It is just a slightly annoyed comment that they might be part of that problem. If it was meant as a self-reflection I am sorry that I have misunderstood the intent and message.
It isn't just directed at the NYT to be fair and the harsh tone might stem from the fact that I have higher expectations. Personal problem of mine.
"Like the other false claims about voter fraud, Mr. Trump’s tweet included a label by Twitter that he was sharing information that was not accurate.
Twitter, like Facebook, has said that those labels help prevent false claims from being shared and direct people toward more authoritative sources of information.
Earlier this week, BuzzFeed News reported that Facebook employees questioned whether the labels were effective."
super creepy- and another reminder that there are so many influential people that want to see anyone they don't agree with de-platformed
Do you understand the difference between fact an opinion?
You can't call a lie an opinion.
This is nothing new: People used to argue that the earth was flat, then they argued that the sun orbited the earth. You can't let people get away with contradicting established fact just because it's an "opinion."
There's nothing wrong with drawing a distinction between claims of fraud that result from nothing more than dissatisfaction with the outcome, and claims of fraud that arise from some actual evidence of possible malfeasance. Dismissing the former outright is necessary in order to give the latter the attention they deserve.
After 4 years of Russia-gating, after denying election results in 2016, and 2018 (both Hillary Clinton and allies, as well as Stacy Abrams from Georgia continue to claim elections were stolen from them), after claiming EVERY election is crooked because of voter suppression (in a country that continues to have record turn out among minority populations), I can't quite see the difference between troll accounts and establishment media.
And oh yeah, this is so effin self-serving by NYTimes and co. Attack competition by forcing tech companies to ban or downgrade them, all to re-assert their traditional status as social gatekeepers ... and profit! And every single mainstream 'news' outlet that is pushing this social media censorship is backed by a multi-billion dollar corporate conglomerate. Thanks but no thanks.
Hillary Clinton literally concealed elections. The transfer of power from Obama was smooth and cooperative. Hillary Clinton did not filed dozens of court cases with made up claims that ended up thrown away from those courts. Hillary Clinton did not tried to stop the vote counting either.
Hillary Clinton camp pointing out that they won popular vote is completely within their free speech rights and is not an attack on election system itself. Comparing length of lines in various district and fighting with id mandates or so that students can vote in school and dont have to travel are completely valid too.
What Trump and Republican party did this years is completely incomparable.
Last year: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’ [1]
Last year: "Trump knows he's an illegitimate president" [2]
Last month: "In an interview with journalist Kara Swisher’s podcast for the New York Times Opinions network released on Monday, Clinton spoke about losing in 2016 because of a “disinformation campaign” run by then-Republican candidate Donald Trump and “Russian media." She even claimed the election was “stolen” from her...Trump, she said, holds a presidency that has an “air of illegitimacy,” something she has said many times over the past four years." (emphasis mine)
She has been delegitimizing the 2016 election and Trump as president literally since day 1 of his presidency.
Do you think her remarks are more damaging to the election than Trump's claims that "millions" of votes in 2016 were illegitimate? [1] A claim which he formed a commission to investigate which failed to produce any findings? [2]
Also, both of your links appear to be from 2019: You may want to strike "last month" from your claims.
>Do you think her remarks are more damaging to the election than Trump's claims that "millions" of votes in 2016 were illegitimate?
100% unequivocally yes.
You probably don't see it because you like Democrats, but Democrats claiming stolen elections is par for course. EVERY election Democrats lose ALWAYS results in casting dispersions on the outcome and claiming fraud. It's probably so normal to you that you don't even notice, right?
2016 was the culmination of this and particularly egregious considering the unprecedented way intelligence agencies were weaponized first against the campaign by the outgoing administration and then against the sitting president ... because the assumption that Russia stole the election and Trump colluded with the Russians, was so ingrained.
>Also, both of your links appear to be from 2019: You may want to strike "last month" from your claims.
