Media rush to frame the latest Epstein files around Russia while downplaying documented Israel-linked proximity, raises questions about bias again. Right, so more of the Epstein files have dropped, and before anyone’s even read them properly, the British media have already decided what the real story is here. Russia. Putin. Moscow. Intelligence intrigue. Straight in, no pause. The cost of that hits straight away, because once that frame clicks into place, you’re not weighing evidence anymore, you’re being guided away from it. The confidence you’re hearing isn’t built on proof, it’s built on swapping things out, actually known links out, Israel those alleged Mossad ties. Thin claims get shoved to the front, awkward ones get ignored, and before you know it, counting how many times a certain word crops up in the files passes for analysis while the evidence and actual proximity, those real ties get buried. That’s what’s just given way here. Not a story, not a theory, but the sorting mechanism itself. And once you clock how that confidence is being put together, it doesn’t switch off again, because this isn’t confined to Epstein, it isn’t confined to Russia, and it won’t be confined to this release. Right, so another tranche of Epstein files come out and, on cue, the British media decide it’s Russia that’s the problem behind Epstein. Always Russia. No analysis required. You just say the words, look grave, spout some inanity and move on. It’s a very efficient way of sounding informed while avoiding the documents or anything like evidence entirely. Andrew Marr went on air as the poster boy for this and started counting words. Putin appears 1000 times, Moscow appears 9000 times, therefore Russia must be the story. That is not investigation, it is substitution. It replaces judgement with arithmetic and pretends that repetition equals relevance. By that logic London would be running the operation, London appears nearly 30,000 times, which nobody seriously claims, and the fact that nobody follows that logic through tells you it is not logic at all. It is a way of sounding empirical while avoiding direction.