the NEW YORK POST, wildly and dishonestly cherry-picked.”
Actually, we didn’t find it in the NY POST, but thanks to comments about it from Scott Adams on his daily podcast, “Coffee With Scott Adams.” The first thing we did was watch the full interview, so as to avoid judging it based on “cherry-picked” bits and pieces. Now, here’s the article in the POST, from Miranda Devine, who one might say knows a little bit about the Hunter Biden story. She uses Bump as an example of the “gaslighting from complicit media.” She points to his long history of being wrong.
Devine also mentions a column by law professor Jonathan Turley about Bump in which he lays out a list of Bump’s errors. For his trouble, Turley received an email from someone at WAPO saying the newspaper “stands by Philip Bump’s reporting and your characterization of his articles as ‘false’ is incorrect.” Turley, in response, said, “Dworman’s podcast interview stands as one of the most revealing and vivid examples of how the media has changed in the age of rage.”
Here’s Turley’s full column, a must-read…
You’ll see in reading Miranda’s piece that we weren’t the only ones to notice Dworman’s voice climbing into the soprano range. I swear we thought of this independently.
Dworman, in his conclusion, captures the current state of the media perfectly: “What we’re seeing is akin to an ocean full of sharks who have simultaneously lost their ability to smell blood in the water. [Our aside: unless it’s Trump blood.] The press seems to have lost its ability to alert itself to obvious facts that they need to follow up on.”
He just as easily could have quoted the character of Henry Drummond in INHERIT THE WIND, interrogating Matthew Harrison Brady (someone else who refuses to look at the other side) on the witness stand: “It frightens me to think of the state of learning in the world if everyone had your driving curiosity.”