Author Topic: Oh, So That's Why The New York Times Didn't Cover Latest Durham Bombshell.. Spencer Brown  (Read 91 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 384,756
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Oh, So That's Why The New York Times Didn't Cover Latest Durham Bombshell
Spencer Brown

Posted: Feb 15, 2022 9:45 AM

When a new motion was filed by John Durham on Friday night that included information about Hillary's Clinton's campaign and its activities toward Donald Trump's campaign, the mainstream media largely said "meh" and ignored the development (though Townhall did not, and Vespa's story is here). Well now The New York Times is trying to defend its decision...by insulting its readership.

In what was apparently another example of the mainstream media's selection bias clouding its judgement and causing it not to cover stories that are negative about their pals in the Democrat party, the usual suspects were oddly silent on the development for days. According to analysis from Fox News, on-air coverage of the latest Durham bombshell from Saturday through Monday on ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC totaled zero (0) seconds while CNN gave two minutes and 30 seconds to the story. In primetime, the revelations weren't covered at all.

After President Trump released multiple statements on the revelations, including one pointedly calling out the mainstream media for ignoring more negative allegations against Hillary's campaign, The New York Times finally got around to writing a story days after the news broke, running online on Monday and in Tuesday's print edition.

So what was The Times' excuse? The revelations, according to national security and legal policy correspondent Charlie Savage, "tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time."

So because readers might need to think about what they're consuming from a news outlet rather than just uncritically accepting what an outlet tells them at face value, according to Savage, means "raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims."

more
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/02/15/oh-so-this-is-why-the-new-york-times-didnt-cover-this-weeks-durham-bombshell-n2603300
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,117
So, essentially, the NYT is using "tl;dr" as an excuse for not covering a matter of extremely serious national importance?