When a new motion got filed by John Durham at the end of last week which included damning information about the behavior of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and its activities against the Donald Trump campaign, the mainstream media largely ignored it. The New York Times defended its decision to ignore the story recently, by insulting its readership.
In a clear example of mainstream media selection bias, liberal news outlets NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and CBS, all gave exactly zero seconds of coverage to the bombshell evidence leveled against Clinton and her campaign, while CNN offered just 2 minutes and 30 seconds of coverage on the jaw-dropping revelation. During primetime news hours, the story wasn’t covered at all.
Former President Trump issued multiple statements about the results of Durham’s probe, including one targeted at the mainstream media for ignoring the many negative allegations made against the Hillary campaign. In response, the New York Times wrote a story several days after the news broke, saying on Tuesday that they believed the situation to be “dense and obscure… dissecting [the issue] requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time.”
There’s the reason then, the New York Times thinks that their reader base is too stupid to delve into the details of the Durham investigation since it makes it hard for them to accept uncritically what the outlet tells them at face value. According to the article, the Durham probe is so ‘obscure’ that it “rais[es] the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims.”
But this claim is entirely hypocritical, with the NYT covering several other, apparently more digestible, “developments” in the course of the Durham investigation. It seems that the NYT’s standard for what to include in their coverage meets the phrase “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” It also explicitly calls out its own readership and subscriber base as too unintelligent to read a story and decide its meaning for themselves.
Author: Larry Davis