> but the discrepancies in traffic were impossible to ignore Why? I have no doubt it was more profitable to cover that one candidate, but the point of a non-p

> but the discrepancies in traffic were impossible to ignore Why? I have no doubt it was more profitable to cover that one candidate, but the point of a non-profit news org is that you shouldn't have to follow mass market dictates like that. > when news organizations do choose to leave the money on the table, they are never recognized for it because nobody will come out and say "we really wanted to run another story about X, but we chose not to because we didn't feel it was right to keep doing that" I feel like that's your own fault. You're a news organization, you could have gotten the word out. IIRC in 2016 there were lots of articles about the meta of covering X, and by 2020 X explicitly not being covered the same way was an official stance of news organizations.