But other times we resent the subtle implications inferred when they have contributors contribute things as we know their editorial staff review postings on how things are worded.
Take for example the use of overblown as an adjective in referencing HRC email scandal of a few years ago here.. Who are they to say that as issue swept under rug in our view and never properly addressed but implication is it was a minor infraction and innoculous. This is how so called mainstream media thinks they can discreetly “control” the narrative on things they feel need to be controlled.
As the election season draws ever closer, pay attention to these “subtleties” as you read “things” and learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff as you figure out where you stand on things so your decision process is unencumbered by spun hyperbole.