It's been said that you can judge the worth of a story by the effect it has on the opposition. There seems to be two extremes; they'll react hysterically or they'll downplay the story.
Anyone who follows reputable news outlets is aware of the near-endless parade of scandals emanating from the Left. These have been increasing in intensity and frequency. It became increasingly common to hear the phrase, "the greatest scandal of our time" in reports from conservative outlets. Events such as Watergate, the Monica Lewinsky affair, and the Enron scandal pale in comparison to Benghazi, Hillary's sale of classified hypersonic missile tech to Russia, and the Afghanistan debacle. These, in turn take a back seat to the Biden Dementia Cover-Up and the Autopen Presidency.
Just when you thought things couldn't possibly get much worse, we're presented with what may be the biggest political scandal in American history, the Russian Collusion Affair.
Most of us already knew the basic facts: then-Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton paid for a manufactured dossier falsely claiming that Russia had damaging information on Trump. She fed this to the Obama administration, who then leaked it to the media. The FBI then used those media reports to justify obtaining warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. The media reported this fabrication for years, resulting in two impeachments, numerous lawsuits and untold damage to the Republic.
The Director of National Intelligence, (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard is declassifying information showing that the people involved knew the information was false, but they utilized it anyway. One would think that this would be front page news, and it is, among conservative outlets. However, many legacy media outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and Washington Post are providing only limited and often critical coverage of Gabbard's revelations.
Broadcast networks like ABC and NBC have largely skipped covering Gabbard's claims on their nightly newscasts. CBS only gave it only 41 seconds of airtime on "Face the Nation." CNN mentioned the story twice -- once on Saturday morning and once on "The Lead with Jake Tapper" on Monday following the initial document release on July 18. The Left is evidently reluctant to give significant airtime to the story, particularly on evening news programs.
Print outlets like Times and the Post published articles but framed Gabbard's claims skeptically, sometimes claiming that her allegations contradict established findings from multiple investigations such as the Mueller report, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Durham report. They also claim her allegations lack evidence, which begs the question, "how much evidence is satisfactory?" We all know the answer. The alleged journalists from these outlets describe her claims as politically motivated or misleading, focusing on the broader context of her actions rather than examining the evidence or simply reporting the story.
Those two print outlets also highlighted contradictions between Gabbard's declassified documents and prior investigations, noting that her releases do not undermine the intelligence community's 2017 assessment that Russia sought to influence the election. No one disputes that Russia has, is and will likely always seek to influence our elections. Recent reports indicate that Russia had even more damning material on Hillary's fragile mental and emotional state. This material would have likely served them well as leverage over Clinton, had she managed to prevail in 2016.
Legacy media outlets also cited Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Jim Himes and Sen. Mark Warner, who criticized Gabbard for eroding trust in intelligence agencies. It's worth noting that the public's trust in government has been eroding for decades. Pew Research reports that, "As of May 2024, 22% of Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (2%) or “most of the time” (21%). Last year, 16% said they trusted the government just about always or most of the time, which was among the lowest measures in nearly seven decades of polling."
Outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and NBC have dismissed Gabbard's claims as a "distraction," (where have we heard that before?) from competing news stories such as the Jeffrey Epstein files or an attempt to rewrite the history of the 2016 election. For instance, CNN reported that Gabbard's main argument relies on a misinterpretation of a President's Daily Brief, which only stated Russia did not alter election infrastructure, not that there was no interference at all. MSNBC called her claims a "nonsense theory" aimed at appeasing Trump's base.
Conservative outlets like Fox News and the Daily Caller have accused mainstream media of ignoring or downplaying Gabbard's revelations due to their complicity in promoting the original Russian collusion narrative. Fox News reported that networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted thousands of minutes to the collusion story from 2017-2019 but are now largely silent on Gabbard's claims, framing this as evidence of bias. Appearing on "Fox & Friends, Gabbard said, "It's interesting to see how when they do cover this, they don't actually cover the revelations that these intelligence reports and the evidence that we released actually conveys to the American people."
X posts from conservative accounts echo this sentiment. Users are claiming that the mainstream media's silence or critical coverage reflects an attempt to protect the Russian Collusion narrative. These posts, while likely true, are not conclusive evidence.
Critics, including Democrats and some former intelligence officials, argue that Gabbard's claims are not new and were addressed in prior investigations, reducing their newsworthiness. The timing of her releases, shortly after questions about her standing in the Trump administration, was also noted as a possible motive. What they fail to mention in these critiques is any examination they've conducted of the evidence that DNI Gabbard has produced.
To recap -- legacy media coverage of Gabbard's revelations has been sparse and critical. These sources tend to frame her claims as misleading, unsupported by evidence, while conservative media argue this reflects bias and an unwillingness to revisit the Russian collusion narrative.
As a famous man once said, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."
Image: AT via Magic Studio