"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.
You know that when a journalist publishes an article it goes through a number of editors there at the newspaper right? And if they later find that they were inaccurate the newspaper typically publishes a retraction? You know that, right?
If a newspaper is publishing it, they take responsibility for it. The Sunday Times is the largest in its market catagory, which makes it notable that a large British newspaper is calling the election a fraud:
The article in question is clearly an opinion piece, and
its author has a long history of being more of a reactionary rabble-rouser than any kind of serious journalist. There's a grain of truth in what you're saying in that giving someone a platform is to a degree a show of support, not a neutral act, and the media in general do deserve pushback when they essentially hand a megaphone to grifters, liars, and extremists for no good reason. But that's a question of their cynical business practices, not of their actual beliefs. You can't just take it for granted that the opinions expressed in opinion pieces must therefore reflect the beliefs of the newspaper. That's simply not how it works. Reputable newspapers allow people with wildly different political beliefs to write these kinds of articles all the time. I don't think they necessarily
should, like I just said, but they do.
Incidentally, if anyone is interested in actually reading the article without having to pay, it's right
here. Wouldn't you know it, the article says nothing about the Arizona audit at all and only mentions the subject of voter fraud to dismiss it. Liddle's actual argument is that the election was "rigged" via the collusion between corporate, political, and media figures to suppress stories damaging to Biden, undermine Trump's presidency, and so on. I still don't agree with him, but there is at least a valid discussion to be had on that subject. And in the defense of those skeptical of the unified resistance to Trump, I will say that the
Time article Liddle and others are concerned with is very sensationally written. It plays up the supposed secrecy of the agreements these parties made, repeatedly uses provocative and misleading terms like "cabal" and "conspiracy," and in general reads like a deliberate attempt to rile up Trump supporters. It's really very irresponsible journalism, and I'm surprised
Time published it the way it was. In any case, so much for:
British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:
In the future, you might want to read the article yourself and not just take a YouTube talking head's word for it on what it's about.