I put a link from last month - they aren't hard to find. Hillary has been doing this for years now. To be clear, this isn't just Hillary, this is normal for Democrats, and allies in media.
> In an interview with journalist Kara Swisher’s podcast for the New York Times Opinions network released on Monday, Clinton spoke about losing in 2016 because of a “disinformation campaign” run by then-Republican candidate Donald Trump and “Russian media." She even claimed the election was “stolen” from her. [0]
> Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday. [1]
Was exaggerated, but resulted in multiple guilty pleas and convictions of Trump associates and campaign workers.
On the other hand, the election fraud theories are utter bunk. As predicted, all of the mistakes which have been discovered in the audits were far too small to affect the result.
> denying election results in 2016 ... Hillary Clinton
Did Clinton go after the election results as-such or are you talking about criticism of the Electoral College and its ability to allow minoritarian rule?
> denying election results in ... 2018 ... Stacy Abrams
The election where one of the candidates was in charge of the election process and refused to recuse himself? The election where an audit was requested but the data just happened to have been wiped?
My prediction is that you will try to weasel around by defining "collusion" as repeatedly more specific, but:
- Papadopoulos admitted to lying to the FBI about Russian contact
- Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about the contents of his conversations with the Russian ambassador
- Cohen admitted to lying to Congress about Trump business plans in Moscow
The fact that multiple Trump associates lied to the FBI to protect details of their and his dealings in Russia smells a lot like smoke. I don't believe that Russian interference was the reason Trump won, but there are clear conflicts of interest. The obstruction charges against Trump himself were explicitly not pursued because of his political position.
Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about the contents of his conversations with the Russian ambassador
Sounds scandalous, but we actually know the actual contents of the those conversations! And once again, there's no there, there. Seems to be another important omission in your follow-up yeah, but.
I've no interest in this side vs. that side. For sure, there are no saints to be found. But the original point is that the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that we know, and was fairly obvious from the beginning, was actually political disinformation. And it's clear those media outlets weren't simply patsies - they were willful propagandists.
Many good people were misled because they trusted the Times and other outlets they considered reputable. The Times abused that trust. And now the Times is assuming that, thanks to some form of Gell-Mann Amnesia, people will believe tomorrow's paper is honest reporting even though yesterday's paper was a pile of lies.
Flynn lied not to protect the contents of the conversations, but to explicitly deny a deal which was discussed. That is a "there".
Besides, Flynn is a small part of a small part of my original argument. Sure, Flynn in particular is not the best example. But he is not the only one, which is why I provided others.
> the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that ... was actually political disinformation.
Which NYT articles in particular contained misinformation that was actually political disinformation?
> those media outlets ... were willful propagandists
By "those media outlets" do you mean the NYT or does the plural imply other sources which spread disinformation? If the latter, which particular outlets are you accusing? And what is the evidence of intent which the accusation would seem to require?
I never disagreed that the story was exaggerated by the left-liberal media establishment. But your claims were that the NYT intentionally published disinformation.
The Intercept piece does not seem to prove this, and in fact none of the ten failures include NYT stories.
I find Taibbi odious to read, so only skimmed that article. I would appreciate direct links to New York Times articles with disinformation if that is still your claim.
Nevertheless, his piece seems to mention.
1. The lionization of Robert Mueller by the NYT. I don't disagree with this, but as far as I'm concerned this falls under exaggeration and not misinformation.
2. A breathless editorial. As an opinion piece, I believe that this is likewise exaggeration.
3. The NYT's coverage of "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence. I already mentioned the multiple guilty pleas about this issue, which you did not refute.
4. A story about RT appearing over a C-SPAN broadcast, which appears not to be a hack. The NYT's story does not assert that the feed was hacked, and contains C-SPAN's explanation of likely technical difficulties.
5. An NYT story about Russian interference in social media. This one isn't even about the Russiagate investigation at all.
