The New York Times is arguably one of the worst offenders when it comes to sharing fake news.

The liberal newspaper just recently released a “bombshell” report on Russian influence in the 2016 election, but their “lead” is deeply buried within the article and seems to be more attention-grabbing than newsworthy.

Once more, the leftist media-outlet refuses to let the story die, even when there are no more leads or “bombshells” to cover.

The New York Times is now attempting to claim Russia convinced Donald Trump’s aides to influence his political decisions.

But that “bombshell” detail was only revealed in the fifth paragraph of the NYT article.

The author of the article wrote in a very specific way as well, in order to draw in reader’s attention, and try to hold it throughout the entirety of the article under the detail that was revealed.

The Daily Caller reported:

“Months before the election, U.S. spies learned that top Russians had discussed ways to use Donald Trump’s advisers to influence him,” reads the headline blasted by The NYT in a breaking news email. The story is clearly meant to further the “Trump colluded with Russia” narrative the media has pushed for months, although it’s as yet totally unsubstantiated.

The NYT lead builds an atmosphere of wrongdoing around Trump and his campaign aides using important sounding buzzwords and phrases. “Spies” and “revealing” information and big-time Russian officials who “exert influence.” It’s quite official sounding and obviously intended to sow suspicion.

But the (few) readers who make it to the fifth paragraph and are paying attention will realize there’s not actually much meat to the report. That paragraph hedges on the information collected by the spies, and notes the reporter has no real clue whether Russian officials actually made any attempt to influence the Trump aides in question. Oh yeah and the Trump campaign as well as both sides have consistently denied the longstanding accusations of collusion with Russia.

Finally, in the fifth paragraph of the relatively short article, the “bombshell” detail they promised appeared to be newsworthy at best, but certainly not a headline “bombshell.”

The Daily Caller reported:

What this report really boils down to is the “revelation” that senior Russian officials are interested in influencing important U.S. actors, and that American spies are mostly sure they had a conversation about it. Maybe newsworthy, but hardly a bombshell.

A buried explanatory paragraph that deflates the lead is a constant in report after report on the Russian collusion narrative.

This method of writing is one the New York Times has readily adopted.

By attempting to draw out the story, they also lose their readers before they even get to the real point.

As a result, the liberal media outlet has seen a fall in both ratings and subscribers.

The Daily Caller reported:

When The New York Times first reported the FBI was investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it was not until the tenth paragraph readers were informed of an important fact: “American officials have said that they have so far found no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

The New York Times pumped out another “collusion” story Wednesday with another buried caveat, this time on “mounting concern” among U.S. officials “revealed” by former CIA director John Brennan in a big bad congressional hearing. Six paragraphs in: “Mr. Brennan acknowledged that he did not know whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives and said the contacts might have been benign.”

Regardless of HOW they are relaying news, the New York Times is certainly receiving backlash for their long and disappointing articles.

And with the decline in readers, this is yet another example of how promoting a liberal agenda can destroy a business.

What are your thoughts?

Do you subscribe to the New York Times despite their need to draw out their story to gain suspense for false details?

Leave us your thoughts in the comment section below.