Next News Network

The unfortunate case of Hunter Biden has been making rounds in the media for some time now. However, MSNBC’s Molly Jong-Fast’s dismissive attitude towards its possible impact on the ongoing presidential campaign is nothing short of tasteless elitism.

Over on MSNBC’s Way Too Early show, Jong-Fast seemed to trivialize the gravity of a potential Hunter Biden conviction on the 2024 elections, insinuating that those who might factor it in are essentially unsophisticated, low-information voters. Meanwhile, she glosses over the fact that being a crack addict does not excuse someone from criminal liability.

She further attempts to connive a narrative suggesting that evidence against Hunter Biden for lying about drug use on his firearm application is overly complicated. Jong-Fast seems to marginalize the significance of Hunter’s self-confession to his crack cocaine addiction during the period he bought a firearm in Delaware, stating he was free from drugs. Quite straightforward, isn’t it?

Not only did she went on a diatribe about insignificant voters, but she also had a rather softened take on Dr. Jill Biden returning from Normandy to attend the trial, lauding them as a closely-knit family. No mention of Hunter’s reported unsavory remarks regarding Dr. Jill from 2018, conveniently overlooked.

The Biden family is well-known for their closeness. However, it appears the ‘closeness’ crosses the line of appropriateness, like the unusual confession from Joe Biden’s daughter about taking showers with her father. But no questions here, says Jong-Fast.

From where I stand, Jong-Fast’s appearances have been anything but enlightening. Her terse communication skills and mediocre analysis breed confusion and vagueness. The answer to her television presence may lie in her knack for leveraging connections, not her analytical acumen, as detailed in a recent New York Times article.

Nonetheless, the points worth pondering that surfaced from the discussed segment includes, the stark difference Jong-Fast tried to draw between Hunter Biden and Donald Trump, and the representation of law enforcement as impartial. Leaning on these notions, she calls out ‘low-information’ voters who see the court cases of both men through the same lens.

Wrapping it up, the rhetoric spun around the Hunter Biden case exemplifies the astounding extent to which mainstream media will go to deflect and discredit any potential impact that could dent their preferred narratives. It also echoes the contemptuous elitism and the dismissal of voter sentiment in an attempt to control the larger narrative. It is a prime example of manipulating public opinion veiled in the guise of political commentary.

SOURCE