It's not reporting, it's suppressing.
Take today's headline "news" from CNN:
"A Texas congressman just said something deeply irresponsible about Seth Rich"
Yes, that's a headline. No doubt it was crafted by a snowflake who got a start telling on kids back in kindergarten.
And never mind that the congressman, Blake Farenthold (R-TX), didn't mention Seth Rich and was very clearly trying to make a completely separate and extremely crucial point.
Thus, CNN had its work cut out for it -- suppression, not reporting -- as indicated in the subhead about the cable network's hero-supressors:
"Lawmaker confronted over debunked story"
Since his 'n' her suppressors John Berman and Poppy Harlow (real name?) were so good at their craft, CNN had to write an introduction to explain what Farenthold wasn't talking about:
(CNN)Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold, during an appearance on CNN Wednesday morning, offered what seemed to be a wink and nod to the debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich.
Note to the reader: Suppressing, as opposed to reporting, requires an awful lot of interupting and talking over, lest the source, in this case a democratically elected representative on the Government Oversight Committee and Cybersecurity Caucus, be able to communicate freely about things he knows about. That, naturally, would defeat the whole purpose of news suppression. As a result of the ensuing cacophony (hazard of the trade), my own transcript of the following exercise in news suppression may not be perfect.
FARENTHOLD: "My fear is our constant focusing on the Russians is deflecting away for some other things that we need to be investigating. There's still some question as to whether the intrusion of the DNC server was an insider job or whether or not it was the Russians, yet no federal agency has --
BERMAN: "What evidence -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, sorry, the insider job, what are you referring to here? Because I hope it's not (Berman's left hand outstretched in suprressing exertion), th-th-this information that Fox News just refused to be reporting."
FAHRENTHOLD: "Well, again, there's stuff circulating on the internet. My question is --
BERMAN: What. What's circulating on the internet? What's, what's circulating --?[talking over]FARENTHOLD: Again, my question is, why haven't the federal officials examined, why haven't federal, why --
BERMAN: "What's circulating on the internet that, that you think is worthy of a congressional investigation? Because the DC police are investigating this, an-an-and, so far, they haven't said there's any there there."
FARENTHOLD: "Yet the DC police nor no federal investigator has ever had a look at the DNC computer. We're relying only on the report of somebody that the DNC contracted to examine their computer, rather than having federal officials. To me, we need to let the feds look at it."
Ta-da! He said it! He got it out! Yes, indeed, Congressman; it is a fact that the DNC did not ever permit the FBI to examine the DNC servers, and therefore that the whole story of "Russian hacking" of the DNC was the conclusion not of any responsible US agency but of a DNC contractor (CrowdStrike).
But the news must not go on, which is why top-notch news-suppressing professionals never follow up with pertinent questions.
HARLOW: Congressman, do you think it's responsible to bring up, as a representative of the Amer -- of the American people, to bring up things in your words that are "swirling on the internet" --
FARENTHOLD: Listen --
HARLOW: -- and, and, and, give it justification, as, you know, as if there's a there, there, when, when, we know nothing -- on that, yet?
FARENTHOLD: I, I think the same is true with what the media is doing with Trump. We're basing allegations
HARLOW: Do you mean --
FARENTHOLD: -- on anonymous sources --
HARLOW: Ok, so do you mean quoting a former CIA director who said, quote, I saw evidence worthy of investigation ...
Hah. Suppressors scuttle all evidence worthy of investigation. Get it?