It’s not important because it doesn’t match the narrative and will be ignored. Just like the UN Oil for Food report after we invaded Iraq that totally validated everything Bush said and got zero coverage.
I hear you discostu, but I would like to think this is going to be a signal point in the downfall of the media as we have known it, and a dawning of the “new” media. (Note: not that this process below hasn’t been going on for some time, but now, with the credibility of the media diminishing to the point the President can safely point out how biased or ill-informed they are, and their audiences are beginning to see it too, whether they want to or not.
I think that the days of having a small handful of analysts at CBS, CNN, or Fox who take in the data, provide their version of context to it, and disseminate it to people who consume it unthinkingly (as if they were eating potato chips) is over as the dominant model of both dissemination and consumption. Those people are often bound by contract to their outlet, and their interpretation is often subject to approval at a corporate level.
In the “new” media, you are going to have people like Jeff Carlson at The Markets Work and Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller doing incredible specialized work, both independently of each other (or not!) and someone like Dan Bongino who can provide context and take content from other authors and like them and make the sum of everything better than the individual parts. And these people aren’t bound by contract to each other or even to anyone apart from themselves.
I am hopeful we see something new.