Another media coverage standard radically revised with no explanation
By 
Jack Smith issued a superseding indictment against Donald Trump for his attempts to violently overthrow the 2020 election, attempting to preserve his case in light of the Supreme Court’s lawless efforts to protect their friend Donald. I’m so old I remember that even a federal investigation of a candidate during an election campaign was considered a five-alarm news story, irrespective of the triviality of the potentially alleged defense. I can only imagine the saturation coverage an actual indictment for a very serious crime would generate!
On left: Oct 29 2016. James Comey discovers some emails, revives inquiry into HRC email. (Later dismissed.)
On right: Aug 28 2024. A new grand jury re-indicts Trump on criminal charges of plotting to overturn 2020 election. (Look closely at bottom of page.)
Discuss. pic.twitter.com/rvqnwzEtX6— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) August 28, 2024
If I understand the elite media’s position about 2016, 1)they did absolutely nothing wrong except maybe to not devote enough coverage to Trump supporters, 2)it would be unconscionable to subject Donald Trump to anything remotely like the treatment Clinton received in 2016, and 3)they owe us no explanation whatsoever despite the glaring contradiction between #1 and #2.
While we’re here, I continue to find it very hard to believe that nothing about the process behind selecting the least popular vice presidential candidate in the last 50 years is as newsworthy as whatever it is they found in John Podesta’s inbox. (One of the most remarkable facts about 2016 is that one of the publication that has been sitting on the Vance-related emails for more than a month was still updating its The Risotto Files vertical at 7 o’clock on Election Day.) It’s going to be impossible to get anyone who wasn’t there to believe what 2016 was like.