Once again, I do not deny that the media establishment was breathlessly eager for Mueller to confirm their most extreme suspicions. I don't deny that US media relies on evil Russian tropes to push stories. But you are evading my direct questions and requests for information, and gesturing at the tone of Russia-related coverage, instead of backing up your false assertion that the New York Times willfully propagandized the public with disinformation about Russiagate.
When all the errors go in one direction, it "smells a lot like smoke", as you put it.
And nobody has even mentioned the, as the New York Times referred to him, "senior administration official" Anonymous who described themselves as a member of the "Resistance". Turns out he was, hardly, an actual senior administration official.
> When all the errors go in one direction, it "smells a lot like smoke", as you put it.
This is true, and it's why I have consistently characterized the Russiagate investigation as overwrought with regard to direct election interference.
But you're the one making unequivocal claims about the NYT publishing misinformation. At this point, it's clear that you're not interested in trying to defend the lie and would rather argue in circles about exactly how trustworthy the newspaper is.
All you have to do is link to a single NYT piece on the investigation which contains clear misinformation. (That would still leave your comments on intent and propaganda unsubstantiated, but we would be much closer than we were five comments ago.)
> Phone records and intercepted calls show that (Trump and his crew) … had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.
There is a big difference between claiming voter disenfranchisement and voter fraud. It's telling that all the proposed ways to reduce alleged voter fraud are actually ways to make it harder for people to legitimately vote.
> In an interview with journalist Kara Swisher’s podcast for the New York Times Opinions network released on Monday, Clinton spoke about losing in 2016 because of a “disinformation campaign” run by then-Republican candidate Donald Trump and “Russian media." She even claimed the election was “stolen” from her. [0]
> Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday. [1]
These people that are heavily contesting the election results are actually mad at mainstream conservative news outlets, because most conservative news outlets are actually being much more reasonable than I expected. From places like Fox, Sky News Australia, Ben Shapiro, the message has essentially been: evidence of voter fraud isn't sufficient to change the election, there needs to be evidence of voter fraud at sufficient scale to actually change the results, which is highly unlikely. Trump's team is well with their rights to pursue an investigation within the legal system, and it's actually a good thing for democracy that as many doubts are settled as possible, but it is not okay for him to be declaring himself the winner in the absence of evidence.
As others have said, after hearing about Russian collusion for 3 years, as long as Trump keeps his mouth shut about having won the election, I'm perfectly fine with them making their case within the legal system. As I said, I think it's good for democracy if people feel as though their claims were addressed. Especially with a judicial system theoretically predisposed towards favoring Trump, them shutting down the allegations of fraud so far can avoid having been done so we a bias for Biden. The odds of the election results changing are astronomically low, so even if you don't want Trump to win, by allowing this process to play out, you are simply bolstering the evidence of a Biden win.
it's actually a good thing for democracy that as many doubts are settled as possible
Under what circumstances do you believe that the doubts actually get settled? A court can direct the government to accept one outcome or another, but it can't direct that people stop expressing their doubts. And as long as the doubts are prominently expressed, I don't expect any investigation to settle it. Doubts are free, both libre and gratis, and you can expect them to be indulged in accordingly.
We should, by all means, pursue the investigations, because it's legally required. But I don't expect it to provide anything except more evidence of a conspiracy, because that's how conspiracy theories work.
So you're under the impression that, among the people who expressed concern at the widespread accusations of voter fraud, literally none of them will be satisfied by having had those allegations pursued and resolved under scrutiny?
None? No, of course not. When you're talking about millions of people, there will always be somebody fitting any description. There will surely be some individual who is convinced. Probably thousands of them.
But I don't think it will convince a majority of them. Remember, a majority of this same group still doesn't believe that the previous President was born in the United States:
Perhaps an official court ruling will be more persuasive. So there's no need to make a strawman out of this: if a large majority are convinced, then my skepticism will have been wrong.
Many mainstream outlets now run propaganda and sensational reporting. It’s biased, misleading, retractive, opinionated and incomplete. Far from the days of just informing and listing main arguments from both sides of the aisle. Stop referencing crap like that here.
