They are complicit. How do you think fox “knew” to call AZ at like 10% reporting? Or call VA for Biden at 85% reporting while trump was up 200k votes?

Or that early in the night they said democrats would gain atleast 5 seats in the house and called it a big win for Nancy pelosi”. Which turned out to be dead wrong snd complete opposite.

Or that all major outlets didn’t question that 7-10 states stopped counting votes late at night at the same time Which is not normal by any means For even one state to do so. and then magically flipped for Biden then they all scrubbed their election coverage from the internet the second people started digging.

They're in on it. You remember the Roger Stone raid where the media was set up moments before the house was raided? The media was well aware what was going to happen with this election. They pushed Biden through so fast as President Elect so they could set up the narrative of him being the rightful President

They do it because their viewers aren't going to actually look into details. "Oh CNN/MSNBC/Twitter/Facebook/etc. told me that the claims of the right side (of which I already view as evil) are wrong or lacking proof.

And while not judges, lawyers, etc. their viewers and their pressure can lead to intimidation, particularly in leaving judges and lawyers with the massive responsibility to potentially flip an election by rollback, voiding certain votes, etc.

They're owned by the same people that perpetrated the fraud. Yes, the whole of the msm is owned by the same few parent corporations which are in turn owned by even fewer families. They either certify biden or they're in the deepest shit its possible to be in.

That may not answer your question, but one of the misunderstandings that I see the most, is people confusing "evidence" and "proof", and the media seems to be counting on this misunderstanding to say that there is "no evidence".

There* is *evidence of widespread fraud, but widespread fraud has not been proven yet.

This is why Rudy repeats all the time that affidavits are evidence, which will have to be tested in court (i.e.: witnesses will take the stand, be cross-examined, etc., and if testimony is conclusive, it will then constitute proof of what was alleged).

The nuance is perhaps not commonly made among laymen, but it's not so complicated that, for instance, a court reporter (or even a regular journalist who would be concerned with understanding what is being talked about) wouldn't be able to grasp it -- and explain it to viewers/readers.