Yesterday we found out that less than a month ago the entire senior leadership of DOJ planned to resign en masse because the president wanted to replace the acting attorney general with a crony to help him steal the election and it's already fallen out of the newscycle

Part of this imo is an affirmative choice to reduce coverage of Trump now that the bad man is out of office and folks can move on, or whatever. But to a certain extent this is a choice (or failure) by papers to not sufficiently distinguish the important from what's merely current

The story ran on NYT with the same column inches as the story about the impeachment trial delay. Both important, sure. But one is about a delay to scheduling an impt thing; the other is a substantive story about how a key US institution narrowly avoided imploding three weeks ago.