When Alexander Smirnov — the key informant for the government in general and Republicans in particular — was revealed to have been a liar, the Media Research Center had to correct dozens of posts (which it framed as merely an “editor’s note”) that had hyped the anti-Hunter attacks based on his allegations, something it still has yet to tell its readers about. Since then, the MRC has had trouble relaunching its obsessive war on Hunter. Another attempt to do so 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 obesssion 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 therefter, 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.”