There was, when the ruling first came down. Responsible journalists tend to operate on events, with facts that can be verified. When the ruling happened, there were a lot of “Here’s what this means” articles, talking in the abstract about things that haven’t happened yet. They only got published because they were timely because of the ruling.
Now, we have no actual information that this guy is gonna grift “gratuitues” out of his position, other than he’s a Trump insider and that’s what they do. But responsible outlets won’t report on it unless there is clear evidence.
Now if we find out there are facts backing up the idea, these responsible journalists have already done a lot of the legwork, so they just add the new facts and can publish something timely again.
Wow, this is entirely too plausible. Why isn’t their reporting on it?
There was, when the ruling first came down. Responsible journalists tend to operate on events, with facts that can be verified. When the ruling happened, there were a lot of “Here’s what this means” articles, talking in the abstract about things that haven’t happened yet. They only got published because they were timely because of the ruling.
Now, we have no actual information that this guy is gonna grift “gratuitues” out of his position, other than he’s a Trump insider and that’s what they do. But responsible outlets won’t report on it unless there is clear evidence.
Now if we find out there are facts backing up the idea, these responsible journalists have already done a lot of the legwork, so they just add the new facts and can publish something timely again.