I had to laugh out loud when I read the opening of Margaret Sullivan’s column at the Washington Post:
It’s certainly possible that the news media will do a nuanced, accurate job Thursday of helping citizens understand the redacted version of the Mueller report.
It is also possible that the atoms of my hand will simply pass through the atoms of my desk when I strike it with my hand but I have no expectation that it will happen. I don’t think the prospect of the media doing a “nuanced, accurate job” of explaining the redacted version of the Mueller report expected tomorrow is a great deal greater.
But this was even funnier:
It’s possible they will do a better job than many of them did with their credulous and misleading coverage of Attorney General William P. Barr’s letter on the report last month in which they failed to adequately challenge President Trump’s false claim of being completely exonerated.
Got that? In her version of nuance it’s the job of the media to challenge claims of the president they find false.
IMO the claim of exoneration is like Schrödinger’s cat, simultaneously true and false. It wasn’t Mueller’s job to exonerate. That’s not what special prosecutors do. What he did not do was indict. If that’s exoneration, then it was an exoneration.