> Far from the days of just informing and listing main arguments from both sides of the aisle.
For that model work, you need two sides with a commitment to the common goals and a good respect for truth and a common set of facts, which we don't have anymore. That stopped being the case at least by the time one side ran a president who is an obvious-to-most compulsive liar with tendencies for demagoguery.
> Far from the days of just informing and listing main arguments...
There really hasn't ever been that, in the US at least.
Yellow Journalism [0] has been around for ~120 years now. The 1800 US Presidential campaign was very slanderous and personal [1]. His Girl Friday (1940)[2] starring Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant is a great comedy about journalism and the all the shady things that go on. Reading through all those events, the tricks are the same ones that we humans fall for time and again. Sure, FAANG and the like have made it faster, more up-tempo. But the lies have always gotten half-way around the globe before the truth put it's pants on.
What about Hunter/Joe Biden? Was that not news worthy? Was anything about Joe Biden news worthy prior to the election? It's an embarrassment.
I hope everyone realizes the powers that took on Trump, Big Tech, Deep State, China/Russia/EU, Democrats, etc. Quite the feat that it took that much power to barely beat Trump (which is debatable until we get a handle on what happened for voting. I don't know if the election was rigged, but I wouldn't put it past them and there are some weird anomalies in the voting data).
I, for one, was very interested in seeing the end of the Tucker Carlson story, and was disappointed when he dropped his chance to reveal his supposedly damaging information about the Bidens.
Why do you think the story was dropped? Personally, I think it's likely that said information was not actually ever damning, but I guess the Deep State could have gotten to Tucker, if that's your conspiracy theory.
The worst part about the Hunter/Joe Biden saga is that what they were doing isn't illegal (from what I can tell.). I'd call it corrupt and crony capitalism, among things, but doesn't look like it's illegal.
And this get to one of things I really hate about US politics. They write the rules, but don't seem to have to abide by any of them. There is always a loop hole or connection to save them. Pathetic.
Regarding Tucker, his show is the only show I watch every night. I think he does a great job at bringing light to the under belly of Washington. 'The sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.' Now, do I think he's perfect, no. Nobody is.
So why didn't he provide any of the damning evidence that he shipped to his office?
I'll give you a hint: It's far easier to get sued for defamation if you read lies on TV than if you say you have bad stuff to say about someone but won't say it because you're nice.
Well, as far as I know, we don't know why he didn't share it. Maybe it's because it wasn't that damning after all. Or maybe because he realized the fix was in for Biden and any amount of hooting and hollering wasn't going to make a difference. Or maybe he realized the information wasn't credible, but from what I remember, it was.
Again, who knows. Would it have made a difference if other news channels had picked up the story? Probably. Did it make a difference? Doesn't look like it.
Look, I voted for Obama 2008, voted Libertarian in 2012, and Trump 2016/2020 (for his America first policies, not his personality, which why this election was so mind blowing). My background is in Finance, specifically Hedge Funds, and I'm relatively a newcomer to watching how Politics all works. The idea that you have to stir your constituents into a craze for 4 years and feed them lies, so you don't lose power is really sad. Both sides are guilty of it.
The 80-20 rule exists for social media posting so of course a small amount of people contribute to most of the "misinformation". [0]
Calling them "superspreaders" is really close to propaganda. (Particularly when you could argue the media is/was the original "superspreader" of misinformation.)
61 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadIt isn't just directed at the NYT to be fair and the harsh tone might stem from the fact that I have higher expectations. Personal problem of mine.
How can abuse like this be stopped when one of our most important values is the ability to say and publish whatever you want?
Twitter, like Facebook, has said that those labels help prevent false claims from being shared and direct people toward more authoritative sources of information.
Earlier this week, BuzzFeed News reported that Facebook employees questioned whether the labels were effective."
super creepy- and another reminder that there are so many influential people that want to see anyone they don't agree with de-platformed
When you want to whitewash them.
