It’s been a few days since we learned about Special Counsel John Durham’s bombshell revelations that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid a technology company to hack Trump Tower and later the White House to find (and potentially plant) evidence linking Trump to Russia.
As expected, the story was ignored by the mainstream media … that is, until they could come up with some explanation for why the bombshell news wasn’t a bombshell after all, but a dud.
The New York Times finally covered the story online Monday (for Tuesday’s print edition) and managed to insult the intelligence of its readership in the process.
Charlie Savage, the NYT’s Washington correspondent, was quick to dismiss the bombshell as inconsequential, claiming the narrative from outlets like ours that reported on it is “mostly wrong or old news — the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Mr. Trump and his allies.”
How stupid were we to talk about such a huge story? Apparently very, according to Savage, who appears to justify his own publication’s lack of jumping on the story right away by saying it’s just too complicated for Times readers. Savage explains that stories like this “tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time — raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims.”
This clearly explains why The New York Times has never once written a story on the Durham probe. Oh wait, they have. But look: there seems to be a theme, as such stories tend to be ones, like Savage’s, that attempt to undermine the investigation.
It’s probably worth mentioning here that the Times won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on Trump-Russia collusion — you know, that huge story that was a complete lie.
It’s funny how standards are so … inconsistent.
So, why did Savage waste our precious time talking about it? If The New York Times readers aren’t smart enough to understand it, why bother writing about it now?
That’s easy! We made him do it!
Savage laments that “Trump allies portray the news media as engaged in a cover-up if they don’t.”
That must be the reason why, during Monday’s press briefing, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre immediately cast doubt on the revelations when asked about the story. Oh, wait, she didn’t do that. Instead, she deflected multiple times, refusing to say anything on the subject and telling the reporter to ask the Department of Justice instead. Clearly, the White House hadn’t figured out how to spin the story yet.
The New York Times wasn’t alone. Both MSNBC and CNN decided that they couldn’t ignore the story anymore either, but both chose to downplay the allegations, question the accuracy of Durham’s claims, and, of course, attack those who reported on it as “stupid.”
Of course, the people who call us stupid for thinking that Hillary’s campaign spying on Trump during the election and in the White House is an important story worth reporting are the same people who endlessly covered allegations that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2020 election. Perhaps they might want to consider that they have the credibility problem, not us.
So, pardon me, liberal media, but we’re going to keep reporting on the things you don’t want us to cover. We’re going to continue to do the job you’re refusing to do. If it weren’t for us, big stories like this might not get noticed.
Help us hold the mainstream media accountable by becoming a VIP subscriber today.
With your help, we can continue to cover the stories that the MSM dismisses as irrelevant. By becoming a VIP subscriber, you help us force the MSM to acknowledge stories that are devastating to the narrative they want to promote. Media blackouts are as big a problem as fake news. Please join the fight and help us do the job the MSM refuses to do!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member