snip
Showing me even more evidence of the media weakly capitulating to bad-faith right-wing complaints about their supposed liberal bias in a futile attempt to stop the criticism is hardly going to change my position. If you want me to go into specifics, though, then I'll be clear - none of this supposed vindication means that the media were wrong to treat this story as cautiously as they did. Known liars presented very sketchy sources who told an implausible story to a newspaper of dubious reliability - and all these people refused to share any of the evidence with any media outlets that they didn't feel were conservative enough. The media were not wrong to not blindly parrot the NYP's story; yes, even if it turns out that the story was largely true. You can't just boil it down to "The story was true; therefore repeating it was good and not repeating it was bad." That's simply not how it works, and Trump's team and the NYP have nobody to blame but themselves for their suspicious story being received with suspicion.
Also, the NYP's attempt to conflate this specific story with general news of Hunter being a failson who trades on his father's name, as indicated by "Where once The New York Post stood alone in reporting the skeezy details of the many millions the first son gained by selling his family name overseas," is absurd. Most people could intuit that Hunter was a loser who used his last name to get high-paying jobs back when Trump first tried to smear Biden as corrupt over the whole Burisma thing, long before the laptop or the investigation into his taxes became a story. There's a world of difference between Hunter being a self-serving failson and Hunter and his father being partners in an international corruption scheme, and it's perfectly reasonable to accept the former while questioning the latter.