"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."

Except The New York Times has covered multiple other "developments" in the Durham investigation, of course in stories that undermine the Durham probe. So much for "All the News That's Fit to Print," I guess. And so much for treating readers and subscribers like intelligent people who can read a story and decide for themselves what it means."

Douchebags control the msm

The NY Slims is partially correct, the idiots reading that lying rag probably don't have the brain power to absorb much of any information.

Did anyone cover it? Anyone?