(ESSAY) I wrote PROOF OF COLLUSION because the complexity of the Trump-Russia case makes conventional reporting *alone* insufficient. Rather, such reporting—even if done well—benefits from the aid of "curatorial journalism." I wrote an essay on that here: theguardian.com/commentisfree/… 
PS/ If you know anything about freelancing, you know I *didn't write the headline* to that essay in THE GUARDIAN. In my view the headline *deliberately* inverts the argument of the essay (that conventional reporting and curatorial journalism must work hand in hand) to get clicks.
PS2/ *I'd* say "Trump-Russia is too complex [to report no differently than we do any other story]. We need a new kind of journalism [to assist conventional reporting]." That's unwieldy, so I'll say that the headline I asked for was, "The Trump-Russia Case Cries Out for Curators."
PS3/ That a conventional media institution I respect created a whack headline for clicks is ironic. What's worse is that—per usual—the responsible freelancer who asked for a responsible headline will be seen as irresponsible due to decisions a conventional media institution made.
PS4/ Anyway, I hope folks will ignore the headline—which I didn't write—and read the essay (which I did). That said, a 2016 Columbia U. study showed that 59% of social media users who shared an article only read its headline—that's why *writers* should get to write headlines now.