You can't call a lie an opinion.
This is nothing new: People used to argue that the earth was flat, then they argued that the sun orbited the earth. You can't let people get away with contradicting established fact just because it's an "opinion."
Maybe we can help somehow? E.g. develop and popularize criteria of articles "truthfulness", basics of fact-checking etc.
Is your view that because the misinformation is right-wing, that this is propaganda for the left?
In general, if you want people to have confidence in an election, you need to take seriously claims of fraud and investigate them openly.
To flatly call them "misinformation" and advocate for further censorship of people making the claims does not give confidence, to put it mildly.
If you want people to have confidence in an election, you need to take serious claims of fraud seriously.
And oh yeah, this is so effin self-serving by NYTimes and co. Attack competition by forcing tech companies to ban or downgrade them, all to re-assert their traditional status as social gatekeepers ... and profit! And every single mainstream 'news' outlet that is pushing this social media censorship is backed by a multi-billion dollar corporate conglomerate. Thanks but no thanks.
Hillary Clinton camp pointing out that they won popular vote is completely within their free speech rights and is not an attack on election system itself. Comparing length of lines in various district and fighting with id mandates or so that students can vote in school and dont have to travel are completely valid too.
What Trump and Republican party did this years is completely incomparable.
[0]: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/509002-more-willful-...
You mean the election where she called Trump to concede at 2.50am the next morning?
Last year: "Trump knows he's an illegitimate president" [2]
Last month: "In an interview with journalist Kara Swisher’s podcast for the New York Times Opinions network released on Monday, Clinton spoke about losing in 2016 because of a “disinformation campaign” run by then-Republican candidate Donald Trump and “Russian media." She even claimed the election was “stolen” from her...Trump, she said, holds a presidency that has an “air of illegitimacy,” something she has said many times over the past four years." (emphasis mine)
She has been delegitimizing the 2016 election and Trump as president literally since day 1 of his presidency.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/hillary-clinton-trump-knows-he...
[3] https://londondaily.com/i-was-born-for-that-hillary-clinton-...
Also, both of your links appear to be from 2019: You may want to strike "last month" from your claims.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38126438
[2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4345914-Charles-Hern...
100% unequivocally yes.
You probably don't see it because you like Democrats, but Democrats claiming stolen elections is par for course. EVERY election Democrats lose ALWAYS results in casting dispersions on the outcome and claiming fraud. It's probably so normal to you that you don't even notice, right?
2016 was the culmination of this and particularly egregious considering the unprecedented way intelligence agencies were weaponized first against the campaign by the outgoing administration and then against the sitting president ... because the assumption that Russia stole the election and Trump colluded with the Russians, was so ingrained.
>Also, both of your links appear to be from 2019: You may want to strike "last month" from your claims.
I put a link from last month - they aren't hard to find. Hillary has been doing this for years now. To be clear, this isn't just Hillary, this is normal for Democrats, and allies in media.
> Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday. [1]
[0]: https://londondaily.com/i-was-born-for-that-hillary-clinton-... [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
Was exaggerated, but resulted in multiple guilty pleas and convictions of Trump associates and campaign workers.
On the other hand, the election fraud theories are utter bunk. As predicted, all of the mistakes which have been discovered in the audits were far too small to affect the result.
> denying election results in 2016 ... Hillary Clinton
Did Clinton go after the election results as-such or are you talking about criticism of the Electoral College and its ability to allow minoritarian rule?
> denying election results in ... 2018 ... Stacy Abrams
The election where one of the candidates was in charge of the election process and refused to recuse himself? The election where an audit was requested but the data just happened to have been wiped?
Not for any actual Russia collusion. Seems like that's an important detail you missed in your yeah, but.
