(Tony Sifert, Headline USA) An experienced and decorated New York Times national security reporter has claimed that the revelations of Democrat anti-Trump malfeasance contained in special counsel John Durham‘s recent update are too complicated for the NYT’s elite readers to understand.
“Upon close inspection, these narratives . . . tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time,” Times reporter Charlie Savage wrote in an incredibly unclear “News Analysis.”
The “byzantine” explanation of the obvious role that Hillary Clinton, henchman Marc Elias and Michael Sussman played in the Russiagate Hoax raises “the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims,” Savage continued.
As an example, Savage claimed that Durham’s filing did not reveal what it clearly did reveal: that technology executive Rodney Joffe used access to “dedicated servers for the Executive Office of the President” to “to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia.”
To counter this claim, Savage simply took at face-value Joffe’s claim–uttered through a spokesman–that the executive is an “apolitical Internet security expert with decades of service to the U.S. Government who has never worked for a political party.”
In another context–his examples usually have to do with race hoaxes–Unz.com blogger Steve Sailer has identified the defense mechanism that Savage employs in his article.
Once a story falls out of the MSM’s narrative confinement, Sailer says, a reporter must go out of his way to underscore how incredibly boring and procedural its details are, effectively pleading with readers to stop caring.
In most cases, NYT readers are desperate to comply.
It is unlikely, however, that the tactic will work in this case.
“That’s something I can’t speak to from this podium, so I refer you to the Department of Justice,” Jean-Pierre said, offering the now-typical Democrat response to Fed shenanigans.