It's a 'puff piece' because they essentially take his words almost at face value, almost as if they are supporting his argument and don't dig more cynically int

It's a 'puff piece' because they essentially take his words almost at face value, almost as if they are supporting his argument and don't dig more cynically into the underbelly of the issue. There are a lot of really crazy things happening with this story they don't touch upon. It's worse than a 'puff piece' to the point I suggest there is background manipulation going on. This is 'reputation laundering'. There is a huge amount of money here, and a ton of very, very powerful people involved. I suggest that within a few weeks this will be known to be truly a criminal enterprise and this NYT article will not age well.