The closer the end of the 2020 presidential campaign comes, the more signs we are seeing of what appears to be blatant attempts by the American media to influence public opinion in favor of Democratic candidate Joe Biden.
It was done through consistent censorship of affairs that might make him appear dirty. Two weeks ago, for example, correspondence from Biden's son's computer was brought to light that could shed light on Biden Sr.'s part in the "Ukrainegate" scandal from a year ago and raised suspicion that in 2015, while serving as vice president, Biden worked to have the Ukrainian chief prosecutor replaced in order to prevent an investigation against his son.
Despite its potential significance, the correspondence was played down by most newspapers other than the New York Post, which brought the scoop. In effect, other media outlets not only ignored it, they tried to challenge its reliability. Twitter blocked the accounts of the White House spokeswoman and the Trump campaign, claiming that the information was unreliable, even though the FBI declared that the documents were part of an investigation into suspected money laundering by the Bidens and despite the fact that some of the recipients confirmed the authenticity of the correspondence.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Similarly, last week businessman Tony Bobulinski, who had been responsible for handling the Biden family's assets, claimed that when Biden was vice president, charged with addressing aggression from China, he had business dealings with companies owned by China's Communist Party. Bobulinski tried to interest various media outlets in the story, but only Fox ran an interview with him.
But we can see the actual extent of the pro-Biden censorship in the resignation last week of Glenn Greenwald, editor of The Intercept. Greenwald claimed that the editors refused to publish an article he wrote about the attempts by media outlets, media giants, and intelligence communities in America to ensure Biden became president unless he agreed to delete the parts of the article that criticized Biden himself. It should be noted that Biden avoided responding to the news and rather than the media doing its job as the watchdog of democracy and demanding answers, it preferred not to confront him with difficult questions to avoid hurting his election chances.
Meanwhile, in the past few months, there have been more serious warning about attempts by Iran and Russia to intervene in the election, despite the fact that Russian intervention in the 2016 election, which has been the focus of so much attention these past few years, turned out to be a tempest in a teapot. The findings of the Muller report, according to which no direct links between Russia and Trump have been found, were played down. Even though there has been recent proof of Iranian and Russian attempts to influence the current election, they are limited and somewhat amateur, which shows yet again that while we must not dismiss its importance, the threat of foreign tampering is marginal.
While there is no doubt that foreign actors are exploiting the social chaos in the United States, which is being encouraged by the American media. But the big story is that ironically, it seems as if the biggest "influence" of all is actually being wielded by the American media and media conglomerates. In effect, this is an octopus, as the global coverage of what is happening in the US feeds off of American coverage, which leads to echo chambers that hold a biased and homogenous discourse. So ironically, this behavior by the American media, most of whose senior members say that a Trump re-election would be an "end to democracy," is the one eating away at the foundations of democracy.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
