Thread by @CherylRofer

I see nothing so far in the reporters' revelation books about the former administration that we didn't know at some level at the time.

Does that mean it's okay for the reporters to have held back details so they can make money on the books?

Does that mean it's okay for multiple outlets to hype those details and subject us, once more, to the horrors of the Trump administration? Just for clicks?

I would answer the first question "no." A reporter's job is to report the news. If it's news now, it was news then. And perhaps it would have stirred people to do more about the damage Trump was doing.

I would answer the second question "no," with reservations.

We must deal with the damage Trump has done. There's a great deal of denial, starting with that same media.

So it's possible that more of the gossip-column approach so well described by the gossip columnists themselves in Julia Ioffe's piece that I can't find now is needed.

But it is that very gossip-column approach that has provided people with an emotional kick that vitiates their willingness to act.

As I read the Ioffe piece, I kept thinking, "Write about policy." Seems like something a reporter could do.

So I'm mostly reading Twitter accounts of the very repetitive articles that are shoving actual news coverage out of the way and reactivating my feelings from the previous administration.

And I'm not buying any of those books.