- Papadopoulos admitted to lying to the FBI about Russian contact
- Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about the contents of his conversations with the Russian ambassador
- Cohen admitted to lying to Congress about Trump business plans in Moscow
The fact that multiple Trump associates lied to the FBI to protect details of their and his dealings in Russia smells a lot like smoke. I don't believe that Russian interference was the reason Trump won, but there are clear conflicts of interest. The obstruction charges against Trump himself were explicitly not pursued because of his political position.
Sounds scandalous, but we actually know the actual contents of the those conversations! And once again, there's no there, there. Seems to be another important omission in your follow-up yeah, but.
I've no interest in this side vs. that side. For sure, there are no saints to be found. But the original point is that the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that we know, and was fairly obvious from the beginning, was actually political disinformation. And it's clear those media outlets weren't simply patsies - they were willful propagandists.
Many good people were misled because they trusted the Times and other outlets they considered reputable. The Times abused that trust. And now the Times is assuming that, thanks to some form of Gell-Mann Amnesia, people will believe tomorrow's paper is honest reporting even though yesterday's paper was a pile of lies.
Flynn lied not to protect the contents of the conversations, but to explicitly deny a deal which was discussed. That is a "there".
Besides, Flynn is a small part of a small part of my original argument. Sure, Flynn in particular is not the best example. But he is not the only one, which is why I provided others.
> the New York Times played a key role in the spread of misinformation that ... was actually political disinformation.
Which NYT articles in particular contained misinformation that was actually political disinformation?
> those media outlets ... were willful propagandists
By "those media outlets" do you mean the NYT or does the plural imply other sources which spread disinformation? If the latter, which particular outlets are you accusing? And what is the evidence of intent which the accusation would seem to require?
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-w...
The Intercept piece does not seem to prove this, and in fact none of the ten failures include NYT stories.
I find Taibbi odious to read, so only skimmed that article. I would appreciate direct links to New York Times articles with disinformation if that is still your claim.
Nevertheless, his piece seems to mention.
1. The lionization of Robert Mueller by the NYT. I don't disagree with this, but as far as I'm concerned this falls under exaggeration and not misinformation.
2. A breathless editorial. As an opinion piece, I believe that this is likewise exaggeration.
3. The NYT's coverage of "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence. I already mentioned the multiple guilty pleas about this issue, which you did not refute.
4. A story about RT appearing over a C-SPAN broadcast, which appears not to be a hack. The NYT's story does not assert that the feed was hacked, and contains C-SPAN's explanation of likely technical difficulties.
5. An NYT story about Russian interference in social media. This one isn't even about the Russiagate investigation at all.
Once again, I do not deny that the media establishment was breathlessly eager for Mueller to confirm their most extreme suspicions. I don't deny that US media relies on evil Russian tropes to push stories. But you are evading my direct questions and requests for information, and gesturing at the tone of Russia-related coverage, instead of backing up your false assertion that the New York Times willfully propagandized the public with disinformation about Russiagate.
And nobody has even mentioned the, as the New York Times referred to him, "senior administration official" Anonymous who described themselves as a member of the "Resistance". Turns out he was, hardly, an actual senior administration official.
This is true, and it's why I have consistently characterized the Russiagate investigation as overwrought with regard to direct election interference.
But you're the one making unequivocal claims about the NYT publishing misinformation. At this point, it's clear that you're not interested in trying to defend the lie and would rather argue in circles about exactly how trustworthy the newspaper is.
All you have to do is link to a single NYT piece on the investigation which contains clear misinformation. (That would still leave your comments on intent and propaganda unsubstantiated, but we would be much closer than we were five comments ago.)
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intell...
> Even Strzok dumped on the Times’ story: “We are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” [1]
[1]: https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/07/21/howie-carr-alt-left-...
> Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday. [1]
[0]: https://londondaily.com/i-was-born-for-that-hillary-clinton-... [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
There's got to be ways to improve on the status quo so that it's much more clear that someone is lying if they make such claims.
The other related problem is when one party tries to prevent vote counts from being completed such as by objecting to every ballot.
