>>Then you haven’t read the Times enough.
>
>Or maybe I've done a good job avoiding the sensational stuff.
>
>In other words if you find their reporting to be so grossly
>over-exaggerated and overblown why are *you* reading it so
>religiously ? Doesn't seem to be a good use of your time.
>(Much like your time in this here post, it would appear).
>
I take note of how the Times reports because it’s an influential newspaper. Reading religiously (and widely) is a dying art, and you describe it as if it were a shameful act. I don’t quite understand your aversion to reading “religiously,” as you like to put it, or your pride in skimming.


>>“Fascinating and truly unbeleivable” would be clear
>>evidence of Russian collusion. Everything else is
>>exaggeration, speculation, and what Huckleberry Finn called
>>“stretchers.” The Times froths over with that kind of
>>desperate reporting and the wider public laps it up in a
>>frenzy akin to the one taking place here.
>
>Hahahaha uh wat, bro. Yes, indeed, clear evidence of Russian
>collusion would *definitely* be fascinating and unbelievable.
>
>Many of the revelations to date related to 45*, this admin,
>and the investigation are *also* fascinating and unbelievable.
>Both can be, and are, true. They are not mutually exclusive.

This is clearly conflation. The minor revelations might be interesting—I might even give you “fascinating” given your distastes mentioned above, but “unbelievable” they are not and it’s that sort of sloppy mishandling of language that underscores my ideas about frenzied reporting in the Times and in the media in general.