It's a little worse than jumping in prematurely. The article is trying to persuade us the press discredits itself when it correctly reports 37 indictments, sev

It's a little worse than jumping in prematurely. The article is trying to persuade us the press discredits itself when it correctly reports 37 indictments, several convictions, Russian meetings with Don jr. and a mind-boggling array of lies. It criticizes an accurately researched nyt list of Trump associates connected with Russians implying it has been refuted by the Mueller report which the author has not even seen. Consider what the author is suggesting: these things should not be reported. It intentionally blurs opinion pieces with factual reporting, and even then heavily paraphrases. It attributes words of others to papers that did not publish them. It implies someone's votive candles somehow reflects on the press. All hinged on the the fact that there are no recommended indictments (beyond the dozens already being pursued). Additional indictments that would have to be for the theoretically unindictable offense of collusion. It's not attempting to examine press malfeasance, it's attempting to discredit establish facts by vaguely lumping these unrelated things together. Mixed along with what is not explicitly stated in the unread Mueller report. And to do so preemptively to fix opinion about a report before it's even available publicly. This article is neither reporting nor analysis, although it pretends to be. It is indistinguishable from countless others that appear in Turkey, Venezuela, Hungary and other nations in a similar state. The names are different and the language is English and that's all. It is another attempt to de-legitimize the press using exactly the same techniques in every other nascent autocracy: blur one persons words with another, blur opinion pieces with reporting and wildly paraphrase them. Blend irrelevant errors over unconnected annoying fact. Do all this preemptively.