There's got to be a better way. Silicon valley should be doing everything it can to help.
As others have said, after hearing about Russian collusion for 3 years, as long as Trump keeps his mouth shut about having won the election, I'm perfectly fine with them making their case within the legal system. As I said, I think it's good for democracy if people feel as though their claims were addressed. Especially with a judicial system theoretically predisposed towards favoring Trump, them shutting down the allegations of fraud so far can avoid having been done so we a bias for Biden. The odds of the election results changing are astronomically low, so even if you don't want Trump to win, by allowing this process to play out, you are simply bolstering the evidence of a Biden win.
Under what circumstances do you believe that the doubts actually get settled? A court can direct the government to accept one outcome or another, but it can't direct that people stop expressing their doubts. And as long as the doubts are prominently expressed, I don't expect any investigation to settle it. Doubts are free, both libre and gratis, and you can expect them to be indulged in accordingly.
We should, by all means, pursue the investigations, because it's legally required. But I don't expect it to provide anything except more evidence of a conspiracy, because that's how conspiracy theories work.
But I don't think it will convince a majority of them. Remember, a majority of this same group still doesn't believe that the previous President was born in the United States:
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/xj7rpmvws8/econTabReport.pdf#pag...
Perhaps an official court ruling will be more persuasive. So there's no need to make a strawman out of this: if a large majority are convinced, then my skepticism will have been wrong.
For that model work, you need two sides with a commitment to the common goals and a good respect for truth and a common set of facts, which we don't have anymore. That stopped being the case at least by the time one side ran a president who is an obvious-to-most compulsive liar with tendencies for demagoguery.
There really hasn't ever been that, in the US at least.
Yellow Journalism [0] has been around for ~120 years now. The 1800 US Presidential campaign was very slanderous and personal [1]. His Girl Friday (1940)[2] starring Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant is a great comedy about journalism and the all the shady things that go on. Reading through all those events, the tricks are the same ones that we humans fall for time and again. Sure, FAANG and the like have made it faster, more up-tempo. But the lies have always gotten half-way around the globe before the truth put it's pants on.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidentia...
[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032599/ (No really, it's great! Go watch it!)
I hope everyone realizes the powers that took on Trump, Big Tech, Deep State, China/Russia/EU, Democrats, etc. Quite the feat that it took that much power to barely beat Trump (which is debatable until we get a handle on what happened for voting. I don't know if the election was rigged, but I wouldn't put it past them and there are some weird anomalies in the voting data).
Why do you think the story was dropped? Personally, I think it's likely that said information was not actually ever damning, but I guess the Deep State could have gotten to Tucker, if that's your conspiracy theory.
And this get to one of things I really hate about US politics. They write the rules, but don't seem to have to abide by any of them. There is always a loop hole or connection to save them. Pathetic.
Regarding Tucker, his show is the only show I watch every night. I think he does a great job at bringing light to the under belly of Washington. 'The sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.' Now, do I think he's perfect, no. Nobody is.
I'll give you a hint: It's far easier to get sued for defamation if you read lies on TV than if you say you have bad stuff to say about someone but won't say it because you're nice.
Again, who knows. Would it have made a difference if other news channels had picked up the story? Probably. Did it make a difference? Doesn't look like it.
Look, I voted for Obama 2008, voted Libertarian in 2012, and Trump 2016/2020 (for his America first policies, not his personality, which why this election was so mind blowing). My background is in Finance, specifically Hedge Funds, and I'm relatively a newcomer to watching how Politics all works. The idea that you have to stir your constituents into a craze for 4 years and feed them lies, so you don't lose power is really sad. Both sides are guilty of it.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-suddenly-says-i...
The 80-20 rule exists for social media posting so of course a small amount of people contribute to most of the "misinformation". [0]
Calling them "superspreaders" is really close to propaganda. (Particularly when you could argue the media is/was the original "superspreader" of misinformation.)
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...