#worthless scribblers

Thus far, the three major outlets that have acknowledged they also received stolen Trump campaign materials from Robert — Politico, the Washington Post, and the New York Times — have also declined to publish them. None of these outlets, however, have explained why their approach to stolen Trump campaign materials is so different from their approach to stolen Clinton campaign documents.   Washington Post Executive Editor Matt Murray, for example, said he "thought about who was likely to be leaking the [Trump] documents, what the motives of the hacker might have been, and whether this was truly newsworthy or not." But in 2016, the paper knew that Russia was likely behind the hack of the documents and was using them to interfere with the presidential election. Nevertheless, the Washington Post's coverage included excerpts that were not, by any fair definition, "truly newsworthy."   The Washington Post, the New York Times, and Politico should be transparent about their decision-making and explain why it has changed dramatically over the last eight years.

It hasn't "changed dramatically". The corporate Archons who own the corporate media are just as much pro-Trump and pro-MAGA as they were in 2016, and they intend to see him re-elected now as they did then, which is why their worthless scribblers won't write a single letter about this. The "mainstream news" is no longer about getting relevant information to the American public. it's about spreading propaganda so that their chosen candidate will be placed into the presidency and give them the sweet, sweet tax cuts that they so lust after -- never mind that they might destroy democracy in the process and end up becoming a meal for the Face-eating MAGA Leopards themselves.